According to a report by Michael Ruppert (his site is back up - it disappeared almost immediately after he posted the item last night), it is likely that Bush will start the next phase of his war to coincide with his State of the Union address - which is certainly one way to make sure his speech is not analysed too closely.

As end of January/beginning of February has always been the administrations projected starting date for the conquest of Iraq, though, Tuesday seems as good a night as any - and the media would certainly appreciate the opportunity to end the evening with a bang. Do others here see this as likely?

If this is the case, there should be some very lively chat here on Tuesday night...

According to Ari's news conference yesterday there is no time set but time is running out.

How can time be running out if there is no set time?

whitehouse.gov

Wertz - are you taking bets?

Basheva: Were I a gambler, maybe... You laying odds?

Of course - two Les Sylphides to one Swan Lake


make me an offer I can't refuse

I frequently visit another board. When they make bet's the loser has to pay by using a signature that pertains to the bet and shows they were losers.

In this case if Basheva lost her signature would say something like: I'm a loser, I believed Bush. (or some other saying that was previously agreed upon.) Wertz would have to use a sig admitting he was wrong about Bush if he lost. They usually have to keep that sig for a week or so. It's kind of fun.

Basheva: How about your Sylphides to my Spartacus? (I'm more of a Khatchaturian than a Tchaikovsky type.)

Danya: Ah, the public humiliation approach! Besides, I'm not all that certain that Ruppert is right - I just thought it'd put an interesting spin on the Live Chat. At the moment, I'd say the odds are about 5-4 against. A lot depends on the Monday's report from the "so-called inspectors" as Dubya likes to call them - and whether or not he actually has anything to say in his State of the Union.

I want to think about the light things, I want to make some cheery predictions on this thread, but I am sorry I can't. War is the most horrible thing there is and all of us, we debate it here like it's some abstract notion, but it's not. It's people being torn to shreds by cluster bombs. It's little kids evaporating after stepping on a land mine.

It's an equation I would love for the human race to put behind them:

death + death x death = death

Q-head: I think maybe you're being a tad unfair. I suspect that the reason some of us argue against war is exactly because we know that war is not an abstraction. Others here may be well aware of the very real mayhem which results from warfare, but feel that some things are worth fighting for, despite the carnage. I, for example, lost several friends and classmates to Vietnam - which certainly strengthened my feelings about waging war in general. There a few veterans posting here who may either have experienced war first hand or at least been prepared to face the prospect. I realize that it is much easier to debate war than actually find oneself in the trenches, but I believe that, for many of us, the fact of death is a serious consideration in forming our opinions either way.