"Miller, Jeffrey" wrote: > > 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?
Well, I was thinking along the lines of a scenario such as if the army knew Saddam was in some well-defended bunker, they'd just as soon drop a bomb on it as expend their soldiers lives to take him alive. I wouldn't consider that assasination. But I don't think assasination has been ruled out. It's not my preference, but even some anti-war folks might prefer a solution along those lines. > > > 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? I thought the "gassing his own people" was a good place to start. > > > 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? http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/7/025620-9837-010.html "President Bush said last month that he would welcome exile for Hussein, and some Arab countries -- most notably Saudi Arabia -- have proposed offering him exile to avert war." > > > 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. I think I understand your point now - my guess is that it ties back to the point Jon and I were both making, which is that Saddam can continue to play the "don't cooperate - marginally cooperate - don' t cooperate - marginally cooperate" game indefinitely while he still works behind the scenes to obtain/develop WMD, only marginally hindered by the ineffective inspection process. There are some (many?) who would point to any tidbit of occasional cooperation on Saddam's part as "progress" and reason to pull the troops out and leave Saddam be (soon after which all cooperation from Iraq would stop). Even Hans Blix has said Iraq has "zero credibility". The conclusion is that if we can't trust him to cooperate in a meaningful way, then regime change is the best solution. My question to you: What would it take for you to agree with having a war on Iraq? I.e.: In what circumstances would you see it justifiable? -bryon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
