Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (1279)	1/13/2003 10:43:00 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25898

>>>The poll comes a day after International Development Secretary Clare Short said London should not join a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq and that it was Britain's duty to restrain Washington.<<< In my view, it should not be the duty of Britain to restrain Bush's want for war. The fact is we should already have a president in place who is intelligent enough to know he shouldn't so early have committed such enormous military might into the region. You see, now that he's got it there he's now gotta save face, which means he's gonna use his military machine whether Blair likes it or not. Indeed, Bush didn't have to commit so early because the threat of a US take out always remains, especially with a Bush in the presidency. I just finished watching Gretta and Ollie on Fox. The name combo sorta sounds nice, doesn't it--lol? But it's not nice, at least what Ollie had to say. He noted that around January 20th, former Iraqi citizens who've formed into an opposition government will return to Iraq, in the land of the Kurds, and declare its government in charge of the country. This opposition government seems convenient for the provocation card Bush will need in order to begin his war. No question about it. The UN's inspection process, for Bush, is untimely. The US military is there, ready to fight and only awaiting the Go word. Each passing day it becomes clearer and clearer that the green light Bush wants isn't going to come from the UN peacekeeping body. Thus, Bush will have to go it alone 'cause he can't leave such a large military force just hanging around out there, and he'll be deeply criticized here in the US if he's forced to bring the troops home. "What a waste of taxpayer money," will be the cry echoing thoughout America where virtually every state is cutting back their respective budgets. So it appears as if the unintelligent Bush has boxed himself in to a point where his only move in this chess game is first provocating incident and then war. How Saddam behaves to the newly announced opposition Iraqi government is the key. The way Bush figures it, Saddam's gonna lose either way. Bush will immediately recognize the new opposition government, Blair will try to do so as well, and perhaps a handful of other nations subservient to the US will follow. Under this scenario Saddam either moves his military towards the land of the Kurds in order to take out the new government; or he sets back, ignores 'em and does nothing. If he does nothing, then the new government forces will attack Baghdad and early in this process request for assistance will go to the US. Bush won't just say know. Why should he...he's already ready for this war. Kaboom--dead people all around; Bush is now a war general with a proud dad. Perhaps a hint to this is what's recently become the US stance toward the North Korean crisis. Although denying it's a compromise the US is now compromising to end the nuclear standoff. Regardless of Rumsfeld's war ego, calming the North Korean crisis gives Bush the time he needs to promulgate his war and go for the oil. Some would call this scenario Grim City. I do!