Whats he at?

Kell

A new idea as to what Saddam is up to crept into my mind today and it's occurred to me that perhaps he is going to sit there and not do very much at all.

If the coalition have found zero evidence of WMD to date and Saddam has been bleating on that he hasn't got any, is Saddam going to sit out the war to question beyond doubt the legality and the reasoning behind the war? Yes, Iraq has fought back but strcitly speaking all they are doing is defending their country from attack.

If this is his thinking what of the aftermath?

K-

Alizarin

interesting thought!

and actually.. it would put Bush in really a very difficult place.

I doubt this though as Saddam is incredibly suspicious. there are no doubt many, many people who would want to put a few bullets in him. that includes any and all troops who surrendered as they know if he's still in power after the war... they had better run, run, run...

surrender wasn't supposed to be an option for them.

interesting thinking though!

Alizarin

welp.. you got me thinking

another possibility is that he melted into the population. he apparently is very experienced with disguises. he used to melt into the population in disguise in order to gauge the populace directly. perhaps he even was having plastic surgery when his bunker was hit. he's most concerned with his own skin, after all. it would be a serious blow to the iraqi's to not know where he was or what happened to him. he's been traumatizing them for decades and I think some closure on that would need to be found.

another possibiliy is that the bunker busters didn't get him directly, but did release chemical/bio weapons stored deep in there leaving him as a victim to his own horrible creations (and the horrors the US sold to him). that would be too poetic though...

Cork

Originally posted by Alizarin
interesting thought!

and actually.. it would put Bush in really a very difficult place.

I doubt this though as Saddam is incredibly suspicious. there are no doubt many, many people who would want to put a few bullets in him. that includes any and all troops who surrendered as they know if he's still in power after the war... they had better run, run, run...

surrender wasn't supposed to be an option for them.

interesting thinking though!

If Saddam has no weapons of mass distruction - why did he subject the Iraqi's to 12 years of sanctions?

After the war will be brought to account for his past deeds. The US & UK will not leave this dictator in place.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Cork
If Saddam has no weapons of mass distruction - why did he subject the Iraqi's to 12 years of sanctions?

And if Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction, would it have made any difference to the imposition of sanctions? Embargos are a political rather than moral device. Any relationship is purely coincidental. Ask Fidel Castro.

After the war will be brought to account for his past deeds. The US & UK will not leave this dictator in place.

Why not? There are plenty of other dictators that they’ve left in place. Many more brutal that Saddam. Some with WMD at hand.

Regrettably, the greatest casualty of this conflict has been the credibility of the US with the rest of the World. Many members of the UN Security Council has already made it clear that should US forces find WMDs in Iraq that they would not accept any findings until independently verified.

The diplomatic damage has been such that it will probably take twenty years to fully heal and that as a result we are likely to see any action or claim by the US to be treated with suspicion in the future.

Kell

Originally posted by Cork
If Saddam has no weapons of mass distruction - why did he subject the Iraqi's to 12 years of sanctions?

Why did who subject Iraq to 12 years of sanctions?

Saddam possessed WMD's 12 years ago yes and they were used against Iran and the Kurds. Chemical weapons have a "shelf life" of somewhere around 11 years which means that most of them have passed their drop by date. The last time proper intelligence was gathered on the Iraqi weaponry arsenal was '91 remember, so is the coalition assuming that he still has them and if so what proof do they have of their existence?

I am sorry, but if Blix and the team couldent find them nor have any of the advancing coalition found them, is it that hard to swallow that maybe, just maybe Saddam is telling the truth as to be honest I am finding what the coalition are saying a harder pill to swallow.

Now, back to the aftermath. According to the recent NATO and UN debates, the US plan on divvying up Iraq when things have settled down a bit and put nationals in place to run designated bits. What I find interesting is that these nationals will report and be advised directly by US officials. The US also started off by wanting UN invlovement limited to strictly humanitarian activities.

