IRAQ WAR TIMETABLE MOVED UP TO MARCH/ EARLY APRIL..

DEBKA and World NetDaily ^ | February 23, 2002 | Terrorism and Security Newsletter

[VMI70]

I more expect large scale internal fighting to break out in at least two if not three fronts inside iraq, with the US providing tactical cover...

I'm not sure that strategy will work, at least not with the Kurds. We already screwed them once, and I read in an earlier thread that they are not too keen on being the fall guys again.
As far as internal rebellion goes, if I were the rebels, I would want rock-solid assurances that the USA is in for the duration, unlike our performance at the Bay of Pigs. People have a long memory when it comes to this kind of thing.

All that being said, I trust President Bush and his team implicitly to carry out our end of the bargain. I surely hope the dissident Iraqis and the Kurds see it that way.

FReegards,

[JamesWilson]

April showers bring glowing flowers.....

LOL. Nice one, tracer.

[aristeides]

The best time politically to attack Iraq (for the Bush adm) is just a month or two before the November elections.

Very risky, surely? Suppose there are reverses.

[aristeides]

It would be worth it to us to offer Saddam and his family a cushy and secure retirement, if they would agree to leave Iraq. I wonder if we have made such an offer.

[RCW2001]

Will not happen pre-November elections. Economy is stabilizing ONLY because the price of oil/energy's decline.

Will not risk the economic impact of an unstable energy market...pre-election.

[Jim Noble]

>>One problem with this is that there has been no troop movements, activation of reserves, preparation of large transport ships, etc., all those things that are necessary as a preamble to a large scale military operation<<

Don't be so sure....

'nuff said.

[Jim Noble]

>>I still don't get why Iraq and not Saudi Arabia.<<

Yes, I posted a vanity in Dec. called "Should we do Saudi Arabia first?" I asked Jim to pull it after it degenerated into a flamefest, but it's still a good question.

I think the powers that be have decided that with Iraq we will get two for the price of one - if we do SA it will make Saddam certain he's next, and create a window of opportunity for all-out WMD deployment if he has any-but if we do Saddam first, the Saudis will get the message, shape up, and we won't have to occupy them.

I'm not sure that's factual, but I think Bush and Rummy believe it, and they get to decide.

[Jim Noble]

>>Oman doesn't have a border with Iraq<<

Camp Rhino was 650 miles from the beach, but Uncle Sam's Misguided Children found their way there anyway...

[Rebelbase]

"the ordnance situation"

My source says that the suppliers have been working 24/7 since October.

[1L]

But if Saddam (now 65) and not the kind of man to remain vigorous to a very old age

Two words: Fidel Castro.

[VMI70]

I don't get your enigmatic reply:

Don't be so sure....

...that there haven't been any of the things done that are necessary for a large scale conflict?
(I note that you left off the final phrase of my sentence referring to that. I wonder why.)

...that is no longer necessary to do those things in preparation?

...that there is even going to be a large scale confict?

Inquiring minds...

[Jim Noble]

I would not be so sure that necessary preparations are not underway.

I really can't provide any more clarity, sorry.