U.S. Ships Tanks to Gulf, Bush to Make Case on Iraq

Reuters | 9/04/02 | Stefano Ambrogi

[kattracks]

LONDON (Reuters) - The United States will ship tanks and heavy armor to the Middle East this month as President Bush tries to garner domestic support for efforts to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Shipping sources said Wednesday the U.S. Navy had booked a large commercial ship to carry tanks and heavy armor to the Gulf, a sign its own vessels might have made such shipments.

The U.S. Military Sealift Command chartered a U.S.-flagged general cargo ship to sail from the southeast U.S. coast to an unspecified Gulf port for discharge in late September, they said.

This is the third shipment of arms and military hardware in a month using commercial shipping, which military analysts say shows the U.S. Navy has probably exhausted the capacity of its own fleet and resorted to the open market.

Military analysts say the movement of heavy armor to the Gulf mirrors similar movements ahead of the 1991 Gulf War and shows the superpower is building up fire power in the region ahead of a military strike.

In line with a pledge to consult on any move against Iraq, Bush will meet top members of Congress from both parties at the White House to discuss U.S. efforts to overthrow Saddam.

At the meeting scheduled to start at 1345 GMT, Bush could face tough questions from a Congress skeptical of using the military to achieve a "regime change" in Baghdad.

The White House, which accuses Iraq of developing weapons of mass destruction, says Bush has made no decision on how to proceed against the Iraqi leader.

Bush's closest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has begun preparing the nation for war, telling Britons in his most uncompromising speech on Iraq to date Tuesday the world should face up to the dangers posed by Saddam.

SADDAM PROMISES IRAQIS VICTORY

Saddam, meanwhile, said Tuesday the Iraqis would emerge victorious from any showdown with their enemies.

"We have prevailed before and we will also prevail in Umm al-Ma'arik (the Mother of All Battles) in the end, God willing," Iraq's state television quoted Saddam as saying in an open letter to the Iraqi people.

In Johannesburg, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the European Union and the United States agreed to push for weapons inspectors to return to Iraq but the Union felt it premature to say what would happen if Baghdad refused.

Rasmussen, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, said after meeting Secretary of State Colin Powell at the Earth Summit the bloc wanted a United Nations blessing for any action against Iraq.

"There is agreement between the EU and the United States that here and now we should concentrate our efforts on ensuring that international weapons inspectors can get free and unrestricted access to Iraq," Rasmussen told a news conference.

"Nevertheless, I think it is of vital importance to pursue the U.N. track."

Powell said Tuesday he was exploring proposals that would restore inspections, which ended in 1998. In contrast, Vice President Dick Cheney said last week the inspectors could "provide no assurance whatsoever" and could even add to the danger by giving a false sense of comfort.

NO PROGRESS ON INSPECTIONS

The United Nations said Iraq had moved no closer to accepting weapons inspectors despite fresh overtures by a top Iraqi official, albeit with conditions attached.

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz said Baghdad would discuss the return of the inspectors in conjunction with other issues, a stance rejected by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and members of the 15-nation U.N. Security Council in the past.

"At this stage I cannot say they've taken a decision to allow the inspectors. I mean they have questions," Annan told CNN after he spoke to Aziz at the Earth Summit. His spokesman, Fred Eckhard, repeated the comments in New York.

The inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction were pulled out of Iraq in December 1998, on the eve of a U.S.-British bombing raid. They have not been allowed to return.

Aziz said a comprehensive solution would involve tackling U.S. threats to oust Iraq's leadership, American and British air patrols over the north and south of Iraq and the lifting of sanctions imposed for Baghdad's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

U.S. allies, Muslim countries and many other nations are wary of any unilateral action, demanding a role for the United Nations in clarifying Iraq's capabilities and intent, and in authorizing any attack should that effort fail.

Arab foreign ministers began a two-day meeting in Cairo expected to focus on U.S. threats against Iraq. Arab countries have unanimously opposed any military action against Baghdad.

In Australia, Prime Minister John Howard sought to calm protests over possible Australian involvement in any military action against Iraq, saying Canberra would only send troops if it was "in the national interest."

[VaBthang4]

""We have prevailed before and we will also prevail in Umm al-Ma'arik (the Mother of All Battles) in the end, God willing," Iraq's state television quoted Saddam as saying in an open letter to the Iraqi people."

This statement alone confirms the absolute need to remove Saddam....nobody is that stupid....he has to be a deranged monster.

[Reagan Man]

>>>Seriously though, I was joking about nuking them...

I didn't note a sarcasm tag.

>>>I would however issue a simple warning - next country to attack us gets erased.

Hmmm. Are you serious this time?

[Reagan Man]

>>>... but I don't understand your statements...

My remarks are pretty straight forward, pragmatic and reasonable. When the subject is the use of nuclear weapons, rushing to judgment is out of the question. There is a lot of international politics being played by an assortment of nations throughout the world.

