Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I find it interesting when the UN doesn't "get it's way" (compliance with 1441), it blames the U.S. for wanting to enforce it. THAT is why the UN is irrelevant.
"demonizing the enemy"?
Is that possible?
I agree with you - sector trading is profitable.
Don't know about QQQ equivalents. The Profunds leveraged sector funds are suit my intermediate strategy. I just wish they covered more industry groups and had bearish ultra sector funds.
"If you agree to the rules, then play by the rules."
I thought 1441 passed unanimously???? If you AGREE with the resolution, ENFORCE the resolution.
I'm sure the people in Rwanda take great comfort in UN "rules".
seabass
The problem is this: I don't hear any plausible alternatives to resolving this situation; not from the UN, France, Russia, Germany, China, or anyone on this board. The status quo policy being bandied about by the appeasers just doesn't hold water. When the numerous flaws of this proposal are pointed out, the appeasers don't have an answer.
What is your solution?
Thanks for the input now Steve
Was wondering if you were familiar with Ned Davis Research methodology in regards to sector selection? It's pretty interesting -supported by both out-of-sample and real time testing as well as academic research. NDR doesn't give the actual parameters they use, but I don't think it matters much. It works something like this:
1. Determine momentum period that suits your trading style. For example, calculate the ROC from 5 days to 45 days (5 day ROC, 6 day ROC, 7 day ROC, etc.) Make sure you divide each ROC by the number of days sampled so the longer term ROC doesn't have more significance than the shorter term ROC. Total the results.
2. Rank the sectors or industry groups from strongest to weakest.
3. Set up rotation rules: For example, buy the sector indice when it ranks in the top 5, sell the sector when it falls out of the top 8. Of course, if you're bearish on the market as a whole, you wouldn't go long in any sector.
4. This strategy also works for shorts.
This relative strength approach works for me (intermediate term trades). Don't know how well it works for short term trades, thought you might be interested.
It's just that easy, isn't it CoalTrain?
"..harassing Saddam to death with perpetual inspections?"
1. Let's forget 1441. Let's pretend like it never happened. We knew that it would never be enforced, it sounded like a good idea at the time, didn't it? Let's just move on.
2. Let's plan on keeping 200,000+ troops for the next three months. Okay, so maybe it will drag on for a couple years. Alright, may 5, 6, 12 years! This will certainly be cheaper than going to war. Their morale won't suffer much. Their families won't miss 'em much either. The equipment? Oh, I'm sure it won't be effected much either. The French, Germans, Russians...they will certainly lend troops to the cause. This is great foriegn relations, western troops dug in all across the middle east.
3. Forget what I said in my second point. What was I thinking??? Saddam would certainly allow UN inspectors to have unfettered access without the threat of troops. Bring our troops home! Hans Blix, being the forceful diplomat he is can certainly keep Saddam in check.
4. You are right, don't worry about an atomic bomb. The UN will keep Saddam under their thumb. Chemical, biological weapons. Do you really think a terrorist could sneak out of Iraq with a box the size of a toaster??? C'mon, there's no way!
Is E.J. Dionne smoking crack?
"Of course the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein. As of last fall, Powell was winning broad support for tougher action carried out in a way that would have strengthened the United States by strengthening our ties with allies. Someday France will regret undercutting Powell, because he was the last, best hope for making this a genuinely cooperative venture. Its leaders may not think so, but France would have been better off inside the anti-Hussein alliance."
What has transpired since 1441? Saddam hasn't disarmed and the UN isn't willing to inforce the resolution. Everyone seems to have forgotten the reason why Saddam has allowed the current regime of inspections: He is surrounded by US troops! According to appeaser's thinking, we should park our troops in the deserts of the middle east for years so long as Saddam continues to allow inpectors to play their little game of hide and go seek. Mr. Dionne's idea of "coopertive venture": the U.S. bears the burden, the axis of weasel continues to profit from trade with Iraq. Great cooperation, eh?
Winning broad support for a resolution that will never be enforced isn't a victory Mr. Dionne. A "cooperative venture" of hide and go seek with a homicidal dictator isn't progress.
What I would do:
1. Grant wide media access/coverage of discoveries Saddam's WMD. Plan on a rolling media blitz: discovery after discovery, interview (Iraqi scientists) and interview, for days on end. This will drive the appeasers crazy.
2. Offer the US and British media access to Iraqi classified documents pertaining to trade with the axis of weasel. Red faces will follow.
3. The liberated Iraqi people: Let them speak for themselves.
4. Ask for a public audit of the UN. Require media access to the process. If it isn't granted, pull all funding.
How many countries are now seeking more WMD because they perceive the UN Security Counsel as an impotent group of appeasers? THIS is a very dangerous development.
I can hear the final nails being pounded into the coffin of the UN. As an international debating society, it will remain. As an institution of international justice, stability, and peace - it has been unveiled for what it is: Irrelevant.
I don't see how this is anymore belligerent than what Saddam has done before - continuously firing on U.S./British aircraft over the no-fly zone for the past 12 years. This won't change any minds on the UN Security Counsel.
wasjeff
A couple questions about Profunds Sector Funds and your rotation strategy:
Aren't the sector funds based on the DJ US Sector/Industry Group indices? Do you use the relevant DJ sector indices as the basis of your TA or the Fund's NAV? Does it matter? Was thinking leverage/volatility might impact the effectiveness of the indicators. Maybe not.
Also, wondering how you go about ranking, or determining in-favor sectors? You don't have to be specific, just wondering if you use a pure momentum stategy (blended ROC?), or an indicator screener, etc.? What is your typical holding period on the long side? Days? Weeks? Months?
Thanks!
Peace Thugs at Work in Whittier -
Antiwar protesters trash 9/11 memorial
American flags burned and slashed
By Debbie Pfeiffer Trunnell, Staff Writer - Whittier Daily News
LA HABRA -- Antiwar protesters burned and ripped up flags, flowers and patriotic signs at a Sept. 11 memorial that residents erected on a fence along Whittier Boulevard days after the terrorist attacks in 2001 and have maintained ever since.
However, although officers witnessed the vandalism Saturday afternoon, police did not arrest three people seen damaging the display because they were "exercising the same freedom of speech that the people who put up the flags were,' La Habra Police Capt. John Rees said Monday.
"For this to be vandalism, there had to be an ill-will intent,' he said.
Rees said in order for police to take any action, the owner of the fence would have to file a complaint.
Jeff Collison, owner of The RV Center in La Habra, who has allowed residents to add patriotic symbols to the fence on his property, said he just might do that.
"Their free speech stops at destruction of private property. If they are allowed to come on my property and burn flags, does that mean I can go to City Hall or the police station and light their flags on fire because that is freedom of speech? To me, this is vandalism,' Collison said.
Some residents Monday hung signs criticizing those who destroyed the display.
Tracey Chandler, a Whittier mother of four who has maintained the spontaneous memorial since it was created by other area residents soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, said she was shocked by the destruction.
"They trashed 87 flags, ripped 11 memorial tiles made by myself and my children out of the ground and glued the Bob Dylan song to a sign that said, 'America, land of the brave, home of the free,' ' she said.
The Bob Dylan song she referred to is "With God on Our Side,' an antiwar anthem of the 1960s.
"It's unbelievable, because there were absolutely no political messages on this fence. It was all about supporting our troops, which could mean bringing them home, and about remembering 9-11.'
Les Howard, a sociology professor at Whittier College, said the incident might be an indication of some confusion among people trying to stop a possible war against Iraq but uncertain how to express their sentiments. However, he said he does not condone the destruction of symbols important to those who erect them.
"Some think (the best way to support the troops) is to not question their role. Some think the best way is to pursue all means possible to avoid putting them in danger,' he said. "That still does not excuse any desecration of people's symbolic participation.'
Chandler said she plans to rebuild the Sept. 11 memorial.
"We are going to rebuild this memorial, and it will be brighter, bigger and better than ever,' Chandler said.
Debbie Pfeiffer Trunnell can be reached at (562) 698-0955, Ext. 3028, or by e- mail at debbie.pfeiffer@sgvn.com .
Hey Sly, we understand the difference between NATO and the UN.
The issue is this:
We don't NEED U.N. approval
Yes I do, but I don't agree we you're presumption.
Saddam is planning to use battlefield chemical weapons, no doubt. I don't believe he has a functional nuclear weapon at this time. The best guesses I've heard is that he three years away from that, thank God.
My guess is that the U.S. will focus on pounding the Republican Guard early on, especially those inside of the city of Baghdad and Saddam's known strongholds. It's likely our special forces will be inside the city lasing targets. I've heard of one plan that sounds credible - an attack on the RG from inside out (air), not from outside in (storming the city). Don't be surprised if the conventional Iraqu (non RG) forces go untouched. They won't be attacked unless they fail to surrender.
"But Bush did make this a UN issue, he did not have to but he did and now he needs to continue or he will be acting in defiance."
Huh? So the lesson is A) don't go to the UN and you're covered politically and B) If the UN fails to enforce a resolution, but U.S. does, the U.S. is in defiance?
I guess the UN really is irrelevant.
You are right Stowboat. Clinton didn't have a UN mandate to go into Kosovo. I don't even think he got a thumbs up from the US congress.
Don't you remember all the peace protesters? Ummm, no? okay.
Don't you remember the Clinton being called a fascist, hitler-like, the greatest threat to world peace? Ummm, you don't?
Because I believe the current game is riskier.
After the past few months, I have absolutely no faith in the UN disarming Saddam.
Our very best chance for peace would have been unillateral backing by the the UN Security Counsel - A strong, clear, unified demand for disarmament - 1441 - backed by the very real threat of war if there wasn't unequivocal compliance. Instead, the French, Germans, Russians, etc. equivocation gives Saddam hope that his GAME will work. This is a big, deadly mistake.
You can't keep our military in the desert for months. Do you have any idea what risk this puts our soldiers in? Any idea?
Nope, I'm not jewish.
My brother is over there. You're damn right I'm concerned.
NONE? You don't get it!
The reporters can ask anything they want (I didn't see anyone with a gun to their head). If any reporter was asked by the WH "you must ask this question or the prez won't call on you" they would have had a hell of a scoop. The communications office coordinates with the press pool to make sure all of their questions will be covered, insure there isn't unnecessary duplication of questions, yadda yadda. This isn't new - the press pools don't want to come off looking like dopes.
To cut to the chase Sly, what's the big damn question that wasn't asked? Where's the conspiracy???
Yes and Yes
I think those are just examples. I haven't fooled around with the code yet. I'll let you all know if I get it posted this weekend.
HEY HEY HEY!!!!! WOW!!!!!LOOK HERE!!!!GUESS WHAT????
THE PRESIDENT'S PRESS CONFERENCE WAS SCRIPTED!!!!!!!
-so what? What press conference isn't?
Transcript of Powell's response to inspectors' reports
Friday, March 7, 2003 Posted: 1:35 PM EST (1835 GMT)
[sly, don't be a sucker]
(CNN) -- Following is a transcript of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's March 7 response to reports from U.N. weapons inspectors to the U.N. Security Council about inspection efforts in Iraq.
Powell: Thank you very much, Mr. President and Mr. Secretary-General, distinguished colleagues.
Mr. President, let me join my colleagues in congratulating you on the assumption of the presidency. And I know you will lead us in these difficult days with great distinction.
And let me also express to you, my German colleagues, my thanks and admiration for the stewardship that they provided to the council over the past month.
We meet today, it seems to me, with one question and one very, very important question before us: Has the Iraqi regime made the fundamental, strategic and political decision to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions and to rid itself of all of its weapons of mass destruction, all of the infrastructure for the development of weapons of mass destruction?
It's a question of intent on the part of the Iraqi leadership.
The answer to that question does not come from how many inspectors are present or how much more time should be given or how much more effort should be put into the inspection process. It's not a question of how many unanswered clusters of questions are there, or are there more benchmarks that are needed, or are there enough unresolved issues that have been put forward to be examined and analyzed and conclusions reached about.
The answer depends entirely on whether Iraq has made the choice to actively cooperate in every possible way, on every possible manner in the immediate and complete disarmament of itself of its prohibited weapons. That's what [U.N. Security Council Resolution] 1441 calls for.
I would like to thank Dr. [Hans] Blix and Dr. [Mohamed] ElBaradei for their reports this morning which shed more light on this difficult question.
I listened to them very carefully. I listened to them very, very carefully to see if I was hearing that finally Iraq had reached that point where it understood that the will of the international community must now be obeyed.
I was pleased to hear from both of these distinguished gentlemen that there has been continuing progress on process and even some new activity with respect to substance. But I was sorry to learn that all of this still is coming in a grudging manner, that Iraq is still refusing to offer what was called for by 1441: immediate, active and unconditional cooperation. Not later, immediate; not passive, active; not conditional, unconditional in every respect.
