Saddam

[SmallTown]

We are going after saddam as part of the war on terrorism. He is a great threat and must go. Then why is it we are now saying the saddam can leave the country on his own and no war will take place? If he truly is the ruthless terrorist we claim him to be, why just let him run free? Even without the title of president (or whatever he is called) he has the funds and access to military equipment as well as things such as antrax, vx, etc. We aren't telling Osama to change countries and be done with it, why saddam? I would feel most comfortable with him in power and disarming. Unlike afghanistan, he knows he has a vast infastructure that we can attack if he were to come after us. And he saw what happened in afghanistan.
But since we aren't going to let that work, I would much prefer the man either in custody or dead than running around free in another country. We have been spoon fed just how awful this guy is, so I just don't understand the notion of letting him run free. If you're going to do it, do it right. Did someone take dubya and replace him with a democrat look-alike?

 

[vraiblonde]

That's a great question and I'm curious about the answer myself. Anyone?

 

[Frank]

Because to be honest - without the control of Iraq, he's harmless.

Yes, he's a war criminal - but geez, this is what the world has brought it all to. Germany has now gone on record as saying they think inspections should go on *indefinitely*, and the use of force will always be out, for them. France has blinked a little, saying well maybe we should give them another month, and then - or else. Something like that.

I think what I heard is, we're going in peacefully, or we're going in guns ablazing - but we are going in. If Saddam leaves, maybe we can end it all without much bloodshed.

 

[SmallTown]

al-qaida doesn't have a "base country" any more and they are not considered harmless.
Again, if he is as bad as we say he is, I prefer him dead than running free looking for ways to get back.

 

[justhangn]

Originally posted by Frank
Because to be honest - without the control of Iraq, he's harmless.

I disagree....Saddam can still run that country on the lamb, Al Capone ran the mob for years while in jail.

I would hope that they are giving him the option of exile only to bring him out in the open and to blow his brains out.

 

[Larry Gude]

Good point ST

The answer is "politics".

The President has an obligation to respond in some way to the political realities, such as they are. Many among us just don't have a direct connection in our mind as to Saddams actual responsibility to violence done to us, thus, if he would just leave, many would be happy with that because, as they always add to opinions, they do think he is bad on some level. Also, because he does command many soldiers and many weapons, including at least some of the ABC's, it is simply practical to consider lives perhaps saved if he is cut a deal.

In the case of Osama, the vast majority of US citizens connect him directly with the attack on September 11, 2001 because they saw it on the TV and said he did it. He is in a bad place with the vast majority of US public opinion. Also, he is nowhere near the physical threat Hussein is, thus he has nothing to bargain with.

Hussein has many enemies and won't be as safe as he is now, regardless of any deal with us (BTW, he is a liar after all, so there is no reason to accept his word anyway), which is why he won't leave. Which is why we have to kick him out.

Now, we can fault Bush for not being enough of a leader to just go ahead and do the right thing long before now and get it over with but, this is a democracy and he has chosen to take the time for people to understand all of this, which you and I know won't happen until hell freezes over, even after all the evidence is found once we kick him out of power.

Plus, the surrounding dictatorships won't much like him paying the ultimate price because it will mean they are vulnerable as well, which is why they opposed his removal 12 years ago and oppose it now.

We'll see, I guess.

 

[MGKrebs]

Yeah, I guess it's kind of like a chess game, you don't really know what the response to any action will be, but if it furthers your own strategy, you make the move and try to allow for all contingencies.

If we are sincere in this proposal, then kudos to us. Saddam leaving should at least make it easier for us to stabilise Iraq in the short term, and it would probably also make it easier to capture/arrest/neutralize saddam. This is the best possible scenario; we get to go into Iraq without too much shooting, arrest saddam for crimes against humanity or something (wherever he ends up), and move on to the next phase.

Then the only big question is whether the Iraqis will welcome us or fight us.

 

[Larry Gude]

MG...

They may not want to be free. Many of us can't deal with it and it was given to us. These people are gonna have to work for it or it will fail.

Everybody who prospered under the current regime will be against us. The masses will have to deal with an entirely new concept...FREEDOM. I have a hunch they will be willing to give it a go.

They will be scared, they will be hessitant. Those oppossed will try to subvert the process including terror, so it will be a hell of a job.

