|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I've been indulging in that activity myself. And I come to a different
interpretation of the apparent lack of evidence re Iraq. Consider that Iraq
was supposed to do all this disarmament immediately folowing '91. That was in
exchange for taking him out then. W is just the first person to actually take
the agreement seriously. Even his father didn't and Bill C sure didn't.
Secondly, this guy attempted to assasinate a former US president (G HW Bush).
For that alone we should have destroyed him and whatever else had to go with
it. As far as I can tell we did nothing.
Third, two or so years ago Jim Smith of the Princeton Economics Institute wrote
a very incisive piece asserting that we would havbe to put US soldiers on the
ground, under fire because of oil--Saudi overthrown, Israel attacked etc. He
didn't say when but reasoned it was a virtual certainty.
If Smith is correct, then better for us to choose when and how and where we
will establish a sphere of influlence in the Middle East. Irag seems to be the
perfect pretext for a geopolitically necessary event.
So short term the pretext has sufficient validity and long term it is
unavoidable. If you know you're going to have to be in a fight, pick you own
time and place rather than have it sprung upon you.
The suggestion (not sure if BobKC was making it) that Iraq is just a ploy to
get political points, boost chances for re-election seem naive. With the
spport he's gotten post 9-11 he needn't take such a big chance. The Iraq thing
is very risky for him--mainly in the aftermath phase. If his goal was simply
re-election there are many safer (in the short term) ways--play more UN games,
apease the world, chase terrorists, have Jimmy Carter make a deal with Sadam
like he did with N Korea. W could easily get two years of marking time.
Problem is, in the long term he would sell us down ther river like so many
previous presidents.
Quoting BobsKC <bobskc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I was doing something dangerous this evening. I was thinking. :) We are
> claiming that Iraq has all these weapons of mass destruction but we have
> offered nearly zero proof. The investigators are finding nothing even with
> our photographic evidence from space. Even so, without any proof whatever,
> we continue to prepare for war there. The markets are jittery as hell
> about this but lets consider ...... just for fun .. that Bush does not
> intend to attack Iraq at all but rather to call the whole thing off which
> would be grand news to the financial markets and "save his butt" on the
> home front. The markets historically don't do so well in Feb which would
> be a good time for him to pull the worry plug. It's the only thing that
> makes sense to me with regard to this continued build up and threatening
> posturing with no proof to back it up. Time will tell.
>
> Bob
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Best Regards,
Jim Johnson
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|