Unfortunately, in my judgment, despite some of the progress that has been mentioned, I still find what I have heard this morning a catalog still of noncooperation.
If Iraq genuinely wanted to disarm, we would not have to be worrying about setting up means of looking for mobile biological units or any units of that kind. They would be presented to us. We would not need an extensive program to search for and look for underground facilities that we know exist. The very fact that we must make these requests seems to me to show that Iraq is still not cooperating.
The inspectors should not have to look under every rock, go to every crossroad, peer into every cave for evidence, for proof.
And we must not allow Iraq to shift the burden of proof onto the inspectors. Nor can we return to the failed bargain of Resolution 1284, which offered partial relief for partial disclosure. [Resolution] 1441 requires full and immediate compliance, and we must hold Iraq to its terms.
We also heard this morning of an acceleration of Iraqi initiatives. I don't know if we should call these things initiatives.
Whatever they are, Iraq's small steps are certainly not initiatives. They are not something that came forward willingly, freely from the Iraqis. They have been pulled out or have been pressed out by the possibility of military force, by the political will of the Security Council. They have been taken -- these initiatives, if that's what some would choose to call them -- only grudgingly, rarely unconditionally and primarily under the threat of force.
We are told that these actions do not constitute immediate cooperation. But that's exactly what is demanded by 1441. And even then, progress is often more apparent than real.
And I am pleased, very pleased that some Al Samoud 2 missiles are now being broken up, although perhaps the process of breaking them up has now paused for a moment.
And I know these are not toothpicks, but real missiles, but the problem was we don't know how many missiles there are, how many toothpicks there are. We don't know whether or not the infrastructure to make more has been identified and broken up.
And we have evidence that shows that the infrastructure to make more missiles continues to remain within Iraq and has not yet been identified and destroyed.
There is still much more to do. And frankly, it will not be possible to do that which we need to do unless we get the full and immediate kind of cooperation that 1441 and all previous resolutions demanded.
The intent of the Iraqi regime to keep from turning over all of its weapons of mass destruction, [it] seems to me, has not changed, and [it's] not to cooperate with the international community in the manner intended by 1441.
If Iraq had made that strategic decision to disarm, cooperation would be voluntary, even enthusiastic -- not coerced, not pressured. And that is a lesson we learned from South Africa and the Ukraine, where officials did everything possible to ensure complete cooperation with inspectors.
I also listened to Dr. ElBaradei's report with great interest. As we all know, in 1991 the IAEA was just days away from determining that Iraq did not have a nuclear program. We soon found out otherwise.
IAEA is now reaching a similar conclusion, but we have to be very cautious. We have to make sure that we do keep the books open, as Dr. ElBaradei said he would. There is dispute about some of these issues and about some of these specific items.
Dr. ElBaradei talked about the aluminum tubes that Iraq has tried to acquire over the years. But we also know that notwithstanding the report today, that there is new information that is available to us and I believe available to the IAEA about a European country where Iraq was found shopping for these kinds of tubes.
And that country has provided information to us, to IAEA that the material properties and manufacturing tolerances required by Iraq are more exact by a factor of 50 percent or more than those usually specified for rocket motor casings. Its experts concluded that the tolerances and specifications Iraq was seeking cannot be justified for unguided rockets. And I'm very pleased that we will keep this issue open.
I also welcome the compilation of outstanding issues that Dr. Blix and his staff have provided to some of us and will make available to all of us. UNMOVIC [U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission] put together a solid piece of research that adds up, when one reads the entire 167 pages, adds up, fact by chilling fact, to a damning record of 12 years of lies, deception and failure to come clean on the part of Iraq.
This document is in fact a catalog of 12 years of abject failure, not by the inspectors, but by Iraq. We have looked carefully at the draft given to the UNMOVIC commissioners and which will be available more widely after this meeting, and we found nearly 30 instances where Iraq refused to provide credible evidence substantiating its claims.
We have counted 17 examples when the previous inspectors actually uncovered evidence contradicting Iraqi claims. We see instance after instance of Iraq lying to the previous inspectors and planting false evidence, activities which we believe are still ongoing.
As you read this document, you can see page after page of how Iraq has obstructed the inspectors at nearly every turn over the years. Just by way of example, we've talked about the R-400 bombs. The report says that during the period 1992, Iraq changed its declaration on the quantity it had produced, changed the declaration several times.
