Posted on 02/05/2002 11:13:58 PM PST by JohnHuang2
The Russian parliamentary chairman for international affairs says his nation will not accept the use of force against Iraq in the war on terrorism.
Dimitri Rogozin told the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that Moscow is assisting Baghdad and strongly opposes any use of force against Iraq, despite its international provocations.
"We are helping Iraq, and we will not accept anyone seeking to use military force against it," he said in an interview translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute. "We are strongly opposed to the sanctions and maintain that they have outlived their usefulness and have proven nothing. ... As you will recall, Russia was opposed to the so-called 'smart sanctions' during the U.N. Security Council discussions on them last year. But we would like Iraq to act with greater wisdom in the current situation. Why did [Saddam Hussein] have to establish a memorial to the woman who blew herself up in Jerusalem? This tactic is wrong. There is no need to provoke America. ... We maintain that it is Iraq's obligation to be wiser and more moderate in its foreign policy. ..."
The Russian official also warned Hussein that Moscow's patience with him is waning.
"Today, we are the only country that uses its veto in the Security Council in favor of Iraq," he said. "But this situation cannot continue in the long term without Iraq understanding what we have done for it. We aspire today to defend Iraq at every conference and in official and unofficial talks. But [Iraq] cannot agree with Saddam Hussein's inflexible behavior. He must not arouse others' anger at him when he can refrain from doing so. For this reason, I think that the Arab world faces a tremendous task – persuading the Iraqi leadership to adopt a more balanced and reasonable line. Iraq's rivals are eagerly anticipating any pretext [to attack it], so there must be no such pretexts. ..."
Rogozin said the U.S. will have to sacrifice 100,000 soldiers in a bid to topple Hussein.
"... The removal of Saddam Hussein's regime will not be accomplished with missiles and bombs," he said. "It requires a large ground operation, and it should be kept in mind that this operation will not be like Desert Storm – which was comical because they did not take Baghdad. They were not capable of taking it without bleeding a lot. If the Americans want to eliminate Saddam Hussein, they must be willing to sacrifice some 100,000 Americans. America is not willing to do that. For this reason, any venture against Iraq will be nothing more than idiotic muscle-flexing."
IF we CHOOSE to do it, it won't take 100 casualties to do so, and all of the injuries, unless we make a mistake, will be from friendly fire or self-inflicted.
Iraq got a message earlier this week. We took out one of the new CHINESE radar setups. They now know, our military equipment is impervious to their left overs purchased from China, made from left over designs that we sold them five to eight years ago.
The world is shaken by our military prowess. Russia has no means for upgrading. China is really a joke, except for their sheer number of potential footsoldiers.
Our ability to "reach out and touch" someone, anywhere, anyplace, almost anytime, truly is awesome. It is a power that as we use it, will no doubt bring scores of complaints from some and praise from others.
Russia had hoped to make a lot of money in their relationship with Iraq... hope that is now fading.
"... The removal of Saddam Hussein's regime will not be accomplished with missiles and bombs," he said. "It requires a large ground operation, and it should be kept in mind that this operation will not be like Desert Storm – which was comical because they did not take Baghdad. They were not capable of taking it without bleeding a lot. If the Americans want to eliminate Saddam Hussein, they must be willing to sacrifice some 100,000 Americans. America is not willing to do that. For this reason, any venture against Iraq will be nothing more than idiotic muscle-flexing.""
Well, Rogozin.............you idiot..........guess you don't watch TV much, do you? Your petty jealousy is showing.
We managed to accomplish in Afghanistan in two months with absolutely minimal loss of American (and civilian) life what YOUR country was unable to do with its idiotic muscle flexing in the same country over ten.........count 'em...........ten YEARS.
"Hussein" has been translated to mean "target". Deal with it...........and keep the hell out of the way.
Georgia: Don't know enough to have an opinion, other than to note that Georgia is falling to pieces.
Azerbejan: I know less here than about Georgia. Oil is a factor and meddling to try to create peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia are probably also factors.
Syria: I don't know that we are helping Assad2. I believe Syria's listed as a terror supporting country. Syria is run by its branch of the Baath Party, which is Saddam Hussein's party in Iraq. Syria's version is more subtle and clever than Saddam.
Egypt: Because they split from the rest of Arabia to sign peace with Israel.
Saudi Arabia: Oil. Obviously, relations between the Saudis and the US are in a downward spiral. Whether that is a death spiral isn't yet clear. It has become clear, how insane the Saudis are and how their support for radical Islamo-Fascism is a threat. The Bushies are too close to the Saudis, but that may not matter in the end. I believe the days of the House of Saud are numbered at about a thousand.
Pakistan: Musarraf has been vital in our war in Afghanistan. His strengthening has weakened the Islamo-Insaniacs in Pakistan. That's a good thing, I think we can agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.