• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

U.S. Retains The Option Of A Nuclear Response

Status
Not open for further replies.
From 'The Guardian's' daily news roundup

>>> AN EXILED SADDAM 'WOULD NOT BE PROSECUTED'

The front pages are a typical Monday ragbag of big interviews, polemic
and the odd exclusive - but Iraq still leads most of the broadsheets.
They all report Donald Rumsfeld's efforts, backed by Saudi Arabia and
Turkey, to encourage Saddam Hussein to go into exile and avoid war.

Mr Rumsfeld promised him immunity from prosecution: "If to avoid a
war, I would ... recommend that some provision be made so that the
senior leadership in that country and their families could be
provided haven in some other country," the US defence secretary said.
Iraqi translators are no doubt labouring over that sentence this
morning.

But despite widespread anti-war protests - notably in Washington - the
White House said a decision would be made on whether to attack Iraq
in "a matter of weeks" and that UN approval would not be a
prerequisite.

"Opposing war in the abstract is easy," argues the Independent. "The
opponents of this war need now to focus on the practicalities of Mr
Blix's 'peaceful alternative'." The Guardian suggests the Liberal
Democrats could be the main beneficiaries of left wing opposition to
war - "if [Charles Kennedy] can rise to the opportunity".

The Times has some fun at the expense of the "business-class radicals"
who turned out to demonstrate in San Francisco. "One family said that
they had spent the last part of the rally trying to stop protesters
stomping all over the flowers in the civic centre square," reports
the paper.

* US offers immunity to Saddam
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,878269,00.html

* Times: US peace protesters flaunt wit and wealth
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-548848,00.html
 
Saddam

Saddam to his generals: The anti-war protesters in the U.S. and around the world are on our side against the evil doers. When are the peaceniks in the U.S. going to understand this?:headbutt: :headbutt: :headbutt: :_pished: All anti-war protests do are underminrthe morale of the men and women who put their lives on the line.
 
Try this thread for opinions on the subject (now merged here - rynner)

People protest for a reason, try and understand why.
 
Re: Saddam

thrint said:
All anti-war protests do are underminrthe morale of the men and women who put their lives on the line.
...do you mean the mad soldiers who want to kill for a living? What a crime!

Imagine putting them off the idea of killing. Protesting certainly is a greater sin than killing people!:confused:

Mincey guff...of the highest order!
 
i was watching the DC protests saturday and some people were making it clear they weren't trying to disrespect the armed forces and the men and women who put their lives on the line.

do you mean the mad soldiers who want to kill for a living?

i'm sure there are members of the Armed Forces who feel that a war with Iraq is wrong, but they are following orders and doing their jobs. America soldiers aren't trained to kill innocent people; they're trained to think and problem-solve.
 
Re: Re: Saddam

St.Clair said:
...do you mean the mad soldiers who want to kill for a living? What a crime!

What a moronic thing to say, St Clair. You think people who join the armed forces are necessarily "mad" and enjoy the idea of killing?

Perhaps you don't think we should stand up to Saddam unless he comes marching down The Mall with a rocket launcher on his shoulder.

And then you'll expect these "mad" soldiers to die saving your ungrateful backside.

"Mincey guff...of the highest order!" If the cap fits.........
 
siriuss said:
Try this thread for opinions on the subject:
[merged]
People protest for a reason, try and understand why.
I understand why. I don't think the people who protest understand the damage they are doing. Actually the leadership of these movements understand. The more bodybags that come back the happier they are.:eek!!!!: :eek!!!!: They've made their point.
 
Whether the organisers of the peace rallies have hidden agendas, I don't know, but the demonstrations in this case accurately reflect the view of many people on both sides of the atlantic (check the figures churned out by CNN and BBC). This is not a quarrel with the military but with their higher authority, the government. If the government chooses to enter into an unsupported war (undemocratically given the current situation) the responsibility of the morale and the performance of those troops is theirs.

To shut up the protests in favour of an easier politcal and military environment would be an exercise in oppression.
 
Land of the Free...except when they disagree with The Bush Administrations policies!