Now you'd have to be dumb in light of the US's stance on the rebuilding Iraq, to not doubt that the US's involvement in this war isnt down to the removal of a despot, or WMD's or anything that the US roll out to us. It's invlovement is purely down to self interest and that interest is oil.

K-

Originally posted by Kell
I am sorry, but if Blix and the team couldent find them nor have any of the advancing coalition found them, is it that hard to swallow that maybe, just maybe Saddam is telling the truth as to be honest I am finding what the coalition are saying a harder pill to swallow.

Ok so Blix and crew should have been given more time to do their job, I'd agree with that.
The problem I have though, is the slow begrudging nature of the "co-operation"
If he had nothing to hide, then why be so coy over the last number of months/years.
Surely that alone was what helped the U.S to come to his doorstep.
He could have avoided all this, if he wanted, even if he only had the tiniest amount of something hidden away, or facilities for it, an immediate disclosure would have helped.

As regards theories, I'll give you one...
The real Sadam was killed in the first Gulf war, the ministers we see on the TV are actors and aren't really running the show.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Kell
If the coalition have found zero evidence of WMD to date and Saddam has been bleating on that he hasn't got any, is Saddam going to sit out the war to question beyond doubt the legality and the reasoning behind the war?

Doesnt matter a toss if thats what he does.

Look at the media. Look at the statements being made by the US and UK. Since the moment that they actually crossed the Iraqi border, the only time WMDs have been mentioned is in the response to a question about them, or as a passing reference as part of the reason why regime change was needed.

The US and UK are now firmly basing their moral standpoint on "Iraq needs regime change".

If a single WMD doesnt get found, I expect Bush to say something like "He was a monster. He oppressed his people. Now they are free. Are you saying we shouldnt have freed them???".

It wont be an embarrassment. Hell, Afghanistan was originally about getting one man. By the time they crossed that border, it was about regime change...and one man. Once regime change was initially secured, the war was pronounced a success. They still havent fulfilled the original claimed objective and the only embarrassment it causes is that its occasionally mentioned on the news by the anti-war protestors saying that the same will happen again.

Bush couldnt care less if Saddam has, or has not got WMDs. He got enough support to go in there and do what he wanted, and once its done, no-one will really say "but thats not what you told us originally", because its not what he's saying now and no-one is saying a hell of a lot about it.

jc

davelerave

doesn't matter alright he's for the dictator's recycle bin.
no questions asked

Sparks

Erm,
Even if Saddam is allowed to survive,
Even if Saddam then wished to pursue legal action,

1) Where would he go to?
2) Who would enforce the judgement?

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by Sparks
Even if Saddam then wished to pursue legal action,

[johnny cochrane] Now I know that this man gassed his own people, and that he wishes to sue the USA, but Chewbacca lives on Endor. That makes no sense! [/johnny cochrane]

His best hope would be the UN or the Hague, and even then that's unlikely. Like the nazi Generals did in 1945, he's going on an extended trip to South America.

Éomer of Rohan

Well, first of all, if the yanks ever find him, they might just shoot him and claim it was an accident in order to spare them the embarassment of a legal harangue. Certainly Saddam would not be brought before the Hague - they learned their lesson with Milosevic - and not before the ICC since America doesn't agree with it and to use it would be hypocritical, mind you, there'd be no change there then.
As to an extended vacation, I think China might be his destination. Come to think of it, I wonder where Bin lid is?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Kell
Now you'd have to be dumb in light of the US's stance on the rebuilding Iraq, to not doubt that the US's involvement in this war isnt down to the removal of a despot, or WMD's or anything that the US roll out to us. It's invlovement is purely down to self interest and that interest is oil.

Really? Perhaps you'd have some evidence of this then? Because no one else here does.

Clintons Cat

USAID has already appointed the Stevedoring Sevices Of America to run the Port of Umm Qasr.Plans have already been anounced to build further Oil Handling Facillities next to already existing Oil Depots.

Which is nice

USAID awards all contracts exclusively to US Firms for "Security Reasons"

Though it might make a concession in the case of Britain,in recognition of its help in the Liberation of Iraqi Oil wells,I mean Peoples.Clare Shorts department may be given the exclusive rights to award several important contracts for the reconstruction of Cultrally Significant Sand Museums.

Mandatory Crappy Link

Some Hack

Dull Press Release

Éomer of Rohan

Biffa, apart from what Clinton's Cat said, I think it can be summed up in one word. Precedent.

Sparks

Indeed Eomar.
BTW, the states couldn't use the ICC - neither they nor Iraq are signed up so it wouldn't have legal jurisdiction.

Éomer of Rohan

I actually think they can use the ICC even though neither is a signatory since Saddam could be 'surrendered to international custody' as Kofi Annan requested over the Taliban and Al-Quaeda prisoners. But they won't. He will probably be lumped into Camp x Ray and promptly shot under the military tribunals of the US government. And guess who is the only course of appeal from those tribunals? Yep, ol' GWB himsel'

Sparks

Eomar,
They just can't - the treaty of Rome that established the ICC requires that either both parties be signed up to the ICC or that the crime took place on the territory of one party - and the jurisdiction of the ICC only applies from the time of signing up, it cannot be applied retrospectively.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Kell
If the coalition have found zero evidence of WMD to date and Saddam has been bleating on that he hasn't got any, is Saddam going to sit out the war to question beyond doubt the legality and the reasoning behind the war? Yes, Iraq has fought back but strcitly speaking all they are doing is defending their country from attack.

If this is his thinking what of the aftermath?

Indeed, but I wonder how practical it would be to survive in some bunker in Iraq perhaps for years. He could not do it alone; a group of people would know where he was.

He would not be able to offer these people anything such as positions in Government, money etc. All the US would have to do is offer a large reward and someone would shop him.

I'm sure (if he is alive) he is currently attempting to do just this anyway - the aim being to go down in history as a great Arab leader who valiantly fought off the combined might of the US and British when they invaded his country without reason.

Lemming

Originally posted by Man

Surely that alone was what helped the U.S to come to his doorstep.
He could have avoided all this, if he wanted, even if he only had the tiniest amount of something hidden away, or facilities for it, an immediate disclosure would have helped.

TBH, as soon as the US Congress approved funding for a build-up and the funding was allocated, this was going to happen, progress or no progress.

Bush called for the Inspectors to be allowed into Iraq after 9/11. He was hoping Iraq wouldn't comply thus giving him justification to go in. Iraq complied, although only just. And I'm sure that was meant as a means of protest and face-saving as any other reasons.

Then Bush immediately started whining that he was "sick and tired" with Iraq's reluctance to hand-hold the inspectors (in other words that they weren't finding anything fast enough). So he filed a motion citing that Iraq had failed to comply, and we are where we are now as an end result.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Lemming
Then Bush immediately started whining that he was "sick and tired" with Iraq's reluctance to hand-hold the inspectors (in other words that they weren't finding anything fast enough). So he filed a motion citing that Iraq had failed to comply, and we are where we are now as an end result.

I think the US wanted to maintain the ass-kicking mood following 911. IIRC, Iraq first started getting mentioned towards the end of the Afghanistan thing when it started looking like Osama Bin Laden wouldn't get found.

Since both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam wear towels on their heads, the linkage is easy to establish in peoples minds and indeed some 40% of Americans believe that Saddam was directly responsible for 911. Politically, the pieces finally came into place that would allow a war to secure Iraq.

Meh

Originally posted by Lemming
(in other words that they weren't finding anything fast enough)

Again we have this misconception. The inspectors weren't in Iraq to find anything. They weren't there as detectives searching for WMDs. They weren't there to play hide-and-seek with Saddam. They were there to verify, with the active, immediate and complete cooperation of the Iraqi government, that disarmament had taken place. It was up to Saddam to produce the evidence that he had disposed of his illegal weapons. The burden of proof wasn't on the inspectors; it was on Saddam.

