> -----Original Message----- > From: Bryon Daly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:43 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: V-I Day +1 - endgame scenarios? > > > "Miller, Jeffrey" wrote: > > > Whether you're for or against the upcoming war, I think > most reasoned > > people with a shred of honesty in them believe its going to happen, > > and we'll hardly lose (even if, as is likely, its a far > more serious > > contest then the WH is admitting) My question is, what > then? So we > > depose Saddam.. then what? What do we _do_ with him? > > > > kill him -- I'm sure W hopes this'll happen in combat, because it > > would save a ton of headaches, but what if he manages to > survive? Do > > we line him up against a wall someplace? ..and on what grounds? > > My guess is that Saddam has a multitude of emergency escape > plans in place, and as soon as he sees the jig is up, he'll > disappear to Argentina or someplace else he can live > anonymously, rather than risk being killed or face trial. I > also think, though, that the soldiers going after him won't > especially go out of their way to capture him (vs. killing him).
How is that not assassination? > > international court -- on what charges? "gassing his own people"? > > There's enough clouds around this charge to make it difficult to > > stick, and it would highlight US involvement in both this > and Kuwait > > (our military assistence to Iraq and greenlighting the Kuwait > > invasion.) Is that something we really want to remind the > region of? > > Do you really think Saddam's not that bad a guy? Just some > bad PR? How would Saddam's gassing the Kurds after the Gulf > War highlight US military assistance to Iraq? I didn't claim he wasn't. Again I ask - what charges? > > exile -- who'd take him? ..and is he truly going to be out > of power > > if his backside is parked on a rock in the middle of the > Indian Ocean? > > A few countries have already offered to take him. And I'm > sure a few others would also accept him and his money. Such as? > > As a further question, why can't we just provide a list of exactly > > what the Iraqi government needs to do in order to avert a > war? Why, > > after Blix releases a somewhat positive report, are we suddenly > > insisting on "regime change" as a requirement to prevent invasion? > > The US has wanted regime change since the Clinton > Administration. This is not "sudden". The linkage between "regime change" and averting a war is sudden. -j- _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
