davywavy | Dear Zac, thanks for your money.

Some of you may remember the brief fear that there was going to be a war with Iraq this year. Indeed, most people seemed suckered by the scaremongering of the media and genuinely believed that Bush and Blair were going to kick off on Iraq any second.

Most people, that was, except me.
Some of you may remember that back in September I was willing to bet money that there wouldn't be a war in 2002, and unless something changes in the next 24 hours, I reckon my money is safe.
In the light of that, I'm calling in the five pounds that

applez bet me here

To paraphrase The Princess Bride, there are two classic erros, the first is never start a land war in Asia, the second is never argue with a Wade when there's money of the line.

So why didn't I think there was going to be a war when everyone else did? Principally, because I didn't believe what it said in the news. Newpaper editors long ago discovered that if your headline is "WAR BY TUESDAY!!!!", yuo will sell more papers than you will if your headline is "FLUFFY BUNNIES FROLIC ON THE HILLSIDE!!!!". As such, it's not in their interest to print anything about there not being a war.
Instead, I looked at the lessons of history and the logistics of fighting an invasive desert war and decided that it just wasn't going to happen.
In fact, I'm confident enough that I'm prepared to offer another bet: Five pounds, or to you, Mr Appleton, double or quits.

There may be bombing of Iraq and special forces deployed in the region to mission-specific targets. However, in the first quarter of 2003, there will not be a war against Iraq in the usually accepted sense of the word (i.e. large scale commitment of invasive ground forces, and British Tommy showing Johnny foreigner what for).

Actually I think this is a shame, as Saddam really does have to go. And after him, we could go and sort out Mugabe. However, it just isn't going to happen.

Any takers?