Saddam: His final days...

PH01

It won't, or shouldn't, be long now before we see the end of this dictators regime. I, for one, am looking forward to the event. An Iraq freed from his regime can only be better that where they are now.
Anyone else feel the same?

Corben Dallas

Me too, good riddance Saddam, strange that their is close to 100% support in Kuwait and Kurdistan for the removal militarily of Saddam. yet none of this is reflected by the Irish Peaceheads.

must be something to do with the fact the Iraqi invasion has not been forgotten and the missle attacks on Kuwait remind the ppl their that Saddams strange priorities seem not to attack the US /UK build up , but to remind the locals that he still regards Kuwait as a rightful province of Iraq.

isnt it just great that we have the right to protest and we dont end up in a cell to be brutalised and tortured for protesting- makes u think doesnt it ?:|

Times up Saddam.

Cork

Good riddance to bad rubbish. He had never any intention of complying with UN resoulutions. He has used scuds already. He found these pretty fast. He was not allowed to have these weapons. He has treated both his own nation and the UN with comtempt.

After the use ofscuds - war is the only answer. Both sanctions and resolutions have not worked. Fair play to Bush + Blair. Even Mary Harney & Bertie for showing leadership.

Kevin Myres has an excellent article in todays times. I think the time for making excuses for Saddam is over.

Cork

I hope along with scuds - Saddam does not have an array of other surprises. I think however - this is only wishful thinking.

He never had any intention of complying with UN resolutions. Immediate & Complete Disarmment?

Yet People will make excuses for time.

bonkey

Originally posted by Corben Dallas
Me too, good riddance Saddam, strange that their is close to 100% support in Kuwait and Kurdistan for the removal militarily of Saddam. yet none of this is reflected by the Irish Peaceheads.

Goodness....100% support for the removal of a man who invaded your country and burned your oilfields? Theres a surprise. 100% support for a man who gassed your people....there's a surprise too.

Now...here's the real kicker - this was not supposed to be about regime change. Its supposed to be about removing the threat of WMDs. Explain to me how, if Saddam had fully complied with resolution 1441, the wishes of the Kuwaiti or Kurdish people would have mattered a toss?

As happened with Afghanistan, the reasons for invading a nation change momumentally as the war approaches or begins. There, it was about getting bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and that was it. Then it became "bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and a bit of regime change". Then it became "we didnt get bin Laden, we wont mention Al Qaeda because we know its really international and we've only damaged one part of it, but hey...everything was a success because we've liberated the people from the regime".

Now what do we have? "Lets invade Iraq to forcefully disarm them of WMDs we claim to know they have. Oh...no...wait....regime change is whats important."

Same bloody thing.

If you want to support military-backed regime change, then be aware that the US will not be the only nation who can subsequently claim some form of moral correctness in going to war (in defiance of the UN) with a nation who's government they happen to disagree with. Expect to see plenty of other nations using "regime change" as the latest excuse for their brutality, just as we saw with "the war on terrorism". Of course, the US wont have to shoulder any responsibility for that...of course not. Its not their fault if they set a precedent and other nations decide to follow their lead to see if they can get away with it. Honest.

Also, if its about regime change, then lets be honest and admit its about regime change. Lets stop this crap about discussing the weapons inspections, Resolution 1441, the UN in general, or anything which has led to this war, because none of that was abot regime change.

If these people's opinions are relevant, then the US has been systematically lying about its aims, goals and objectives since this whole affair came to a head post-Afghanistan. Thats what it boils down to.

So, no. I bery much doubt that the "peaceheads" have overlooked it at all. I would say its more a case of the information not being relevant unless you wish them to use it to damn the US even further.

must be something to do with the fact the Iraqi invasion has not been forgotten and the missle attacks on Kuwait remind the ppl their that Saddams strange priorities seem not to attack the US /UK build up , but to remind the locals that he still regards Kuwait as a rightful province of Iraq.

What missile attacks would this be? As of midnght last night, Kuwait City had had 6 false alarms, and no actual incoming missiles. One missile may have been targetted at a Kuwaiti port, which the US were using, but splashed in the Gulf, and the rest were targetted at the US force buildup, and again allegedly missed or were intercepted.

