This is the first time that I've heard about such an alleged conversation between Saddam and the US. I really don't know what to say to such an allegation. Do you have any proof? any evidence whatsoever? how about any circumstancial evidence? First of all why would a monster like Saddam ask for permission? like he's Miss Manners all of a sudden?! And second, why would the US give him a 'vague neutral reply'? Doesn't the invasion of Kuwait totally go against the interests of the US? I'm sorry but without evidence to the contrary, such an allegation is absolutely ludicrous. It doesn't make any sense. Anyway, I want to get back to the whole topic of the thread: If you do not agree that the US should go to war and remove Saddam from power in Iraq, then what should be done?
...before his seizure of Kuwait, the Iraqi dictator was regarded by many politicians and journalists as merely another unpleasant Third World strongman, for whom US foreign policy establishment had a necessary affinity... ...on the heels of the Iranian kidnapping of the US embassy in Tehran, guaranteed at the very least official us neutrality in the Iran Iraq war. In this case however, neutrality rapidly metamorphosed into quiet backing for Iraq, which eventually led to military support... ... In her famous meeting with Hussein on July 25 1990, U.S. ambasdor April Glaspie tried her bestto help out with the dictator's reputation....She also noted wistfully that if George Bush "had control over the media, his job would be much easier"... Later in the summer, the Bush administration would cynically beat back attempts by members of Congress, disturbed by Hussein's Violent conduct... and in July 25th meeting between ambassador Glaspie and Hussein, the U.S. strongly suggested it would not intervene in a conflict between Iraq and Kuwait.... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=125705#post125705 Josh
Thanks for the proof Josh_B Babak, in regards to your other question, Miss manners, no. Canny survivor and up to that point, obedient US lackey-yes.
The biggest threat to world peace is the USA... this thread is an attempt to detract from that issue and discuss 'how to deal with Saddam'... the question for the international community should actually be 'how to deal with the USA'...
Candle, Right. And if they take us out, the entire world economy will definately collapse. Make no mistake about it -- we're keeping this gig going and when we go, we're taking the rest of the civilized world with us. There may be some financial markets left here and there -- perhaps a few solvent banks in Switzerland -- but just about everything else will be toast.
to answer your question babak, the only the alternative that people opposed to doing something about Saddam have is to do nothing. people like candleman (who has made one of the great all time about faces) have a problem with the US getting involved in international affairs. they think "we" (i'm not us citizen) should just back off and let the world be. obviously these people have no understanding of the history of geopolitics, and perhaps even scant knowledge of the history of man in general. in the sphere of international affairs there have ALWAYS been some nations that were more powerful than others and sought to influence the other nations by various means. the current situation is, in that respect, is no different to past times at all. the world should be thankful that at the helm of the international power hierarchy sits the USA; a nation that embraces the most universally cherished values; namely freedom and human rights. i, for one, am glad that the US chooses to intervene in order to safeguard our way of life.
Forget the oil angle, its simply not a factor; Iraq is controlled by a madman with ties to Al-Qaeda. Besides nuclear worries, there are other items in Saddam's arsenal. From a USA Today Article: "Botulinum toxin, the most poisonous substance known, is about 100,000 times deadlier than the neurotoxin sarin, which was used in an attack on Tokyo subways in 1995 that killed 10 and sent 5,000 people streaming into hospitals. The toxin was so popular among Iraqi bioweapons scientists that they claimed to have produced botulinum toxin on an industrial scale. After the Gulf War, Iraq told U.N. weapons inspectors that it had stockpiled nearly 20,000 liters of toxin in solution in anticipation of a U.S. attack. Some of it, Iraq said, had been loaded into more than 100 solution-filled ''wet bombs,'' which were never used. Security analysts believe Iraq's bioweapons arsenal is much larger than Iraqi leaders acknowledge. Even the experts can only guess at what Iraqi biologists have cooked up since 1998, when U.N. inspections ended. If a bioterrorist were to release a cloud of botulinum in a major city, 50,000 people would get sick, and 30,000 of them would die without antitoxin treatment, according to a report released this year by the National Academy of Sciences ( news - web sites)' Institute of Medicine ( news - web sites), a think tank financed partly by Congress. Because 80% to 90% of the beds in any intensive care unit in any given city are usually full -- and because most cities have just a few hundred intensive care beds -- fewer than 100 cases of botulism could lock up every intensive care ward in a city like San Francisco for weeks, says James Marks of the University of California-San Francisco, an author of the report." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=676&u=/usatoday/20020926/ts_usatoday/4483176
You're talking utter bullshit... Al-Quaeda are fanatical Muslims commited to the Islamisation of the planet... Saddam Hussain is to Islam what Bush is to brainpower.... mutually exclusive... Al-Quaeda's ideology and Saddam's ideologies are not compatible. Indeed Iraq's foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, is Christian... The world is gradually waking up to the Terror that is US foreign policy... God Bless America... I continue to hope that the mad policies of the American leaders do not lead to yet more September 11 attacks...