- Moscow is condemning the prospect of U.S. military
against Iraq, declaring that "it is vital to prevent U.S. actions
that could spell misfortune for mankind," according to official
- "It is hard to predict how far America would be
prepared to go with its arrogance," Moscow stated, while rejecting
President George W. Bush's concept of an "axis of evil,"
of Iraq, Iran and North Korea all of which are important Russian
- The statements were carried by the Voice of Russia World
Service, the official broadcasting service of the Russian
- Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov had declared the
"axis of evil" as a "Cold War vestige" and stated that
the use of "unilateral force could indeed make matters only
The only solution, according to Ivanov, is an international settlement
"only on the basis of strict compliance with the U.N. Security
- Iraq, however, remains adamantly opposed to the
of U.N. arms-controls experts, called for under previous U.N.
- While debate continues among the U.S. and its allies
over the role played by Iraq in international terrorism, Uday Saddam
the eldest son of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein who plays a significant
role in his father's regime, has made clear his assessment of the Sept.
11 attacks by praising those involved.
- According to Uday, an individual known for his erratic
and at times murderous behavior, the attacks were "daring
that have "restored respect for Arabs and Muslims." Uday also
praised the "heroic stand by six Arab brothers" who resisted
U.S. and Afghan troops in a Kandahar hospital "for 45 days using
- Uday's remarks were made during a meeting with the chief
of radio stations in the nation of Libya, Ali Kilani al-Qadhafi, carried
in an Arabic language newspaper in London and reported by Radio Free
- An attack against Iraq "is planned for either April
or May," according to Moscow's speculation, and the U.S. strategy
is thought to consist of three stages.
- The first stage is a "campaign of intimidation"
against Saddam's regime, which Moscow sees as "already in
Next, the U.S. will use "concentrated fire" against
important civil and military targets." The final stage will incite
"the opposition's uprising" with the help of "special
supported by "United States military aid."
- Although Moscow appears to predict that U.S. strategy
in Iraq will follow a similar pattern as in Afghanistan, two opponents
of the Iraqi regime warn that there are important differences between Iraq
and the situation in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
- The two leaders represent different factions of the
ethnic group, which opposes the present Iraqi regime.
- Mas'ud Barzani, head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party,
and Jalal Talibani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, both demand
to know who will replace Saddam before action of any kind is taken.
- Talibani also rejected the possibility of a successful
military coup against Saddam.
- Any military unit movement requires multiple layers of
approval, including permission from Iraqi security, intelligence and the
ruling Baath Party. Talibani also stated that when military units deploy,
they "move without ammunition."
- Talibani and Barzani's remarks were carried by Al-Jazeera
Satellite Television, and reported by Radio Free Europe/Radio
- Substantial opposition to the present Iraqi regime does,
however, exist, but there is also a limited window of opportunity to remove
Hussein, according to the former director of Iraq's atomic bomb development
project, Khidhir Hamza, in a recent interview on Fox News.
- Although Saddam's Republican Guard "would stay
Hamza said, a large part of the military would support a change in
if the opportunity arose.
- Hamza was also confident that the opposition to Saddam
could produce a democratic form of leadership for the nation.
- Delay, however, is risky Hamza warned, citing a German
intelligence estimate that Iraq could have as many as three atomic bombs
by 2005. If Saddam acquired the bomb, removal of the Iraqi dictator would
be considerably more "dangerous," Hamza observed.
- © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.
- From Frances
- Excuse me for my ignorance - I KNOW WHY they went after
Iraq the first time - because US Ambassador April Glasby gave Hussein tacit
permission to try to stop the Kuwaitis from slant-drilling HIS oil...and
that was an excuse for Bush et. al. to jump in to 'protect' the Kuwaitis
and the oil supply. But why is Iraq such a "touchy feely" issue
now, and why would it spell disaster for humankind if there was a war
It's not as though I condone a war there - I think there should be NO WARS
anywhere, least of all against an innocent nation that's just trying to
protect their own resources (like Hussein was trying to do). I just don't
understand why it would be such a catastrophe for all humankind.