Now that the war has started, I hope that both sides show restraint. We wont know whether they do or not for quite some time....as the usual amount of propaganda and misinformation will colour everything we hear, creating uncertainty at best.

I also hope that Saddam is removed, and that his army surrenders or crumbles quickly. Why? Because regardless of whether or not this war is right, if this war fails it will have been the cause of massive amounts of suffering for nothing.

jc

dahamsta

I thought the, uh, "allied forces" said yesterday that the missiles fired on Kuwait were not Scuds, but probably Al Samoud (sp)?

Cork, your arguments are weak and tiresome. Go away.

adam

PH01

I feel that the leadup to this war was approached from the wrong direction. Going to the UN to get resolutions was a waste of time. And Bush linking Saddam to Al Quida and WMD was stupid. He should have stuck with the Regime Change story, and put forward the proposition that the over-throw of Saddam would simply be a good thing for Iraq.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Corben Dallas
Me too, good riddance Saddam, strange that their is close to 100% support in Kuwait and Kurdistan for the removal militarily of Saddam. yet none of this is reflected by the Irish Peaceheads.

[sarcasm] Okay, the game's up. I admit it, all the time I was opposing a US-led invasion of Iraq in defiance of international opinion, I was secretly supporting Saddam and hoping he could continue to gas Kurd's to his heart's content.

God you're perceptive.
[/sarcasm]

isnt it just great that we have the right to protest and we dont end up in a cell to be brutalised and tortured for protesting- makes u think doesnt it ?:|

Funny how this is always used as a stick to beat the people exercising the very right you claim to hold so dear. Makes you think.

Hobbes

$10 says Saddam will manage to escape into Iran, where Iran will be unable to hand him over.

Johnmb

I doubt he'd go to Iran (too much bad history there). Jordan though would be a good bet.

Dr_Teeth

Those dang Jordanians! Junior, git me ma gun!

Teeth.

Cork

The people of Iraq deserve Regime Change . as do the people of Iran & Saudi Arabia. The UN has got to become more pro-active. What has arms inspections achieved - When Saddam could fire bombs into Kuwait? Over 8 years of weapons inspections and 12 years of sanctions has achieved nothing for the average Iraqi.

I admit the US could have made a lot more sense at times - but resolution 1441 could have not been clearer. Immediate & Total disarment or else.

Saddam was given 4 months to comply.

Bush & Blair had the leadership to call his bluff.

Hopefully, the ordinary Iraqi will now forsake Saddam & The UN & EU will plan to rebuild Iraq.

Bush has said - the US will trawl banks for Saddams riches and monies will be put in thrust for the people of Iraq - instead of furnishing palaces.

Corben Dallas

What missile attacks would this be? As of midnght last night, Kuwait City had had 6 false alarms, and no actual incoming missiles. One missile may have been targetted at a Kuwaiti port, which the US were using, but splashed in the Gulf, and the rest were targetted at the US force buildup, and again allegedly missed or were intercepted.

its been reported ( in our free press- gr8 that too - dont have this in Iraq ) that several missiles have been fired @ Kuwait.Saddam seems to suddently have a lot of missiles. or is it that u just refuse to accept any news thats negative for Saddam? or anti Iraqi?

it just makes me want to tear my hair out that the Irish Peaceheads could not give a f**k about what has gone on in Iraq for all of Saddams reign of Terror in Iraq, but as soon as someone stands up and actually DOES soemthing about it. its were anti american how dare they try to depose Saddam.

Sometimes i think that if say Russia, China and France were forcing regime change in Iraq at present then it would be OK and the Peaceheads would be quiet.

Lets not forget that Russia and France have had involvement with the Iraqi Oil Industry and maybe its also sour grapes from France that its not goin to have any involement with restoring oil supplies in a post Saddam Iraq.

gandalf

UH hello no one ever said the Iraqis had no missiles. They have at least 50+ El Sammouds that weren't destroyed (if the US had a brain they would have waited another week for those to be destroyed) and there were reports of Missile batteries being moved closer to the border before the outbreak of war.

So far no proof has been put forward to confirm the missiles were Scuds. In fact there were reports this morning that they weren't Scuds but that was pulled fairly quickly.

Its makes me so sad that the supporters of the war are deluding themselves that they are for the freedom of all Iraqi's. Tell that to the poor civilians who have died so far from the bombings, especially as diplomacy and weapon inspections were working.

No one ever said France & Russia don't have agendas of their own, we all know that they are not whiter than white with respect to Iraq. It has to be remembered that the US & UK played major roles from the top of the Government downwards in arming this despot in the 1st place.

As for France not getting its hands on the oil after the war, no-one bar American corporations will be "admisitering" the Iraqi oilfields after the war.

Now back on topic, Saddam will not be around in a months time imho (thats if he isn't dead already).

Gandalf.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Cork
The people of Iraq deserve Regime Change . as do the people of Iran & Saudi Arabia.

Funny the majority of young saudi's interviewed for a poll believe that the US plan to invade their country and they aren't happy about it.

As for Iran, part of it is probably as close to western culture then any other country in that area. Or are you just quoting bush speak?

bug

quote by gandalf- Saddam will not be around in a months time imho (thats if he isn't dead already).

The trouble is according to euronews ,that he has so many doubles it may be difficult to establish whether he is alive or not. Apparently they have a german researcher in the states trying to determine whether or not it was really him giving the press conference yesterday after the first air attacks. I have to say I found it weirdly amusing- the pictures that they had on euronews this morning, that is. It was like "spot the difference". Apparently the real Saddam has a nick in his right ear. The german had circled these in red in the photos.:)

Putting aside for the moment the real reason why the American's have gone into Iraq, which as I have expressed before IMO is purely for their own monetary gain, and putting aside what they are expressing are their reasons- I have would have to wait until I see what the repercussions are for the Iraqi people and indeed the reprecussions in the middle east before I would make up my mind on whether or not they are better off. -If I can trundle successfully through the propaganda to get the real news, or indeed if they feed us any real info- Quote from yesterday's RTE lunch-time news-" we haven't really been given any new information today,Charlie but lets discuss the little we have from yesterday" -News reader addressing Charlie Bird in Kuwait

As an aside I heard Tony Blairs speech- I think it was yesterday evening, he stated the the oil funds would be administered by the UN.

bonkey

Originally posted by Corben Dallas
its been reported ( in our free press- gr8 that too - dont have this in Iraq ) that several missiles have been fired @ Kuwait.Saddam seems to suddently have a lot of missiles. or is it that u just refuse to accept any news thats negative for Saddam? or anti Iraqi?

They were fired at a Kuwaiti port being used by US forces and at the rough location that the force was using as a staging area...which is also in Kuwait.

Make no mistake. Kuwait has agreed to act as a staging point for an invading army. The nation therefore in no way neutral, but the Iraqis have made no aggressive moves against anything which is not related to the incoming force.

it just makes me want to tear my hair out that the Irish Peaceheads could not give a f**k about what has gone on in Iraq for all of Saddams reign of Terror in Iraq,

I'm sure that they will also thank you for putting words into their mouth. Most people are saying that the regime is not acceptable but war is not the solution.

It makes me want to tear my head out that so many of the warheads seem incapable of realising that not going to war does not mean "do nothing". I dont think a single anti-war poster on these forums has suggested for a moment that nothing should be done, and if there has been some such posts, they are in the vast, vast minority.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by bug
he has so many doubles it may be difficult to establish whether he is alive or not. Apparently they have a german researcher in the states trying to determine whether or not it was really him giving the press conference yesterday after the first air attacks.

The one expert I saw interviewed on this pointed out that in any footage they have of the doubles, they never speak. This is because mouth movement, hand genstures, etc. are far harder to mimic than (say) voice, intonation and inflection.

So, not only would Saddam need a double, he would need one with the abilities of a world-class mimic, if this is indeed a hoax.

At the end of the day, I dont believe he's dead - he's just too canny an operator for that. After one war spent dodging the US attacks, he's not gonna just hole up in a palace and think he's safe....come on...Saddam may be brutal, but the man is no moron.

This is, in my opinion, just another facet of the ongoing propaganda war. It gives the public a possibility of a short war with no cost if it proves to be wrong. It gives the Iraqi's with access to international news a little bit of doubt. Classic PSYOP stuff.