In 1992, it declared it had produced a total of 1,200 of these bombs. With the admission finally, after it was pulled out of them, of an offensive biological warfare program in 1995, this number was subsequently changed to a total of 1,550 such bombs.
Given the lack of specific information from Iraq, UNSCOM [U.N. Special Commission] could not calculate the total number of R-400 bombs that Iraq had produced for its programs.
And so, this report says it is proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of R-400 bombs.
UNMOVIC cannot discount the possibility that some CW and BW field R-400 bombs remain in Iraq.
In this document, UNMOVIC says [there are] actions that Iraq could take to help resolve this question: Present any remaining R-400 bombs and all relevant molds; provide more supporting documentation on production; [provide] inventory relating to the R-400 and R-400A bombs it manufactured; provide further documentation explaining the coding system that it had used with the R-400-type bombs, including the coding assigned to specific CBW agents; provide credible evidence that the R-400 bomb production line stopped after September 1990.
This is just one example of the kinds of documentation you will all be seeing.
The question that leaps out at you is that these are issues -- these actions that Iraq is being asked to take; they could have taken many times over the preceding 12 years. We're not talking about immediately. We are talking about -- why hasn't it been done over the last 12 years?
And how can we rely on assurances now in the presence of this solid record of lying and deceit over the years? These questions could easily have been cleared up in Iraq's December 7 declaration.
There should not be these kinds of outstanding issues to work on, but there are. And we will all examine them carefully.
The point is that this document conclusively shows that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture these kinds of weapons; that Iraq had and still has the capability to manufacture, not only chemical but also biological weapons; and that Iraq had and still has literally tens of thousands of delivery systems, including increasingly capable and dangerous unmanned aerial vehicles.
These are not new questions being presented for our consideration. These are old questions that have not been resolved and could have been resolved in December with the declaration, or it could have been fully resolved over the last four months if Iraq had come forward and done what 1441 wanted it to do.
In his report this morning, Dr. Blix remarked on the paucity of information on Iraq's programs since 1998. We've all been working hard to fill that gap. But Iraq is the one who could fill that gap if it was truly complying with 1441. It would be inundating the inspectors with new information, not holding it back begrudgingly.
The draft we reviewed today in preparation for this meeting was 167 pages long. If Iraq were genuinely committed to disarmament, Dr. Blix's document would not be 167 pages of issues and questions, it would be thousands upon thousands of pages of answers about anthrax, about VX, about sarin, about unmanned aerial vehicles. It would set out in detail all of Iraq's prohibited programs. Then and only then could the inspectors really do the credible job they need to do of verification, destruction and monitoring.
We've been down this road before. [In] March 1998, Saddam Hussein was also faced with the threat of military action. He responded with promises -- promises to provide inspectors at that time with immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
The then-chief inspector reported to this council a new spirit of cooperation, along with his hope that the inspectors could move very quickly to verify Iraq's disarmament. We know what happened to that hope. There was no progress and disarmament. And nine months later, the inspectors found it necessary to withdraw.
I regret that not much has changed. Iraq's current behavior, like the behavior chronicled in Dr. Blix's document, reveals its strategic decision to continue to delay, to deceive, to try to throw us off the trail, make it more difficult, to hope that the will of the international community will be fractured, that we will go off in different directions, that we will get bored with the task, that we will remove the pressure, we will remove the force. And we know what has happened when that has been done in the past.
We know that the Iraqis still are not volunteering information. Then when they do, what they are giving is often partial and misleading. We know that when confronted with facts, the Iraqis still are changing their story to explain those facts but not enough to give us the truth.
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not. And this is now the reality we, the council, must deal with.
Security Council membership carries heavy responsibility, responsibility to the community of nations to take the hard decisions on tough issues, such as the one we are facing today. Last November, this council stepped up to it responsibilities. We must not walk away. We must not find ourselves here this coming November with the pressure removed and with Iraq once again marching down the merry path to weapons of mass destruction, threatening the region, threatening the world.
If we fail to meet our responsibilities, the credibility of this council and its ability to deal with all the critical challenges we face will suffer. As we sit here, let us not forget the horrors still going on in Iraq with a spare moment to remember the suffering Iraqi people whose treasure is spent on these kinds of programs and not for their own benefit, people who are being beaten, brutalized and robbed by Saddam and his regime.
