On (07 Feb 03) Rob McCart wrote to Wheezer...
 RM> Being a Canadian and, hence, by nature, 'non-violent', (yeah right)
 RM> I hesitate to say "Nuke 'em all into the stoneage"...
 RM> err..  "..MORE into the stone age..."     B)

They're certainly not backwards at all,having had the benefit of
competing U.S. and USSR interests bringing all sorts of technology/money
into the country for years, in an attempt to secure an edge in the
resource wars!

 RM> No, actually I agree with you that the proof is a little light
 RM> to go into a full-blown war. WAITING for proof Could result
 RM> in some really convincing proof like 9-11 brought to light

Like how 9-11 was actually done by a CIA-trained & financed entity? :P

 RM> but, really, it's not likely Iraq could do too much direct
 RM> damage to the USA without them being aware. That doesn't
 RM> necessarily go for their 'friends' (a.k.a  Oil suppliers)

That's the real damage, Bush is afraid of -- any interruption in "The
American Way" (unlimited consumption)

 RM> That said, and I may prove to be wrong, I don't believe
 RM> that Bush intends to go to war. I think he intends to
 RM> have the Iraqis BELIEVE the USA wants to go to war in the
 RM> hopes that through one means or another Saddam will lose
 RM> (or give up) control without them having to fire a shot.

Not likely that this'll happen -- Saddam had this option/opportunity
with Desert Storm! :P

(the US should've done the job right back then -- if the goal was to
neutralize SoDamn Insane, then they should HAVE DONE so!)

 RM> Then they can go in with humanitarian aid (a.k.a Bribery)
 RM> and defuse Iraq without destabalizing the entire region,

They've been trying this for years! (DECADES, even!) :P

 RM> So, win the war and America ends up policing and protecting
 RM> the losers for the next umpteen years (see - Israel...)
 RM> But at least Iraq has oil so there's something there to protect..

Protect, nothing -- Bush wants unlimited access to "U.S. Oil Reserves in
Iraq" (yeah, it sounds ludicrous -- even the Senate debates were rather
dubious of Bush's phraseology!) :P

 RM> people before he would willingly give up power. He wouldn't
 RM> willingly, even if allowed, take his billion$ and leave.
 RM> He's not in it for the money.

True enough -- he's an insane megalomaniac! :P

Your friend,
<+]::-{)}  (Cyberpope(the Bishop of ROM!))
Ask me how to connect with me in any of 5 different Instant Messengers


--- PPoint 1.76