Hmm interesting

Freedom is a basic right and cornerstone on which the UK and US have built their societies. Whilst you may disagree with the protesters opinions what is the alternative?
 
oh, believe me, just like the conservative right, the left have agendas abound.

What a moronic thing to say, St Clair. You think people who join the armed forces are necessarily "mad" and enjoy the idea of killing?

Perhaps you don't think we should stand up to Saddam unless he comes marching down The Mall with a rocket launcher on his shoulder.

And then you'll expect these "mad" soldiers to die saving your ungrateful backside.

thank you!

the only warmongers are the older white men in power who haven't seen war(Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield). Senetor McCain, a P.O.W. is rallying against war. people like General Tommy Franks are trying to convince Bush that war would be the worst thing right now, and would only be a good idea as a last resort; retired or serving soldiers who have seen war all agree it's best as a last resort. war is not good. the Army and Presidency are two different things. the armed forces are there to keep the peace, but people like Bush brandish it like a bat.
 
Saddam is not a Hitler.

Saddam is someone's crazy grandpa who happens to run a country. If they want to know if he has chemical weapons, they should just look at the reciepts of the ones we (the US) sold to him twenty years ago.

The fact that Bush is doing everything he can to stay out of war with North Korea all but proves that Iraq is no serious threat to anybody. If Hussein was such a big threat we'd be tiptoing around him and making concession after concession just like we're doing in Korea.

Hussein is a crazy person, but he's not stupid. He knows that if he even LOOKS like he's PLANNING on building nukes or biological weapons, Israel will NUKE him in a second. Israel has nukes; we gave them to them. The people running Israel are just as nuts as the people running Iraq. Why not call for THEM to disarm?

I fail to follow the logic that, if we kick out Saddam, a benevolent pro-US dictator will rise to power and be loved by the people. I'll tell you exactly who will take control if Saddam is killed or exiled: Saddam's sons, all of whom are even CRAZIER than he is. If we install our own pro-US government, it will be overthrown in a month. If there's one thing people hate, it's foreigners trying to tell them how to run their country. That's what got us into this al-Qaeda mess in the first place, not "they hate American values" or "they're jealous of our freedom" but "they get shot with bullets that say Made in the USA."

Mark my words: If we withdraw aid from Israel and leave everyone in the Middle East to their own devices, all conflict between them and the US will INSTANTLY go away. The governments over there don't WANT peace. (Witness Sharon's recent rejection of a peace proposal since it didn't give him EVERYTHING he wanted.) The only thing that will bring peace over there is several civil wars, none of which the US has any business being involved in.
 
To shut up the protests in favour of an easier politcal and military environment would be an exercise in oppression. [/B][/QUOTE] Nobody said anything about shutting them up. They should write their representatives in protest.
 
I'll tell you exactly who will take control if Saddam is killed or exiled: Saddam's sons, all of whom are even CRAZIER than he is.

Uday and Qasay, brought up on rape and torture videos, leanred torture techniques in their dad's prisons, etc etc. If i recall an article correctly, Uday(the flashy cokehead of the two) abducted a US student studying in Iraq and raped, tortured and murdered her and tossed her somewhere. the brother's tried to kill eachother because both want to be heir. it would really suck if either of the two came to power because they're just like Saddam, but younger and have more time to do bad things.
 
Fortis said:
Are we now coming round to the view that the UN team is just acting as the front for the US administration?

It's possible... And it's beginning to feel that way but I am loathe to impute that much intelligence and forethought to the US administration :)
 
I wonder where they'll put Saddam if he agrees to exile. Hopefully some hell hole - may I suggest a bedsit in Milton Keynes?
 
Bump! 'Saddam' thread merged here.

Keep it cool, folks.
 
Separate him from his lover Satan and put him in heaven with God and all the Mormons(South Park reference):D
 
Thread Closed until further notice.

Warnings will be posted when my colleages return from the brief hiatus. Bannings may follow.
 
The last several pages of this thread have deleted, good posts and bad together. It did not make for pretty reading. It was all shouting, and no listening, with generalisations being flung hither and yon.

I am sad that this topic could not have been discussed more calmly. In future I implore people to answer specific points inother posts, and read those posts at least twice to make sure they said what you assumed they said.

The Mods are consulting on further action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top