Will Saddam get caught? (page 3)

Realist

hello dubla,

sorry for the delay...I had to conquer the world last night (in a game of Risk )

what does bttt stand for?

about the quotes:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 (UPI) -- The United States would try to find a refuge for Saddam Hussein and members of his inner circle if the Iraqi leader decides to go into exile, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday.

this is pretty much the same thing bush said just in a little more diplomatic way. the fact remains that the US basically demanded hussein to declare publicly (i assume) to leave iraq and only then would the US TRY to find a refuge. no word about the CIA etc.

i am sorry but i can only repeat myself. such issues cannot be discussed via the media. this is not the way how it works and i am quite sure that the US either never meant it to be serious OR that there were negotiations behind closed doors.

whether these negotiations failed (if they took place) because hussein is dense or because the US did not provide sufficient guarantees can only be speculated. since the US most likely wants to control iraq the latter seems more reasonable however imo.

GermanXJW

Baghdad is a city of 4m inhabitants. I don't think they will find Saddam there, maybe not even one of his stuntmen.

But I feel fear thinking about the forces entering this 4m city and the reaction of the arabic world...

blondie

I was remembering Idi Amin, the butchering dictator of Uganda. He escaped and lived out his life in Libya courtesy Qaddafi. I anticipate Saddam will escape to a country that will shield him, maybe Syria.

Blondie

dubla

realist-

i realize weve discussed this ad naseum, so ill be brief in my reply to the bulk of your post, and please dont feel you have to respond to this again.......i will simply repeat myself one more time in saying that there would be absolutely no need for negotiations beyond what was offered, as hussein was adamant about not leaving EVER for ANY deal whatsoever. further talks, in private as you say they should be, would be completely laughable under these circumstances. i suspect you privately know this to be true, regardless of your reluctance to admit it publicly. but, you have your opinion on the matter, and its yours alone.....no one else who knows a lick about hussein would expect these token and useless proceedings as you do.

i would like to respond to this, and get a reply if you have the time.......

whether these negotiations failed (if they took place) because hussein is dense or because the US did not provide sufficient guarantees can only be speculated. since the US most likely wants to control iraq the latter seems more reasonable however imo.

i commented on this idea in a previous post and specifically asked for a reply. basically, your logic here is completely baffling to me, and i have a hard time understanding how you even buy into it. if saddam and the regime were to step down, and leave the country, we would have control! we would march into the country with little or no fighting, and begin to set up an interim government. why would we need him dead at that point? wed have the oil, if thats what we are after.....what else would we need (according to you)?

aa

p.s. bttt stands for "back to the top"

Realist

dubla,

just for your info i am by far not the only one who views the US offer as laughable.

just out of curiosity what would you have expected saddam to do after the TV offer? tell bush via the media that he is considering leaving iraq thereby weakening his position to a point that gets dangerous for him? very odd scenario.

ok lets say saddam would have left what official reason could bush have invented to march into iraq? invading an independet country because its government stepped down? oh please...have you heard anyting about international law? i guess you would have bought that as absolutely necessary for US security as well but it would be an even more unbelievable scenario.

dubla

realist-

just out of curiosity what would you have expected saddam to do after the TV offer?

if youre speaking of the bush tv 48 hr. ultimatum, i expected him to do nothing, as it was realistically a little late for travel plans. if youre speaking of the many previous offers, and encouragement from the arab nations for him to leave, then.........its pretty simple. he listens to the arab nations asking him to leave, and works out a deal privately with one of them for exile (as i have noted earlier, many arab nations were said to have offered him exile, but didnt wish for it to be made public)....then, once the deal is made, the u.s. is brought into the equation, and they work on a "gauranteed safety" promise that everyone can accept to avoid war (do you really think wed publicly say we would welcome and aid his departure, and then make fools out of ourselves by killing him once he left?). again, if these talks had ever taken place, it would have been in the best interest of the u.s. to make them public, as this would weaken saddams stance to his people in a large way.

ok lets say saddam would have left what official reason could bush have invented to march into iraq? invading an independet country because its government stepped down?

well, number one, there would still be the small matter of finding his wmd. i suppose we could have left the ~~stooges~~ inspectors there to search for a few decades, but im sure at that point the armed forces could do a slightly more thorough search. then, theres the matter of implementing an interim government, which the u.s./u.k. would still have a strong case to head up initially (with u.n. help), considering we were the ones that stationed our 300,000 troops over there for months in order to put the pressure on saddam to leave, even when the world wouldnt help us pressure him......thats not cheap btw, it does cost $$ to station the troops there and prepare for war. not to mention making damn sure no remnants of the regime were waiting back to take control after saddams exit. besides....the war we are currently in is considered "illegal" to most of the anti-war side, yet we are doing it arent we? so if there was a strong majority that opposed the u.s. temporarily occupying iraq, calling it "illegal", do you think it wouldve made any difference to us? are you naive enough to think that if we really wanted control of that country, we wouldnt have found a "valid" reason to go in and take it? im not saying that i personally believe we want control of iraq, but with the antiwar logic, we were going to take it no matter what, whether saddam left or stayed, whether are actions are legal or illegal.......so use your own logic, and youll see it wouldve made no difference had saddam left peacefully.

aa

Realist

dubla,

you forget that bush has to sell his BS to the public. same is true for blair.

just as a side note...bush is not the only one who wants to see saddam dead.

this is a link to a very objective news report imo.

http://www.redding.com/news/world/past/20030116topworld051.shtml

PS. thanks for the bttt info!

dubla

realist-

dubla,
you forget that bush has to sell his BS to the public. same is true for blair.

yes, indeed "selling" to the public is an important piece of the puzzle, which only reinforces my opinion that he wouldnt have been killed had he left peacefully. how could we possibly justify it to the public? saddam leaves peacefully, averts war, gives up power, and we hunt him down and kill him......hmmm, tough sell imo.

thanks for the article......it also reinforced some of my points......

i like this comment from mubarak-

The era of secrets is over. Today's world is a world with no secrets and everything is known, monitored and followed."

basically just what i was saying.....if there were any negotiations, they wouldve been made public. there werent any because of saddams unwillingness to even CONSIDER it..........which is also backed up in the article:

Tariq Aziz, Saddam's longtime deputy prime minister, laughed when asked about the prospect of Saddam going into exile.

"Saddam Hussein is a brave leader and a hero, and will remain in his country for a long time, God willing, and will fight until the last Iraqi bullet is fired. We are in it with him," Aziz told BBC radio.

and.....

"At the same time, I don't think we're counting on it," Boucher added. "We're not engaged in any deep or serious discussions on the subject at this point since he's indicated no particular willingness to do that." (bold/italics mine)

we can only speculate at this point what may or may not have happened had he left. there is that possibility that he wouldve been killed, but imo, simple logic says otherwise. either way, saddam made it clear to all that he would never leave, so the official negotiations never took place.

aa

Realist

damn! i thought i have the last saying this time!

i know the article partially supports your opinion....thats why i called it objective. imo it basically lists what the different viewpoints are and why hussein most likely did not go into exile.

whether saddam was willing to go into exile and under what circumstances etc. is just a side question... so i think we can leave by this...or?

Will Saddam get caught?

Share this