Is Saddam for Real This Time?

[exlrrp]

What do you think of this latest initiative? Think the War's still on?

Whatever else you can say about Saddam, the man's a chess player and a natural born survivor. I think he's definitely the best inetnational evil player since Hitler. definitely understands international political foosball.
I bet he's trying to stall it using the UN. Think GWB will stick with the UN? Its to the Iraqis advantage to keep the play within the UN which is why they did the latest. If they can keep it there, it will probly forestall US intevention they think but??
I think GWBs gone too far to back away now without complete capitulation and regime change. if Saddam stays in power its a definite defeat for GWB.
I think they'll go ahead with it

james

Happy just to be alive

[sfc_darrel]

Iraq clarified their position.

"Readmitting weapons inspectors" means to them letting inspectors in to military bases to see that Iraq has moved their weapons elsewhere and not letting inspectors look anywhere else.

Sorry, our children are going to war.

[Andy]

If we don't go in to take out Saddam right away, look for American Special Ops or our friends going into the south and arming the locals who have no love for the people in Bagdad. Look for the same thing in the North. It's always better to let the locals do the fighting for you. Keeping his troops out of pockets of resistance would allow the Iraqi's to do what happened in Afgan.

If Saddam were eventually reduced to the Mayor of Bagdad, without the oil he no longer exists as a threat and becomes as important as the Mayor of Mandalay.

To do this, a bunch of bombs might have to be dropped, but it would be assisting the fight for freedom as opposed to all out war with lots of US ground troops.

It's good to remember a lot of people in Iraq really don't like that guy.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[David]

I think there is a good chance we will go in I just hope it is not on the ground. I like your idea Andy, arm the locals. This worked well in Afghanistan forcing the opposition party to take the brunt of the casualties as indeed they should have. It is after all their country. It amazes me so many people around the world sit back and allow this kind of crap to go on in their countries. I guess America is somewhat unique in that we stood against the oppressors long ago and won. It seems to me this set a precedent for this country as the complacency of many other peoples have set a precedent for them.

[reconeil]

Still, much the same was what sensible Americans proposed needed doing back iin "91 and "92,...TO TRULY RESOLVE THINGS.

Regardless, I hope whatever political warfare micro-mamagers have FINALLY decided to do now,...just isn't too little-too late.

After all, whether Sadam gets "This" or gets "That" in 2, 3, or 5 years, is much the same Intel I remember hearing back in '91 and '92. And, since such Intel is about 10 years old,...such pre-supposes that all Iraqi (plus Russian) scientists are all morons.

Whatever, and whom are or aren't morons aside, I don't find such Intel TODAY very reassuring. Do you, or anyone else also think such current Intel is based purely on wishful thinking, and that no one (enemy excluded) knows what-the-hell Sadam has (or not)??????????????????????

Neil

[1CAVCCO15MED]

One thing bothers me. I am sure the leadership of this country has information about Saddam which the general public does not. On the one hand I think what they know things that make the urgency of ridding us of Saddam so great. On the other hand, the one cabinet menber that ever offered his life for his country in a war (Colin Powell) is the one most reluctant to go to war. I am sure he is privy to all the intelligence the others have. Doubts come into my mind about leaders who chose not to fight for their country themselves when they had the chance now being so hawkish. Powell has seen the cost of war, has seen the mangled bodies of the living and the dead. I need more information to decide for myself. The reluctance of our allies is I guess to be expected.

The man represents a clear,present,and grave threat to the civilian population of this nation.It is a near certainty that he bears major responsibility for last years' killing of civilians in this country.This is unacceptable.He must be KILLED.NOW.Then he should be killed again just to make sure,and his head should be brought back and put on a spike where the WTC used to be.

Just my opinion.I may be a little soft on this issue.

[blues clues]

Is it me or before 9-11 nobody in the leadership of this country was gi8ving much though to the Beast of Bagdad now everybody and his cousin want's his head on a stick.
razz

[exlrrp]

I think all the talk about the UN is bullsht--I think they determined to take out Saddam shortly after 911 and theyre going to do it regardless of what the UN does.I think taking out Saddam is some uinfinished business for the Bushes, they aint forgot SAddam tried to assassinate GHB. They should have done it in '91, while they were standing in the open door to Baghdad. This is what comes of going to war where the politicians won't let you win.

it opens up some serious lines of thought:
First of all, if the UN dosen't join us, why should we go on being a member.
i think if it is GWBs purpose to take out Sadam, I think they need to think it through. I think they may be able to do it in a fait accompli--jut do it and tellthe world to live with it. If he does, GWB loses a LOT of political capital worldwide.--all the people we're trying to court except Britain are saying No War.
I think he's smart to have some dialogue about it--for one thing, who's gooing to defend Sadam? Its intersting that the resisistance to the war is bipartisan--Dick Armey seems to be the head antiwar cheerleader.

i think this: they should continue to prepare to take Saddam out--then do it. I don't think the problem will ever be solved while he's still there. I think the hardest thing will be what comes later-- I don't think that the Iraqis are champing at the bit to free themselves from Saddam, no, he looks as popular as ever. There is no effective resistance to him and the organised resistance is as despicable as he is -- its an Iraqi trait. Be prepared for a long occupation.
I think they ought to take him out because it will be a lot easier for us to deal there if we do. Cold and hard. This isn't "right" but there it is. IMHO

James

[Andy]

Do you remember several years ago our country decided to take out Noragia (sp) from Panama? Very little country, very little man. That took us a while and he ended up in a church which we would not assault.

Saddam's Red Guard would probably be faithful to him for a longer period of time and help him move from one "safe house" to another. No doubt he'd end up in a very holy place yell to all of Islam that an attack on that building would be an attack on their religion.

Don't think James Bond is still on the payroll, killing the man may prove rather difficult. Containing him make him a mole and powerless is what's important. Let a new government find him and kill him. With bio and chem weapons that he's already used on his own people, the old fashion frontal attack might be a Very bad idea. Lets take little bits. They can be done quickly but killing a fly with a hammer is usually a bad idea.

Stay healthy,
Andy
PS: Colin Powell is not a hawk on any war we've been in. He's an Ike not a Patton.