Colleagues, now is the time for the council to send a clear message to Saddam that we have not been taken in by his transparent tactics. Nobody wants war, but it is clear that the limited progress we have seen, the process changes we have seen, the slight substantive changes we have seen come from the presence of a large military force -- nations who are willing to put their young men and women in harm's way in order to rid the world of these dangerous weapons.
It doesn't come simply from resolutions; it doesn't come simply from inspectors. It comes from the will of this council, the unified political will of this council and the willingness to use force if it comes to that, to make sure that we achieve the disarmament of Iraq.
Now is the time for the council to tell Saddam that the clock has not been stopped by his stratagems and his machinations. We believe that the resolution that has been put forward for action by this council is appropriate. And in the very near future, we should bring it before this council for a vote.
The clock continues to tick, and the consequences of Saddam Hussein continued refusal to disarm will be very, very real.
Thank you.
It's an easy question, it really is -
After 12 years and 17 resolutions, "has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed as required by Resolution 1441 or has it not?"
Appeasement for profit
-----------------------------
Iraq strengthens air force with French parts
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
The unidentified company sold the parts to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the parts through a third country into Iraq by truck.
The spare parts included goods for Iraq's French-made Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters.
An intelligence official said the illegal spare-parts pipeline was discovered in the past two weeks and that sensitive intelligence about the transfers indicates that the parts were smuggled to Iraq as recently as January.
Other intelligence reports indicate that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring French weaponry illegally for years, the official said.
The parts appear to be included in an effort by the Iraqi military to build up materiel for its air forces before any U.S. military action, which could occur before the end of the month.
The officials identified the purchaser of the parts as the Al Tamoor Trading Co., based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. A spokesman for the company could not be reached for comment.
The French military parts were then sent by truck into Iraq from a neighboring country the officials declined to identify.
Iraq has more than 50 Mirage F-1 jets and an unknown number of Gazelle attack helicopters, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
An administration official said the French parts transfers to Iraq may be one reason France has so vehemently opposed U.S. plans for military action against Iraq. "No wonder the French are opposing us," this official said.
The official, however, said intelligence reports of the parts sale did not indicate that the activity was sanctioned by the French government or that Paris knows about the transfers.
The intelligence reports did not identify the French company involved in selling the aircraft parts or whether the parts were new or used.
The Mirage F-1 was made by France's Dassault Aviation. Gazelle helicopters were made by Aerospatiale, which later became part of a consortium of European defense companies.
The importation of military goods by Iraq is banned under U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
Nathalie Loiseau, press counselor at the French Embassy, said her government has no information about the spare-parts smuggling and has not been approached by the U.S. government about the matter.
"We fully comply with the U.N. sanctions, and there is no sale of any kind of military material or weapons to Iraq," she said.
A CIA spokesman had no comment.
A senior administration official declined to discuss Iraq's purchase of French warplane and helicopter parts. "It is well known that the Iraqis use front companies to try to obtain a number of prohibited items," the official said.
The disclosure comes amid heightened anti-French sentiment in the United States over Paris' opposition to U.S. plans for using force to disarm Iraq.
A senior defense official said France undermined U.S. efforts to disarm Iraq last year by watering down language of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 that last fall required Iraq to disarm all its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
France, along with Russia, Germany and China, said yesterday that they would block a joint U.S.-British U.N. resolution on the use of force against Iraq.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told reporters in Paris on Wednesday that France "will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force."
"Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, will assume their full responsibilities on this point," he stated.
France has been Iraq's best friend in the West. French arms sales to Baghdad were boosted in the 1970s under Premier Jacques Chirac, the current president. Mr. Chirac once called Saddam Hussein a "personal friend."
During the 1980s, when Paris backed Iraq in its war against Iran, France sold Mirage fighter bombers and Super Entendard aircraft to Baghdad, along with Exocet anti-ship missiles.
French-Iraqi ties soured after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that led to the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
France now has an estimated $4 billion in debts owed to it by Iraq as a result of arms sales and infrastructure construction projects. The debt is another reason U.S. officials believe France is opposing military force to oust Saddam.
Henry Sokolski, director of the private Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said French transfers of military equipment to Iraq would have "an immediate and relevant military consequence, if this was done."
"The United States with its allies are going to suppress the Iraqi air force and air defense very early on in any conflict, and it's regrettable that the French have let a company complicate that mission," Mr. Sokolski said.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell last month released intelligence information showing videotape of an Iraqi F-1 Mirage that had been modified to spray anthrax spores.
A CIA report to Congress made public in January stated that Iraq has aggressively sought advanced conventional arms. "A thriving gray-arms market and porous borders have allowed Baghdad to acquire smaller arms and components for larger arms, such as spare parts for aircraft, air defense systems, and armored vehicles," the CIA stated.
Iraq also has obtained some military goods through the U.N.-sponsored oil-for-food program.
A second CIA report in October on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stated: "Iraq imports goods using planes, trains, trucks, and ships without any type of international inspections -- in violation of UN Security Council resolutions."
still waiting for the answer...
"The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed as required by Resolution 1441 or has it not?"
Still waiting for the answer Mr. Blix.
Okay, I give this guy a lot of credit for laying out an alternative solution. That's more than most anti-war folks have done on this board. Unfortunately, their are serious problems with his proposals.
1. "..extend the northern and southern no-flight zones to include the whole country." Problem: It would require an escallated, sustained, long term active military presence. If Al Qaida and the fundamentalist wackos are upset with our previous military presence in the middle east, this isn't going to make them any happier than a U.S. military presence in a post-Saddam Iraq. It also doesn't address the question of disarming Iraq from WMD. Remember, the reason for the No-Fly Zones were to protect the Iraqi opposition in the north and south, not to harrass Saddam into disarming.
2. "...impose the "smart sanctions" that the Bush administration talked about before 9/11 and insist that Iraq's trading partners commit themselves to enforcing them. Washington should announce sanctions of its own against countries that don't cooperate, and it should also punish any companies that try to sell military equipment to Iraq."
Easier said than done. The UN Security Council won't even inforce 1441, which it passed unanimously. I can't imagine France, Germany, etc. agreeing to more sanctions - and if they did, it would only be a matter of time before they lobbied for their termination. Again, this doesn't address Saddam's WMD.
3. "...the United States should expand the United Nations' monitoring system in all the ways that have recently been proposed: adding inspectors, bringing in United Nations soldiers (to guard military installations after they have been inspected), sending surveillance planes without providing 48 hours' notice, and so on."
Good Luck! The only reason Saddam as allowed inspectors in this time is because GW is wielding a big stick. Take away the stick (demobilize our troops) and poof, inspections go away. The UN Security Counsel hasn't conceeded the fact that the only way Iraq would allow continued is if the U.S. kept our forces in theatre. Who's going to pay for that? Who bears the brunt of terrorist's retribution? Can inspectors really be expected to disarm Saddam without Iraqi cooperation? Finally, what would the blue helmets do if confronted by the Republican Guard? Fight? Give me a break!
I'm going to do this on the cheap n easy: A geocities/yahoo page with a free poll/survey thingy. Check out:
http://www.webenalysis.com/onlinepolls.asp
Who was the Attorney General in the '90s? Where did Robert Rubin come from?
Get a list of the top contributors to the dems. Who was getting what?
Do you actually believe the economy/stock market would have continued to expand if Gore was president. If you do, you're intellectually challenged or totally naive.
Enery market manipulation? Did you go long in oil future when Bush came into office? Why not, smart guy? If the Bush conspiracy was so obvious to you, you should have acted on it.
Or the ... GOP controlled congress during that time? Let's see, Clinton gets all the credit for things that went right in the 90's, but he GOP get the blame for anything that went wrong? And you're telling me to get a clue?
Read the book. Bush wasn't handed a run-of-the-mill economic pullback, let alone a correction. To call it a "bubble" minimizes enormous severity of the economic situation in the late 90s.
Nor do I blame Clinton for all things that occured during or after his reign. The truth is, presidents and their economic policies have a marginal impact on the economy. There are so many factors that drive the economy that no president can control it.
Nobody, including Al Gore, could have changed the fate of the U.S. economy from 2000 forward. Read the book I mentioned, the economy was a train wreck waiting to happen.
As for the snipers on this board, what are your brilliant solutions for this economy? I've heard nothing from the Dems but more Federal give-aways.
All credit goes to Clinton? Was he a dictator?
Clinton had a parachute
Read the book "Being Right or Making Money" by Ned Davis Research. The first half of the book details the economic and stock market bubble just before the implosionj, graph by gory graph.
Clinton gave Bush the stick when the airplane was on "E" and heading into a tailspin. You, being the partisan you are, expect Bush to do a quick mid-air refueling during the nose dive while he's pulling back hard on the stick.