You sound like a warmonger, ready to nuke any adversary and start WWIII. Thank God you're not in charge.

[Senator_Palpatine]

Goood...everything is proceeding as planned.Baghdad will soon be under my control..."

[Reagan Man]

>>>How much darker and more chaotic can the middle east be than today?

If the US was to nuke Saddam, it could very well open the flood gates and possibly ignite nuclear exchanges between other nations who have nuclear weapons capability, like Pakistan and India. Iraq could then attack Israel with WMD and Israel would retaliate. If you remember your physics, all out nuclear exchanges, would create a nuclear winter effect and throw the world into darkness and chaos.

[wimpycat]

LOL! Isn't it fun "translating" what politicians and diplomats say into what they're really saying?

[Reagan Man]

>>I went through your original comments and noted a difference of opinion.

That's what this is. A simple difference of opinion. But that doesn't mean you should jump to conclusions. I said in my post at RE:#15, Saddam must be taken out... and I meant it. If you want to overreact and come across as a warmonger, willing to use nukes at the drop of a dime feel free.

>>>You however resort to ill-founded suppositions and snide remarks.

No I haven't. I just don't agree with your warmongering rhetoric.

>>>You come off like an appeasing uneducated teenage weasel.

Hardly. But I suggest you knock off the insults.

[jwalsh07]

REFORGER

[Almondjoy]

First off you show how ignorant you really are. Nukes aren't a play toy fool? What are you asking for the end of the world? Let me ask you this.. do you believe God? Do you honestly believe the killing of innocent civilians is just for America's needs? If so you I good idea where your heading off after death. But regardless of what any ridiculous ideas you have of redemption you clearly have no concept of the world today.. are you lost back in 1945?

As for your 2nd point I'm not saying who's right and who's wrong.. that's the problem.. you think of the "morally equivalent" HAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAH .. that's truely childish.. you think you have the moral high ground over China? What makes you so just.. you just wanted to slaughter a few million Iraq's because you don't want to see 50,000 American dead... If your God cares so little about life to give you the moral high ground on who lives and who dies.. you can have him.. but I'll tell you what... HE DOESNT EXIST!

[Almondjoy]

on 2nd review your racist comment shows exactly how intellgent you really are.. thanks for playing but you might want to check your watch because it's time for you to check out.

[lmr]

Dude, do what I do, ignore the "Nuke Iraq" people. It's alot easier. Why I don't think it will ever come to Nuclear Weapons, at the same time I feel that the emotion runs high enough sometimes that this is not an unreasonable reaction to the situation. Cooler heads prevail, on this board and in the world arena.

I for one am for regime change in Iraq. I would hope this happens sooner than later. If the Iraqi people are incapable of doing it themselves, then we need to do it for them. If a few civilians die, well, war is hell, we try our best to avoid it, the claptraps in the media and the peaceniks just need to shut up. When all is said and done the situation will be alot better and the Good Ol' U.S.A. will have actually saved lives in the long run. I am sure most sensible people will agree with me.

[Almondjoy]

Yes I very much agree with you. We need to go in. It's not the "nuke Iraq" people that bother me. When people come on here and talk about the moral high ground about any war situation it's like people don't understand God at all... of course people mistake my treat everyone has you would like to be treated attitude as a demowinnie but in reality I just at any situation like I think God would.. isn't that what we are suppose to do after all? Forgive I might be preaching to the wrong person but I know the other fool will be reading this.

[xzins]

Exactly! (You are a genius....you said it in one word!)

How about: TEAM SPIRIT!

[PhilDragoo]

We are shipping tanks and Daschle is stuffing more socks in his shoes and underwear.

Saddam is telling the people "We will win" and none has the balls to say, "What you mean, 'We', Camel's Rump?"

(Russia is rumored to have offered him asylum, and German engineers designed his deep bunker complex.)

Tariq Aziz tells Kofi the Klymer that Iraq is considering allowing inspectors.

Tariq, you disgusting Camel Dropping, we aren't getting jacked around in those little convoys of UNSCOM four-wheelers.

When we want to examine a site, we'll be calling it:

BOMB DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

thenkyewverramuch

[CreekerFreeper]

I would agree at some level with you about WW I. But, I think the driving force there was not the mobilization factor, which I have heard taught, but the secret treaties and counter-treaties the entwined the whole of the European continent between the ruling houses of Europe, which are all basically related.

These treaties were what resulted in the inevitable march toward war. Hence, Washington's warning about entangling alliances.

In my opinion, WW I was simply a war to destory the monarchies of Europe, which were all basically swept from the continent in 4 short years. Germany, Russia, Austro-Hungary, Ottoman Turks, Benelux countries. All these monarchies were swept from the throne or stripped of power because of their treaty-making fiasco.

[DB]

Ah... The solution to global warming...

[DB]

With a few localized hot spots...