by dolphman 280 Replies latest social current
so realist, let me get this straight.......it is your opinion that hussein may have indeed tried to privately negotiate, and it was kept so top secret from any media sources that these talks never were made public. um, okay.....if it makes you feel better, then by all means stick to it. the rest of the world will continue to know that hussein would never, ever accept defeat by leaving before the war even started..............hell, he hasnt even accepted that he lost the first gulf war yet!
aa
dubla,
the world is not quite as simple as you imagine it to be.
hussein is telling his people exactly what they are supposed to hear. bush is telling his people exxactly what they are supposed to hear. do you really think you get news from the white house that would damage the public opinion about bush? do you really think hussein is gonna tell his people that they were utterly defeted in the first GW and that they have not the slightest chance against the US army now?
propaganda aside neither bush nor hussein are nutcases. they do what is strategically best for them.
The Pentagon has just said that they have NOT found WMD after all. www.bbc.co.uk
But of course, all the public will remember is the headline that they have.
Just because someone may be against the war doesn't mean they are 'saddam lovers'.
Where were the United States when Saddam gassed the Kurds in the early '80's?
They sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1985 to meet with Saddam, what for? To condemn him? No, but to sell him more WMD.
The whole western world would like to see Saddam brought to justice but some of us cannot see how a war can be justified when innocent people are going to be killed. The whole point about the war is that it is illegal and against the rules of international law. Attacks are only allowed if a country is attacked first or any attack has UN approval.
The horrifying pictures of bombing victims are avoidable. War is not the answer.
the world is not quite as simple as you imagine it to be.hussein is telling his people exactly what they are supposed to hear. bush is telling his people exxactly what they are supposed to hear.
thats obvious, and true of all wars. there will always be propaganda on both sides telling us what we need to hear, and nothing that would be too damaging to public opinion. i dont imagine it to be any simpler than that. the problem is that the war opposers have this blanket opinion of the prowar posters, thinking that we blindly believe all u.s. media reports, and blindly follow all of bushs words, which is just categorically incorrect.
your points only reinforce mine, which is that hussein would never want his side believing that he negotiated surrender/exile, and our side would love for this type of news to break publicly. it never happened, or we wouldve made damn sure the world knew about it, plain and simple.
aa
your points only reinforce mine, which is that hussein would never want his side believing that he negotiated surrender/exile, and our side would love for this type of news to break publicly. it never happened, or we wouldve made damn sure the world knew about it, plain and simple.
nope...the bush administration has as little reason to broadcast these tapes as does hussein. how would bush justify this war if hussein was willing to leave the country? how would he justify that these negotiations were not made public? how would he justify that the UN was not informed? he told the US public that he wants hussein out or the war would start...but once hussein is willing to leave the US says no no we were not serious. there is no way bush would favour the release of such tapes.
how would bush justify this war if hussein was willing to leave the country?
he wouldnt have had to. had hussein left, and the entire regime stepped down, we wouldve simply marched into the country and taken over until an interim government could be put in place, and we wouldve had our 300,000 inspectors start searching for wmd, as they are now. or perhaps larger scale u.n. inspections wouldve continued....its hard to say at this point. we will never know.
how would he justify that these negotiations were not made public?
they would have been made public if they ever took place, thats the whole point (ad nauseum).
how would he justify that the UN was not informed?
the u.n. wouldve been informed....it would serve no purpose to keep this info from the u.n.
he told the US public that he wants hussein out or the war would start...
thats correct...um, your point?
but once hussein is willing to leave the US says no no we were not serious.
when was hussein ever willing to leave? he wasnt, not at any point in time.....you are still fabricating this idea.
aa
dubla,
the point of the discussion is whether bush wants to occupy iraq or not....respectively what his intentions are.
i strongly believe his intentions are to grasp the iraqi oil.
if this is the case (and the future will tell whether i am right or wrong) than bush has/d to create a threat scenario....otherwise he cannot justify to go to war or to occupy iraq and to break current oil contracts. if hussein would have left than there would be no threat...hence no occupation of iraq.
if hussein would have left than there would be no threat...hence no occupation of iraq.
not true.....the u.s. has already said that even if saddam left the country, we would still continue our occupation until a complete regime change was in place. now, if the entire regime stepped down, thats different, and wouldve possibly had a different outcome. like i said, we will never know because saddam was unwilling to even discuss this. saying that saddam might have secretly talked about surrender/exile is the only fabrication that you are clinging to at this point, and there is absolutely zero evidence to support your views whatsoever. in contrast, there is evidence to back my view that he never had any intention of considering exile, including multiple statements/promises from saddam himself on the matter. if you believe he considered exile, the burden of proof is on you to show it, which you cannot. but hey, its all about our original argument, isnt it? that being, whether or not saddam is a "rational" man. you can keep clinging to that belief, i wont hold it against you, lol.
aa
dubla,
i never claimed there were secret negotiations...i just said we would not know if there were.
we cannot look inside the head of either bush or saddam. therefore we are both speculating.
you speculate saddam is a mad man, i speculate bush is primarily interested in the oil.
you speculate saddam is a mad man, i speculate bush is primarily interested in the oil.
yes, but now we both know saddam is irrational, as shown by his willingness to stay in iraq and die with a dying regime.....and those were your stipulations for proving his "irrationality".
aa
