Hi Rob,
On , you wrote me:

 RM> WH~Now, personally, I suspect that the US is not wrong about Iraq.
 RM>   ~I think the circumstantial evidence makes it look bad for them,
 RM>   ~but I don't think Bush should start a war until the evidence is
 RM>   ~better than circumstantial.

 RM> WH~Your opinions may vary :)

 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)

 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
 RM> that maybe there were some dangerous people in Afghanistan
 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)
 RM> much closer to Iraq though. They could be hit very quickly
 RM> without as much prep. and, therefor, with less notice.
 RM> It's a gamble, the odds of which depend on whether you
 RM> are talking the USA Mainland or her 'interests'...

 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.
 RM> Then they can go in with humanitarian aid (a.k.a Bribery)
 RM> and defuse Iraq without destabalizing the entire region,
 RM> althouh many experts believe the opposite will be true.
 RM> A strong Saddam held in check makes for a Very stable
 RM> region whereas someone weaker in power would invite
 RM> countries like Iran to march in to try to take over.

I think this is all about oil, and a part of me sides with you on the bluff theory.

The problem with replacing Saddam is that the visible possible replacements
are expected to be as bad or worse.

I might see it differently if the common rhetoric was that the USA was
going to free the opppressed Iraqi people, but that is not the major
flavour of the Bush Residency's media machine.

 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..

In fact, holding Iraq not only helps to put a new wrinkle on world oil
supplies, it is also in a particularly good position from a military point
of view: close to America's prime enemies.

 RM> As a sub-note... Should I turn out to be correct about Bush
 RM> hoping Saddam will 'go away', I also don't believe that will
 RM> ever happen short of an Iraqis led coup. I'll wager that
 RM> Saddam's last act before giving up office would be to use
 RM> nukes and/or biologicals and everything else he has left
 RM> on everyone in the region he could hit including his own
 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.


I want to wager against you, but...



From the desk of,

  Michael

--- DevilPoint  6.66