[thechat] war phase 2

[Seth Bienek]

> http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/26/ret.bush.terrorism/index.html
> anyone want to take bets on when the US plans to attack Iraq?

I'll put my money on the "within 30 days" slot.

> I mean with a full-on war.  January?

Pshh.  Nothing says "Merry Christmas" like a few dozen tomahawk cruise missiles. :)

> It will depend in part on how quickly we are able to "finish off" 
> Afghanistan, & move toward getting nice pro-US regime in place.  We 
> need that pipeline for our Caspian oil.  (I'll take a double shot of 
> blood with mine, thank you.)

This works for me.  Well, minus the bloodshed part.  See below.

> Then there has to be a set up.
> 
> Then Bush will give the ultimatum.  The ultimatum  will have to be 
> constructed in such a way that Iraq either looses face, or gets its 
> ass kicked in a war.  It will have to be an impossible choice, of 
> course.

You mean like this?
"Bush issues strong warning to Iraq  
Baghdad must allow weapons inspectors back - or else "
http://www.msnbc.com/news/663215.asp

I don't see this as an impossible choice - unless you are a ruthless dictator unwilling to give up your arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, oh, and your nuclear weapons program.  Iraq has already lost face; Saddam has lost face.  Military action in Iraq will be short-lived and will produce the results we need - control over Saddam's chemical and biological weapons programs.

> After defeating them, we will portray ourselves as "liberators" of 
> the Iraqi people.  We will then rebuild with a pro-US government. 
> The manufacture of war and the resulting US-friendly regimes will 
> help US businesses.  So everybody wins.

Sure, you make it sound so simple.  I don't see the Iraqi government being changed, sad to say.  

> And then we move on to the next country, the next manufactured situation.

Maybe I'm a part of the brainwashed majority here, but I see no manufactured situations.  Only controversial decisions that have to be made, like wether to risk the lives of American soldiers to confront threats that are at the moment only perceived as "potential" threats.  Or do we wait until Saddam has full-on nuclear capability before we confront him?

> blitzkrieg is so intoxicating...  why stop when you're on a roll?

I like the way you're thinking.  I hope this isn't sarcasm!  :)

Take Care,

Seth