Skip to content or view screen version

Attention: Are they not perhaps pushing for an early March attack on Iraq?

Epimenedes | 21.02.2003 09:54

The lunar cycle gives two ideal times for the Americans, with their night fighting advantages to go in: very early March or very late March/early April. Recent rumblings from Rumsfeld, and Blair's appeal to the old 1441 resolution, warns us that after all they may still go early

The lunar cycle gives two ideal times for the Americans, with their night fighting advantages to go in: very early March or very late March/early April. Recent rumblings from Rumsfeld, and Blair's appeal to the old 1441 resolution, warns us that after all they may still go in early March.

Put these pieces of information together:
"Britain, U.S. plan to present resolution to UN next week"
 http://www.canoe.ca/LondonNews/lf.lf-02-21-0016.html
(ie. the talk earlier this week that they would wait until mid-March for a new resolution may not be correct)

with
"Rumsfeld: Military ready to go if Bush gives order"
 http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/21/sprj.irq.rumsfeld
 http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=07D2D7B1-C5E7-490B-9716DFB2185BF5E1

with
"Both the United States and Britain warn their citizens to leave Iraq, Kuwait, and the occupied territories of Israel immediately"
 http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=35E77821-89DB-4615-B5697759F5E7D406

They had always preferred the early March deadline, and had thought it was on stream until Blix, and the French/German/Russian opposition, made a mid-February UN agreement impossible.

BUT THE BASTARDS CONTINUED TO WORK TO THEIR ORIGINAL MILITARY TIMETABLE

so people perhaps need to be ready to be very busy in the next couple of weeks.

Epimenedes

Comments

Display the following 2 comments

  1. Early March is probably right — Steve
  2. Or is this just to scare the French/Russians? — Ghost Buster