Now, for the optimist in you, imagine a legendary place like Bahgdad re-taking it's place among the greatest cities in the world...as a democracy.

It may take no time at all. It may take years. It may never work. The three major factions, Kurds, Suni and Shiites, man, that's some stew there.

 

[vraiblonde]

Any country that is run by a dictator OR run by some religious group is bound for failure. History proves this out. The libs and their Arab counterparts rail about the dominance of Western culture - duh, get a clue! We elect our leaders AND we're into freedom of religion - the Catholics and Jews in this country may disagree but they're not out suicide bombing each other.

Russia is a modern example of what happens when you have a major political change in a country. Yes, there are some citizens who aren't doing so well with it and wish the KGB were back in town. But I read a piece in, like, Time or Newsweek or something, asking the question of whether Russia was better off now or before.

One young gal they interviewed summed it up by saying that, sure, some people wish things were the way they were - but that's mostly older people. The younger ones are all over the "new" political system because they've never known anything else so they haven't had to make any drastic changes in their outlook. She equated it to our US Civil War, that a good number of former slaves were really having a problem getting acclimated to freedom because they didn't know how to take care of themselves. The next generation had it easier, even though racism was rampant, because they never knew slavery and were free from birth. And we've done nothing but make progress ever since in regard to opportunity and advancement of blacks.

This made perfect sense to me and anyone who expects the Iraqis to automatically take to democracy hasn't been paying attention in history class. It takes time for people to learn to be free. Seriously.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by justhangn
I disagree....Saddam can still run that country on the lamb, Al Capone ran the mob for years while in jail.

I would hope that they are giving him the option of exile only to bring him out in the open and to blow his brains out.

Maybe I have Godfather on the brain. Could we avoid a war if we pulled a Jack Woltz on Saddam? This is going to sound incredibly sick, but what if we cut his son's head off and stick the head in Saddam's bed?

 

[justhangn]

Originally posted by Tonio
Maybe I have Godfather on the brain. Could we avoid a war if we pulled a Jack Woltz on Saddam? This is going to sound incredibly sick, but what if we cut his son's head off and stick the head in Saddam's bed?

Nah, but cutting off Saddams head and his son's would work fine!!

 

[MGKrebs]

They may not want to be free.

I think history shows us that transition to a free society cannot be done too quickly. Soviet Union went too fast. They did not have the systems in place to make the transistion smoothly. Countries like China and Egypt are taking their time, making the change gradually. Even the simplest thing like voters getting used to be informed enough to make a decent choice can be a real problem. Iraq probably won't get the chance to make a smooth transistion, but I doubt if we will allow a monarchy or something similar to be installed.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by justhangn
Nah, but cutting off Saddams head and his son's would work fine!!

No, I'd rather see Saddam paralyzed with terror.

 

[SmallTown]

I say we capture saddam and put him in the national zoo

 

[justhangn]

Originally posted by SmallTown
I say we capture saddam and put him in the national zoo

I'll rent paintball guns to the public, for entertainment purposes, of course!!

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by MGKrebs
They may not want to be free

That may be the most sensible thing I've ever seen you post. Because you're right - there will be some that don't want to be free. That girl's analogy likening it to our Civil War resonated with me. Liberating Iraq is something that MUST be done but you can't just dump people on the side of the road and say, "Okay, go to it! You're free!" There has to be a transition period. But, like Russia, eventually the "old guard" will die out and Iraq will be just fine.

 

[justhangn]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Liberating Iraq is something that MUST be done but you can't just dump people on the side of the road and say, "Okay, go to it! You're free!" There has to be a transition period. But, like Russia, eventually the "old guard" will die out and Iraq will be just fine.

Iraq will turn into a bunch of warring factions like Afghanistan has. Before Sodamninsane took over in the late 70's, Iraq was AFU!!

 

[Kain99]

I think the answer is simple. Bush gives Saddam "one last chance" Knowing he will never step down, so that later he can look back and say " We gave him every opportunity to avoid War."

Great Idea IMHO

 

[justhangn]

Originally posted by Kain99
I think the answer is simple. Bush gives Saddam "one last chance" Knowing he will never step down, so that later he can look back and say " We gave him every opportunity to avoid War."

Great Idea IMHO

Kind of like what we have done for 12 years and 17+ resolutions?

 

[Kain99]

JH do you need another spanking?