[PEN-L:29570] Re: Rumours of war on Iraq

[Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bush I sloshed about looking for a justification [e.g., Baker, It's about
oil] and none took hold until he warned that Saddam had nukes ready to
fly.  Rob need not worry about the attack hurting Bush in 2004.  There are
plenty of dogs to wag.

On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 01:40:24AM +1000, Rob Schaap wrote:
> I'm with Michael Pollack on this one.  No realistic discernable
> strategic goal.  No reliable staging posts.  No enduring alliance.  No
> conceivable solution to the Palestine question.  No decisive good will
> in the region.  No hard evidence to defend pretext #1 (Baghdad links to
> al Qaeda), pretext #2 (capacity and intention to deploy weapons of mass
> destruction against 'west'), or the desperately shrill pretext #3
> (Saddam is worse than any other despot in the world and it's worth
> killing tens of thousands of people who aren't Saddam to depose him).
> So what support there is even at home for a unilateral first strike is
> likely a mile wide and an inch deep (even if enough support for
> November, that support would be wider than it is deep, and likely to
> damage 2004 chances).
>
> Anyway, if the attack was to be a full scale November invasion, would
> they not already have to be landing armour, logistics and troops in
> discernable quantities?
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
>
> Michael Pollak wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 17 Aug 2002, Michael Perelman wrote:
> >
> > > I suspect that the war is directed at the Nov. elections.
> >
> > Michael, if it will cheer you up, I'll bet you there's no war before the
> > elections.  In fact I'll give you 2 to 1.  And if you'll give me 2 to 1,
> > I'll bet you they will be no war in next 365 days.
> >
> > Michael
>

--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx