Mar 8, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
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 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....
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....
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. [Emphasis added, Washington Times, 3/7/03]
Mar 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Andrew Bernstein "In Defense of the Cowboy":
Even as our European critics use the "cowboy" image as a symbol of reckless irresponsibility, they implicitly reveal the real virtues they are attacking. European leaders assail Americans because our "language is far too blunt" and because we see the struggle between Western Civilization and Islamic fanaticism in "black-and-white certainties." They whine about our "Texas attitude" and whimper that "an American president who makes up his mind and then will accept no argument" is a greater danger than murderous dictators. In short, they object to America's willingness to face the facts, to make moral judgments, to act independently, and to battle evil with unflinching courage. [Capitalism Magazine, 2/27/03]
Who is more practical--the man with principles or the one who repudiates them? Who is more sophisticated--the man who reaches certitude through a grasp causes, or the one who restricts himself to the "here and now"? The Europeans and their intellectual lackeys in the American universities have swallowed uncritically the dogma of pragmatism--the doctrine, not that one must be practical, but that principles are the enemy of practicality. Their sneers and hostility to certitude are a pose, to conceal from themselves their anxiety at their own cognitive impotence.
The problem with GWB is that he's not principled enough. As Bernstein writes:
The only valid criticism of President Bush, in this context, is that he is not true enough to the heritage of the Lone Star State. When the Texas Rangers went after a bank robber or rustler, they didn't wait to ask the permission of his fellow gang members. Yet Bush is asking permission from a U.N. Security Council chaired by Syria, one of the world's most active sponsors of terrorism.
Mar 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
A New Zealand woman said on Wednesday she was willing to be crucified by President Bush if he pledges not to attack Iraq....
But the deal has a catch--Bush would have to personally hammer in the nails.
"I don't think he would have the courage to do it quite frankly, but that is the measure of a man," she told Radio New Zealand. [Reuters, 3/5/03]
The mind boggles at this kind of corruption. The evasion of the threat posed by Iraq is wholesale dishonesty. The implicit accusation that George Bush is simply interested in causing pain and suffering, and so would be satisfied by crucifying someone, is monstrously unjust. Even to pretend to be willing to sacrifice oneself to such an evil act is the height of irrational self-hatred. And then there is the adoption of the mantle of Christ for the purpose of manipulating the weak-minded by moral intimidation, a vicious power-lust if ever there was one.
Of course, if George Bush were the kind of person who would accept such an offer, he would also be the kind of person to then go ahead and attack Iraq anyway--which shows just how impotent those who hold such a "moral" code are.Mar 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
Writes Richard Salsman, CFA in the February 28th, 2003 edition of the InterMarket Forecaster:Until war is waged, bonds in the U.S. especially corporate bonds will be the best financial asset worth owning. What would be bullish for stocks? We saw a spectacular, but brief (two-month) rally in U.S. stocks starting in early October the same week the U.S. Congress passed a resolution granting President Bush full authority to wage war against Iraq. But Bush has failed (so far) to exercise that authority. He may do so next month. If not or if he acts against Iraq but not against Iran and North Korea investors in U.S. stocks could see a sad repeat of the long, bearish spring-summer of 2002.
[...]
Here's a simple guide for investors in the coming weeks: If the headlines are filled with reports of actual U.S. bombings, battles won and Don Rumsfeld, that'll be bullish for U.S. equities and bearish for commodities; but if the headlines are filled (as they have been for so long) with reports of still-more U.N. resolutions, 'inspectors' reports' and Colin Powell, that'll be bearish for U.S. stocks and bullish for commodities.
Mar 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
According to the National Post, at York University in Canada a recent college "protest"--against the removal of dictator Saddam Hussein from Iraq by the U.S.--turned violent as students with an American flag were assaulted by a large group of students and two Jewish students were harassed by anti-war demonstrators. Clearly the motivation of this group of peace-niks is not real peace, but pacifism towards cruel dictators, with violence reserved for the real object of their hatred--free people who dare to disagree with them.Mar 7, 2003 | Dollars & Crosses
WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld indicated Thursday that he wants U.S. troops stationed near the Demilitarized Zone separating North and South Korea to be moved farther from the heavily defended zone, shifted to other countries in the region or brought home. The South Korean military, which has relied on American forces to deter an attack from communist North Korea since the end of the Korean War in 1953, is capable of defending the border itself, Rumsfeld said. [...] The U.S. military, on the other hand, could play more of a secondary role by arranging its forces at an "air hub" and "sea hub" and as reinforcements for the South Korean front-line troops, he said during a question-and-answer session with a group of Pentagon civilians and troops.
This is a brilliant diplomatic move for three reasons:
- It implicitly calls North Korea's bluff. Right when Kim Il Jung is trying to act so tough, Rumsfeld counters by saying that South Korea doesn't even need the US.
- South Korea's new government is fairly anti-American and unhappy with the US presence, so Rumsfeld is forcing them to take responsibility for their defense--to call there bluff, if it is indeed a bluff.
- We need to get out of the business of protecting other countries, especially those who are unfriendly to the U.S.
