From: gtoal@gem.stack.urc.tue.nl (Graham Toal)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Come on, who was it bet me $50???
Date: 25 Jul 92 12:55:56 GMT
Reply-To: gtoal@stack.urc.tue.nl
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

By the way, I'm *most* impressed by John's ability to find all this
stuff from so long ago.  Thanks.  (You don't work for the NSA do you? ;-) )

In article <JMC.92Jul19170737@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Now I suppose Mr. Toal would like me to bet under conditions that would
>count U.S. military participation in U.N. action to protect
>the Bosnians from the Serbs as invading another country.

Well, how about unilateral US action in Yugoslavia?  Hmmm...  no, even
unilateral action would be fudged to get UN support, like the Iraq
thing was...

>This is certainly a possibility before the U.S. elections, although I
>doubt Mr. Toal would claim the U.S. precipitated the situation in
>Yugoslavia for Bush's benefit.  It doesn't seem very likely, however.
>The U.N. is very reluctant, and, moreover it probably would not be to
>Bush's domestic political advantage to take anything like the leading
>role the U.S. took in liberating Kuwait.

Well, it's not just _my_ opinion.  Here's an excerpt from the
article "US forces on alert as exodus begins" from the front page
of The Sunday Times (19th July):  'James Baker, secretary of state,
 is being urged by his closest advisors to commit American troops
 to restore order in Yugoslavia.  "Some people in the administration
 feel the disintegration of Yugoslavia is a terrible signal to send
 the world after the end of the cold war," said one source.  "So far
 we have stood back and allowed the Europeans or the UN to try and
 sort it out.  It's time we took charge."
    Both Baker and Bush see political advantage in playing a bold
 military hand in an election year.  But the Pentagon is urging
 caution.  Dick Cheney, defence secretary, and General Colin Powell,
 chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, have argued that any commitment
 of American troops to Yugoslavia would be a mistake.  "They see
 another Lebanon where US forces were sent in without a mission
 and without support", said one defence source.'

So yes, the UN isn't very keen on it, and the army isn't
very keen on it, but Bush and Baker seem to be.  Presumably
if they find a better target, they'll go for that instead.


>I don't only bet on sure things, so here's my current offer.
>
>I offer to bet $50 even odds that the U.S. will take no military
>action that results in the loss of more than 5 armed U.S. ground
>soldiers or marines in combat.  I don't count a transport plane being
>shot down as such an action, e.g. a relief plane at Sarajevo airport.
>I also don't count pilots, since I air action doesn't count as an
>invasion.  I therefore don't count attacks on bars or on military
>advisers.  In order to avoid dubious cases I don't count countries
>where U.S. troops are currently stationed.  Both Yugoslavia and
>Cuba do count.

That's rather weasely...  Mind you, even after eliminating the two
most likely targets, there's *still* a good chance of a timely
hit on Iraq... in fact, they can pull that one any time they
like: as far as I know, Saddam's obstruction of the UN inspectors
hasn't changed much recently - it's just getting more publicity
to soften up the US public for another air-strike... which brings
me to the real weaseling: why rule out airstrikes?  That's exactly
the sort of operation that you'd pull off to yank the election
chain.  Like the Libya strike a couple of years ago.
Ditto why insist on US injuries?  That's totally incidental to the
argument, which was  that some military action would be taken
to get the public in a jingoistic mood so they'd vote Bush back
on a landslide.  For those purposes a 'quick surgical strike'
with no US losses would be ideal, otherwise we'd hear arguments
about "how many of our boys do you want to kill to win you
the next election?"...

No, too restrictive.  Wouldn't take that bet without odds :-)  Still,
it'll be enough to look back on this exchange after election day
and have a good chuckle.  It was only a token bet to make a point anyway...

G
From: Steve.Rose@f134.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Steve Rose)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP