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
