Posted on 09/04/2002 4:57:06 AM PDT by 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."
Can't the guy come up with something new? Of course, this could explain why the libs like him - he recycles... ;0)
While true we do it regularly for training purposes. The only way to learn to ship an army when you MUST is to actually practice doing it when it isn't necessary. There is also the old military tactic known as a "show of force." Sometimes that will achieve your ends.
Which is why the decision was made many months ago. We're go'in in.
Yea right! Guess you're looking for a regional war in the ME, possibly leading to a war world thereafter.
Time for you to stop talking and to start thinking.
One would think last time he would have learned that he is not fighting mothers, a normal Islamic target. Seems Jihadists do not do so well when fighting men...
The pool is still open and predictions are still being accepted!
If, and that's a huge hypothetical IF, the US were to nuke Saddam's Iraq, every nation in the world condemn such an action. The Muslim fundamentalists, Arab radicals and all their terrorist allies, would most defintiely declare war on the US. If you think the situation in the ME is bad now, it would get must worse. The ME would be thrown into a dark age for decades to come and the world would be thrown in a state of unrest not seen, since the events of WWII. Thats just my opinion.
Taking out Saddam is a must, but talking about the US using nukes to achieve its goal of removing Saddam from power is crazy talk. May be someday the US and Isreal will be in an all out war with the Muslim/Arab world, but not right now.
You have a strange way of thinking.
Naw, I just prefer the direct approach. Seriously though, I was joking about nuking them - but only because it would contaminate the oil. I would however issue a simple warning - next country to attack us gets erased. A fair warning which I would carry through on.
While using nukes, particularly at the outset, well before you'd have any knowledge whether such a "last resort" weapon was required, would be inadvisable...
the question must be asked: How much darker and more chaotic can the middle east be than today? How do you destabilize a region that has no stability to begin with? How can whatever comes after Sadaam Hussein, or the Ayatollahs, or Assad, or Fahd be any worse than those characters are to begin with?
Even a depopulated middle-east (the darkest of all ages) would be preferrable to the current lineup.
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.