[Nettime-bold] bush gang wants to start war soon

[ernie yacub <yacinfo@mars.ark.com>]

The bush gang is intent on starting a war before the elections to bolster 
republican candidates.  Preparation for the war may also help the stock 
market.  They are taking a huge risk.  Failure would be devastating to their 
cause.  They will bomb hell out of Iraq and they will probably use nukes.

A lot of Iraqi people are going to die. Maybe Americans don't give a shit. A 
lot of American soldiers are also going to die.  Maybe the idea of such a 
crass political sacrifice will create enough of a backlash in the US to stop 
the madness. Then again, maybe nobody gives a shit about the grunts either.

Watch out for a round up of lefties.  

ernie

 On Friday 26 July 2002 23:00, you wrote:
> Folks: Most of the following is a montage of stories from the Manchester
> Guardian and "an unnamed source"...
>
> "... diplomatic, military and intelligence sources revealed details of a
> new plan for the invasion of Iraq, which could take place sooner than had
> previously been presumed. The plan involves a slimmed-down force of around
> 50,000 troops, which could be deployed within a matter of days. It had been
> widely assumed that the US could not deploy sufficient numbers of troops
> needed for the task before the end of this year at the earliest. Now senior
> officials are saying a sudden military strike could be launched as soon as
> October."
>
> "Boeing and other US companies are working round the clock, producing
> satellite-guided "smart" bombs that would be used in huge air strikes to
> accompany any ground invasion."
>
> "Although no plan of attack has yet been finalized... a Washington source
> familiar with administration thinking said some attack is virtually
> certain... there was still considerable internal debate within the
> Administration concerning three possible plans of attack... Mr Bush had not
> yet decided how or when to attack Iraq..."
>
> "Two options have been widely discussed in Washington. One would involve
> inserting Iraqi defectors, backed by 5,000 US troops and "precision" air
> strikes. The plan was once dismissed by General Anthony Zinni, America's
> Middle East envoy, as a recipe for a "Bay of Goats" disaster, comparable to
> the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba. "
>
> "The second option, which would require at least a three-month build-up, is
> the US military's central command standard war plan, involving 250,000
> troops and heavy armor."
>
> "A new third option now being considered is for a sudden strike, involving
> no more than 50,000 troops who would bypass the Iraqi army and make
> straight for Baghdad... with thousands of US troops already deployed in
> Kuwait and Qatar, such a plan could be executed quickly, officials say."
>
> "Though a sudden attack combining air power and ground forces would still
> involve huge risks, it would have the advantage of avoiding mounting
> opposition to military action against Iraq in such countries as Saudi
> Arabia and Jordan... possible strategic surprise is a plus for this option
> as well... military sources describe this third option as "high risk" but
> with a "high payoff" were it to succeed."
>
> [sources say] the US were [is] opposed to seeking a new UN security council
> resolution to justify an attack on Iraq... [the US] will adopt the position
> that action is allowable under existing UN resolutions."
>
>
>
>
> Michael D. Wallace
> Department of Political Science &
> The Liu Centre for the Study of Global Issues
> University of British Columbia
> Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z1
> phone:(604)822-4550, fax:822-5540

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold