Too Late: White House Dismisses Iraqi Offer

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Hope it works.

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Hope it works.

 

[HendrixFan]

In Somalia, we werent supporting a puppet government, the country was in the middle of a civil war and warlords were cutting off the food supply to the people. The US intervened to help feed the starving, and the warlords werent afraid to attack US soldiers.

In Afghanistan, apparently the opposition is gaining support and the US is already looking to withdraw. For all our efforts, its likely the same people will be in charge in Afghanistan this time next year, as you say.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Hmmm...is this another stalling tactic, or is Bush a war-monger? We know Saddam can't be trusted...

 

[Tripleshot]

It is too late. Saddam and his political suragates have been lieing and avoiding the truth and cooperation with any sane scenerio that would satisfy any UN sanction or any coommon sense resolution for over a decade. He can not be trusted.

Also, motormouth Bush has been screaming at the world he is going to go to war with Iraq regardless of what the UN says. Unless he has a clear way to back out of his freakin saber rattling, he will need this war for political reasons, since that seems to be the only skill this President has. He has been on the campaign trail for re election for he last 18 months, making a stop somewhere in the US to raise money every week for his republican campaign chest. Bush needs this war or it may render him irelelavant, just like he said about the UN. And if he gets the war, he needs to win it in short order(which he is counting on after watching re runs of desert storm) or let it drag until Nov 04 as long as the allied body count isn't too high. Thats a gamble, but what the hell, he isn't going to be in the foxhole, my kids are.

Best that can happen is that the Iraqis take out Saddam themselves and install a friendly coperative democratic government there(don't hold your breath).

And the White house has not rejected the offer as the title presumes. It's too early to call the next step.

But you best not put your trust in Saddam keeping his word. I remember Arabs taking oil company engineers hostage to get there way over 30 years ago. I do not think I would want the inspectors job this time around. You would certainly be deemed expendable by your country, because who is going to protect you when your peeking into Saddams hideaways?

Geeze, what a friggen mess. Bush should have kept his mouth shut and gone about this from the backroom, like a good capo. I think he is politcally screwed over this boistrous attitude he has suddenly attained.

 

[JellyBaby]

Bush should have kept his mouth shut

Or perhaps used it to tell us Cuba might be a real bioweapons threat against the U.S..

Can some one wake me up? Please?

 

[NeoV]

I like Ronstag blaming liberals for not taking care of Saddam 11 years ago....

Hey dude, who was president back then?

Oh, so you know that, but you are still going to blame the "liberals"? They controlled Bush? Oh, no, you are calling the entire UN liberal, and blaming them for not taking Saddam out? I get it now. Have to blame the liberals somehow.

It is easy to say in hindsight "we should have took Saddam out", or "why didn't Clinton take Bin Laden out?", isn't it?

 

[ManSnake]

Originally posted by: Ronstang
All of you pathetic Liberals here that believe Saddam in any capacity, and seem to be against a war of ANY kind please remember one thing.......If it wasn't for pansy asses like you 11 years ago there would be NO PROBLEM whatsoever in Iraq TODAY!

Better yet, why don't you just go to iraq and fight the war yourself, I am sure no one is going to stop you.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Hope it works.

 

[Crimson]

All these same arguments were made during the Gulf War.. We kicked Iraq's ass then, and we will do it again if necessary. I'm just curious of where all you anti-war people were when Clinton was spouting the EXACT same thing as Bush is now in 1998..

Hmm..

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
In Somalia, we werent supporting a puppet government, the country was in the middle of a civil war and warlords were cutting off the food supply to the people. The US intervened to help feed the starving, and the warlords werent afraid to attack US soldiers.

In Afghanistan, apparently the opposition is gaining support and the US is already looking to withdraw. For all our efforts, its likely the same people will be in charge in Afghanistan this time next year, as you say.

Sadly, I am in agreement with you on this (sad, not because I'm agreeing with you, but because of what we're agreeing on). Many parts of the world do not have a democratic tradition, and are nowhere near ready to take on that form of government. Remember that this is the same part of the world that sentenced a woman to suffer gang-rape because her brother did something that was percieved as wrong. Karzai means well and sounds like a decent guy, but he's got an incredibly difficult job, and he's definitely got a serious problem when his own bodyguards are trying to assassinate him.

Rashid Dostum could hold the country together, but he'd crack a lot of heads doing it.

On the Iraqi offer: Iraq sends a letter to the UN stating that they're ready to discuss practical matters regarding the unconditional return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. While this is a start, I believe it's most likely that it's nothing more than a stalling tactic. Saddam, like he's always done, would most likely interfere with the operations of those inspectors after a short period of time, believing (rightfully so) that the UN wouldn't really care whether they're able to do their jobs.

After 11 years of thumbing his nose at the UN, Saddam's not going to "cave in" after hearing a speech from Dubya.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Crimson
All these same arguments were made during the Gulf War.. We kicked Iraq's ass then, and we will do it again if necessary. I'm just curious of where all you anti-war people were when Clinton was spouting the EXACT same thing as Bush is now in 1998..

Hmm..

Hmm, perhaps they were opposing war? Clinton didn't talk himself into a corner either. It should be noted that no one seemed eager to go to war then either.

 

[Rainsford]

I find all you guys that are against invading Iraq and ousting Saddam very amusing. Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but we have an extremely violent, probably at least a little insane dictator who has stated in public that he hates the US and who already has some bio weapons and we have reason to believe, is building more. This is the fun fellow who likes to kill his enemies by pouring gas down their throats and lighting them on fire. He has gassed thousands of his own people. He gets filthy rich off of his countries oil while the vast majority of Iraq is dirt poor. I have trouble believing there are very few Iraquis that want Saddam to be in power. And we certainly have no reason to like him. Hmm, a guy who hates the US, is almost certainly trying to build weapons of mass destruction and who has already shown that he is willing to use them, even on his own people. Yet people still want to protect his "sovereign" right to do all those things for some reason I certainly don't understand.

And as far as this "offer", I think it's just a stalling tactic. Saddam has obviously read his history. Most world leaders would much rather avoid a conflict regardless of the consequences. If the world had stood up to Hitler at the beginning instead of signing treaties with him, WWII would have been a lot less terrible. Knock Bush all you want, but I'm glad at least one world leader has the balls to stand up to Saddam now rather than after he nukes a couple hundred thousand people. And even if that's not going to happen, I think the only person who will be sorry to see Saddam go will be Saddam.

 

[DeadHead]

What harm does it do to us? What harm is he doing to the rest of the world? He is abusive to his own people, but I am sure in their minds he has done more good then bad. They have pictures of the guy everywhere in the country it seems. Anyways just because he says he hates the US doens't me we need to attack. Hell go ask people who faught in Desert Storm, they'll tell you Saudi Arabia is not to happy with us either. We don't even belong in the area, we don't need to police it, and it seems the only reason we are there is for the oil.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: DeadHead
What harm does it do to us? What harm is he doing to the rest of the world? He is abusive to his own people, but I am sure in their minds he has done more good then bad. They have pictures of the guy everywhere in the country it seems.

lol. They must like him because of the pictures everywhere. lol.

 

[kherman]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Years of sanctions, among other things, have lead to the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. Another war would add to the murder toll. There is no definitive link between Iraq and UBL/al queerda. Iraq doesn't pose a threat to us or even to anyone in the region. Iraq's military is nothing now and he knows if he attacks another country a Coalition (or worse, just the US) will take him out.

Yet the Drums of War beat on....BOOM....BOOM.....BOOM.

Wow, you are VERY mis-informed. The sanctions are basically a food for oil deal. The problem is that Iraq is spending money on WMD and lavish palaces for political memebers instead of feeding their own people. Iraq is the reason it's people are starving!

 

[JellyBaby]

Wow, you are VERY mis-informed. The sanctions are basically a food for oil deal. The problem is that Iraq is spending money on WMD and lavish palaces for political memebers instead of feeding their own people. Iraq is the reason it's people are starving!

I think you're the one who has been misinformed. Economic sanctions have directly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis mostly the old and very young. Before them, Iraq had nowhere near level of human sufferage.

Saddum doesn't see a dime from the oil for food program. It's designed that way. Thus, there is no relationship between that program and his financing Iraq's military. All the sanctions have done is promote death and give Iraqis a reason to hate us. How have sanctions enhanced our security?

Saddum can fund palace contruction using Iraqi deenars (or however it's spelled) and cheap labor. And that's the gag: sanctions have not had the intended effect of rallying Iraq against its leadership. Sanctions DO NOT work in third-world countries. Period.

 

[cmdavid]

Bush and the US intelligence knows that saddam has weapons of mass destruction... they dont wanna be made fools of in front of the international community because saddam can play his games and hide his weapons...
the US wants to take him out of power.. thats what Bush and the administrations knows will be best for the world... and they're gonna do it.. why? because the US would be the terrorist's first target if saddam were to supply these weapons to them... right now is no time of peace.. if you're not on the offense you're on the defense.. and with such a great offense we dont wanna just sit back and "guard" the whole time...

 

[BAMAVOO]

Get over it..Sadaam needs to go..No questions about it..This guy is trouble and everything he stands for is trouble..You wanna wait til he drops some bad mojo on us before we do something? You prolly are the same person that says..Man we knew what was gonna happen and the Towers should have never been hit..My God :|

 

[SuperTool]

Good news for democrats

Which one of the following issues do you think is the most important in the elections for Congress?
_The economy, 23 percent.

_Education, 19 percent.

_Health care, 18 percent.

_Fighting terrorism, 17 percent.

5. In general, do you think it is better for the same political party to control both the Congress and the presidency so they can work together more closely or do you think it is better to have different political parties controlling the Congress and the presidency to prevent either one from going too far?

_Better if same party controls Congress and the presidency, 32 percent.

_Better if different parties control Congress and the presidency, 61 percent.

_Don't know-refused, 7 percent.

I guess Americans don't trust the executive branch.

 

[clarkmo]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Wow, you are VERY mis-informed. The sanctions are basically a food for oil deal. The problem is that Iraq is spending money on WMD and lavish palaces for political memebers instead of feeding their own people. Iraq is the reason it's people are starving!

I think you're the one who has been misinformed. Economic sanctions have directly resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis mostly the old and very young. Before them, Iraq had nowhere near level of human sufferage.

Saddum doesn't see a dime from the oil for food program. It's designed that way. Thus, there is no relationship between that program and his financing Iraq's military. All the sanctions have done is promote death and give Iraqis a reason to hate us. How have sanctions enhanced our security?

Saddum can fund palace contruction using Iraqi deenars (or however it's spelled) and cheap labor. And that's the gag: sanctions have not had the intended effect of rallying Iraq against its leadership. Sanctions DO NOT work in third-world countries. Period.

Saddam has a way out for his people. He just doesn't care. Given his predilection for genocide, the sanctions might even be suiting his purpose. He and his grow stronger while the rest grow weaker. He needs to go. Beacuse of his wmd and blatant disregard for international law and the suffering of his people.

 

[SuperTool]

So we should go to war in Iraq on a slight chance that he *might* develop a nuclear bomb that *might* fall into the wrong hands?
In the meantime...

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
So we should go to war in Iraq on a slight chance that he *might* develop a nuclear bomb that *might* fall into the wrong hands?
In the meantime...

Here's how "slight" the last inspectors thought Saddam's chances are.................

• Biological weapons: Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamil, revealed to inspectors (and Iraq later admitted) the existence of an offensive biological warfare capability in Iraq including anthrax, botulinum toxin, ricin, and aflatoxin. Iraq is known to have developed these agents for use in Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aerial dispensers, as well as other means of delivery. Various sources indicate that Baghdad was almost certainly capable of resuming production of these and other weapons within days of the end of inspections in 1998.
  
  Chemical weapons: Iraq has an advanced programme and substantial experience in the production, storage and use of chemical weapons, including mustard agent and nerve agents such as Sarin, Tabun, and VX. Inspectors believe Baghdad retains the expertise to continue production and probably stepped up production within weeks of the departure of our inspectors.
  
  Nuclear weapons: Saddam Hussein had a comprehensive nuclear weapons development programme before the Gulf War that was focused on building an implosion-type weapon. Iraq has admitted experimenting with seven uranium enrichment techniques and was actively pursuing expertise in electromagnetic isotope separation, gas centrifuge, and gas diffusion techniques. Iraq retains a large cadre of nuclear engineers, scientists, and technicians who are the foundation of a nuclear programme. Inspectors suspect that Saddam has assembled at least three atomic bombs and only requires sufficient fissile material to have a true nuclear capability.
  
  Ballistic missiles: Before the Gulf war, Baghdad had an active missile force of 819 Soviet-built Scuds. Saddam has also acquired Chinese and Korean Scuds. While many have been destroyed, Iraq may have surreptitiously removed key components from these missiles before destruction and has the capability to produce indigenous missile systems more capable than Scuds. The regime has continued to receive parts for these systems through clandestine procurement networks.
  

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

On the pulse of truth
Whose going to win the Senate elections?
Republicans
(83%; 2055 votes)

Democrats
(14%; 342 votes)

Tie
(3%; 81 votes)

I know it's hard to find reasonably moderate views but come on . . .

Why the continuous strawman? Most reasonable people are not saying take a passive view of Iraq. We're saying keep Saddam on his toes while supporting the people of Iraq. The UN "Food/Medicine for Oil Program" was made necessary by the original UN sanctions which clearly were not harming Saddam. Iraq just dropped a surcharge on oil exports which Saddam was probably using for his palaces AND weapons program. Sanctions are rarely effective in developing countries. Saddam is largely responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people in a myriad of ways but UN/US sanctions have compounded the hardship.

It's the war party that's being unreasonable. We've been calling Saddam every name in the book and making threats against his very existence. Let me guess, he should say "uh oh, I'm sorry for offending the US. I've been a bad boy and should change my ways. American presidents and CIA love everyone and seek nothing more than peace and happiness throughout the world."

BS, he's a POS and FOS. Heads of state (and secretaries) should detail offenses but avoid the name calling. When we say he's evil we loose credibility with the people if he has a Saddam Day at one of his amusement parks. Saddam can't refute independently verified incidents of chemical warfare. He certainly can't refute violations of UN resolutions. Stick to the facts and we will succeed. UN inspections put the focus on him. He can't flip the script when inspectors broadcast weapons caches.

Armed confrontation may be unavoidable. But we should orchestrate this intervention so that conflict is clearly precipitated by Iraqi action/inaction NOT US policy.

 

[clarkmo]

Armed confrontation may be unavoidable. But we should orchestrate this intervention so that conflict is clearly precipitated by Iraqi action/inaction NOT US policy.

Couldn't agree with you more. His acquiescence letter is nothing more than a ploy, though. One he used constantly throughout the inspection process. No one buys it any more. He's a goner. And the UN will agree. Wait and see.