You don’t even know as much for a fact. See, quite conveniently, the US “doesn’t do body counts.” Not when it’s them doing the killing anyway…
I’ll also remind you that torture and wholesale incarcerations are going on as we speak.
US Soldiers Told to ‘Beat the F**k Out of’ Detainees
So this whole “Bush, slightly better than Saddam” is just more apologist BS.
You (and Princhester) might have a point if I had actually said ‘Bush, slightly better than Saddam’ or anything like that in this thread. I think you’ll find that I didn’t, and that I wasn’t actually talking about any of this to start off with anyway…it was rjung as usual twisting what I was saying to start a fight with me (and also hijack this thread IMO). Princhester…well, its obvious he’s not going to find his ass with both hands. 
You are getting tiresome. A clear reading of what rjung said in this thread, coupled with what I’ve seen in the past show me exactly what his intent was…which was to minimize Saddams atrocities while maxamizing those of the US. You can dance and spin all you like, make up stupid little insults to me that you think get past the mods (in my experience you are probably safe, but you never know) when they should be in the pit, etc etc, but it doesn’t change the facts.
Again, do you have any actual debate points ABOUT THE FUCKING OP? If not its time to, as Redfury told me in another thread, to spin the mouse wheel whenever your name pops up.
-XT
And you might have a point if my post was directed at anything YOU wrote and not a direct reply to the person I quoted.
<Carol King>
You’re so vain
You probably think this song is about you
You’re so vain
I’ll bet you think this song is about you
Don’t you? Don’t you?
</Carol King>
Oh. Ok then. I thought it was.
-XT
Ok got your meaning Xtisme… the gun analogy is quite appropiate. I too wondered why Saddam didn’t go into a well off exile with his sons.
I do wonder though if Saddam really got a chance to quit and go exile ? Things went quite fast… or the US didn’t really want to see him get away ? Maybe he tried to haggle a bit more… and ran out of time… who knows…
But in the end I think Saddam thought the US was bluffing or something. Dictators (and others) have this nasty tendecy to have a lot of yes sayers around and lose contact with reality.
I don’t know. We probably will never know all that went on behind the scenes. However, we do know that Saddam hadn’t come out publically and even hinted that he may be ready for a deal that he would leave Iraq with his family and toadies in return for whatever. I’m fairly confident that if he had made such a back room offer the US would have jumped at it…even if it entailed ponying up a few millions of our own to sweeten the pot.
Or, maybe in those back rooms we let Saddam know that he had no options but to fight, that only his death would suffice, etc. If so, the Bush adminstration is even stupider than I think it is…and thats saying quite a lot. As this was a speculation thread, I tossed it out because to me it was a more plausable result than SH suddenly handing over WMD to the UN and admitting he had the things. For one, because I don’t believe he did, so its moot. For another, because if he DID have them and if he HAD turned them over I doubt it would have saved him anything…if anything it would have made the invasion more inevitable IMO.
Agreed, though I’d say it wasn’t so much he lost contact with reality as that events moved too fast and to radically for him to keep up. Its difficult for people who don’t live in America to sometimes predict what American might or might not do. After all, for a decade before the invasion we’d pretty much been over the same ground with Saddam…nothing really had changed in that situation. What had changed and what I think Saddam failed to see was that the Bush administration was radically different than the Clinton administration at a fundamental level.
In addition, he failed to see how the events of 9/11 had changed the perceptions and attitudes on the average American, and opened a window of opportunity that Bush et al used to get their war. Saddam tried to play it like it was the status quo, but the game had changed and he didn’t realize it early on at least. Of course, there is no excuse for him after we started building up troops and logistics in Saudi…by that point I think everyone knew the game was up and the final outcome would be Saddam and his gang gone…one way or the other. Faced with that choice and nothing you could do about it, I would I’d be on a beach somewhere earning 15% (or 20% :)) percent with some nice native girls to get me drinks…
-XT
Right. So your actual cites and quotes to this effect are coming right up, then I guess? I mean, after all, a “clear reading” of rjung’s comments supports your point, right? So presumably you’re saying that he’s made comments as you allege, in black and white, explicitly.
Those quotes are on the way, right?
Any second now…
Or is it a case of you being called on a complete strawman, and being unable to find any actual posts or comments by rjung that would allow you to deny the charge, so now you’re down to making vague unfalsifiable allegations about what has allegedly been said in the past?
I understand that being confronted with your inappropriate posting behaviour is not comfortable for you, but that’s not my problem.
And when you satisfactorily explain how it advances the debate to create strawmen (which is, to be blunt, basically lying about what other posters have said), then I’ll feel obliged to justify my own posts in response.
Give it a rest guys.
It is reasonably well documented that Saddam Hussein had began back room offers to allow Iraq a managed transition to democracy over a 2 year period, culminating in free elections.
I’ve never heard of free elections in Iraq, nor have I heard of documentation that Saddam was engaged in back room dealings to try and avoid what happened…and more specifically offering to leave Iraq. I’m not saying I necessarily doubt you here, I’ve just never seen them. If you have cites, I’d be interested in seeing them.
If this was directed at me (it seems to be, but sometimes I’m wrong about these things) I have no idea what you figure I’ve done that needs to give a rest too…certainly not in this thread.
-XT
No, frankly I won’t. As is perhaps apparent from my first post in this thread I have had it up tohere with the whole “if you argue you must think Saddam an innocent babe, a boy scout etc” bit. I fully intend to pursue anyone I see doing it till I’ve ground them into pieces.
It just seems that there’s an inordinate amount of nitpicking the nitpicks.
Sorry I interfered. Carry on.
I happen to agree with you, which is why I’m ignoring Princhester. Feel free to interfer all you like…myself I was curious what you thought I specificially had done since you said ‘guys’.
Redfury, thanks for the link. Businessmen? This seemed to say that they weren’t engaged directly with the US, but through some third party. Was this the case? (I admit I have only skimmed your link…I’m actually working tonight).
-XT
Some of you may have also forgotten just how Bush framed his ultimatum:
Will the War Begin With a Big Lie?
Iraq will be invaded or occupied regardless of “ultimatum,” report says
That should put the OP’s query to rest.
Backdoor facilitators carrying a feeler, yes. Nothing unusual in this type of situations if memory serves. See Cuban Missile Crisis.
Not much more for you to say, I expect.
While I agree, I’m not sure that the piece quoted is actually all that strong. It’s mostly Gordon’s interpretation of an ambiguous comment. The Powell comment is fairly strong though, I suppose.
Princhester, try parsing Bush’s own pre-invasion speech:
President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours
The following two paragraphs in particular makes it quite clear that the Americans were going in regardless of Saddam’s actions.
IOW, we’re going in, give up and don’t fuck with “our” oil.
“make it quite clear” even.