Sparks

Well, I've seen reports that Bush wanted to invade Iraq within a week of 9/11, and only Blair prevented it. Not sure how much to credit it though, it was the Washington Post after all :rolleyes:

Meh,
That's correct, but you're ignoring the fact that Blix reported that things were progressing satisfactorily and that his request for more time was ignored by Bush.

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
Again we have this misconception. The inspectors weren't in Iraq to find anything.

That depends on which way you choose to interpret the word "find".

They most certainly were there to find whether or not Saddam had complied with the requirements to disarm.

What they didn't find was conclusive proof that he hadnt complied - at least not fast enough for Dubya, which is where the initial justification came from - although now its more about regime change for some "inexplicable" reason.

See - its more a case of the UN approach being something like "innocent till proven guilty", and the US - when dealing with nations (or just Iraq) rather than individuals seem to take the "we're right until proven otherwise" attitude....and as been oft stated, its pretty much impossible to prove you dont have something if the other person says "of course you do, you're just hiding it, and I'm right unless you prove otherwise".

So its not really a misconception. The inspectors were there to find proof of compliance or non-compliance.

I mean - what do you think the unannounced inspections to palaces and so on were for? To check the decor?

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
and as been oft stated, its pretty much impossible to prove you dont have something if the other person says "of course you do, you're just hiding it, and I'm right unless you prove otherwise".jc

But Bonkey, I can see what you are saying there,only I am not able to square that position with the total intransigence of Sadams regimes dealings on the matter.
I mean it's safe to assume that if, they had no weapons of mass distruction left, surely they should have had the inspectors back in, a year or more before last november, at their own behest, They should have kept them there in 1998 to finish the job,
if it wasn't a problem for them.
mm

Sparks

Ever think that problem might be pride and not possession?
I reiterate my statement - Blix's opinion was the authoritative one and it was that they were complying.

Originally posted by Sparks
Ever think that problem might be pride and not possession?
I reiterate my statement - Blix's opinion was the authoritative one and it was that they were complying.

Sparks, it's not as clearcut as saying Blix said they were complying, he knew there were a lot of unanswered questions and areas that more co-operation was needed, and he kept saying that,why was that co-operation so slow, and why, not initiated by Sadam's regime itself up to a year prior to when it was forced upon them?
And why not before, the coalition troops arrived in the gulf?
I doubt if pride could have anything to do with it, considering, the events of the last 12 years.
mm

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

Indeed Man, but his final opinion was that the process of complying with 1441 was progressing and an invasion was unwarranted.

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by Sparks
Indeed Man, but his final opinion was that the process of complying with 1441 was progressing and an invasion was unwarranted.

Absolutely . . . . . !

Even if you take the Anglo-american position that Saddam Hussein has WMD's that pose a threat to the outside world you still have to ask. . . Why the rush to war ? ? It is clear that Iraq were not posing an immediate threat . . . the man in charge of the weapons inspections said that he was making advances in this area and asked for more time . . . . yet still Bush/Blair rushed in to what history will show as being an illegal invasion / occupation of Iraq.

With regard to the importance of the coalition finding WMD's you can bet your backside they are doing everything possible to find them . . . . remember the chemical factory in the first few days of war ? remember the ricin they found ? Not ?
The coalition will play down the WMD thing because not to do so would draw international attention to their inability to find them. but I would be very surprised if, when this is all over the likes of Chirac and Putin will let it go so easily . . . .

And if Bertie had any balls he'd got to Hillsborough tomorrow and make this point directly to the executioner general himself !

Originally posted by Sparks
Indeed Man, but his final opinion was that the process of complying with 1441 was progressing and an invasion was unwarranted.

Not his final position actually, as he expects to go back after, hostilities have ended.
I'm sure, the people dancing in the streets of Basra at the moment are kind of Glad , Chemical Ali wasn't given more months to torture on behalf of Sadam.

My own position on this, was that I don't like war, but, I would step aside and judge this on it's results, and I have to say at the moment it's looking increasingly likely, that for the people of Iraq it's short term pain for long term gain.
mm