Similarly, all the press about the Iraqi army being close to collapse fue to lack of leadership....its most likely more PSYOP disinformation, but which is intended to be potentially self-fulfilling.

Mix enough fact with enough fiction, and sooner or later people will not be sure what to believe. If you're an Iraqi, and you see that the US is saying the army is folding, you may not believe your commander who tells you the war is going swimmingly against the infidel invaders....and that is what its all about.

jc

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Cork
The people of Iraq deserve Regime Change . as do the people of Iran & Saudi Arabia.

Are you going for a job in the Bush administration or something?
The Iranians are trying themselves for "regime change" it'll happen there in it's own time, it doesn't need the US to "help" it.
And regarding Saudi Arabia, what Hobbes said.

Kell

What really písses me off about this whole episode of history, is why wage a war on a country to dispose of one man? In all likliehood I feel that they will not achieve the objective of killing Saddam.

What I would like to know is why a world power didn't elect to assasinate him several years ago. Some, lots in fact, argue that no one nation could elect themselves as assasins as it would paint them in a very bad light with the rest of the international community. But thats exactly what the US & UK have done and what international suport has this offensive won them? Little. So why not have just taken the fúcker out in the first place with minimum fuss and no war?

If the US and UK believe they have the technology to try and "de-capitate" the leadership in the first offensive, then they have the technology to send someone with a bowie knife and slit his fúcking throat.

End moan.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Kell
What I would like to know is why a world power didn't elect to assasinate him several years ago.

Assasinations of heads of states is a big no-no. It's even more frowned apon then going to war like the US has. That's not to say the US will try it on Saddam (have already the other day), but they are using the excuse of war as the get out of jail card.

Heck, the US use the excuse that AQ are not heads of state to condone the assasination of them. So they know full well something like you suggest wouldn't fly.

bug

This is, in my opinion, just another facet of the ongoing propaganda war. It gives the public a possibility of a short war with no cost if it proves to be wrong. It gives the Iraqi's with access to international news a little bit of doubt. Classic PSYOP stuff.

-quote from bonkey

True, true- and here I was thinking I could see thru all that

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Assasinations of heads of states is a big no-no. It's even more frowned apon then going to war like the US has. That's not to say the US will try it on Saddam (have already the other day), but they are using the excuse of war as the get out of jail card.

I dont think they are too averse to assassination during times of war, but outside that its definitely a no-go, because if a nation like the US was at it, everyone would feel free to have a go.

The most advanced army in the world is worth SFA against a good sniper during peacetime. Legitimising peace-time assassination would have the effect of the US needing to consider itself on a permanent war footing, which would ultimately cripple the nation.

Once war is declared....well....I think they'd be well up for a "one bullet, one kill" approach, but there just isnt a hope of getting a decent shot in without having sleepers or something like that in place. Maybe I'm wrong there...maybe they oppose the use of assassination at a high level even in times of war, but that really does strike me as a bit pointless.

Von

Just after the initial air raid, CNN reported that the US admin had said that if Saddam had been killed, the military "would still have to go in to disarm him." Another clue that Saddam is merely a side issue. Is he so evil that he can still do his despot thing after having a cruise missile explode in his arse?

Kell

Originally posted by Hobbes
Assasinations of heads of states is a big no-no. It's even more frowned apon then going to war like the US has.

Sorry to be a fly in the ointment and belabour my point, but why would a nation be compelled to claim responsibility if it's in the effort of long term common good?

Hobbes

Originally posted by Kell
Sorry to be a fly in the ointment and belabour my point, but why would a nation be compelled to claim responsibility if it's in the effort of long term common good?

Your making the assumption that no one would ever find out.

If ever you wanted to start WWIII this would be the way to go about it.

mike65

This is, in my opinion, just another facet of the ongoing propaganda war. It gives the public a possibility of a short war with no cost if it proves to be wrong. It gives the Iraqi's with access to international news a little bit of doubt. Classic PSYOP stuff.

Its obvious the US military will be making darn sure that Saddam and he henchmen see all the fire power comming long before it hits. Saddam will be dead in pretty quick time I'd say, he certainly wont be going anywhere outside Iraq.

Mike.

Cork

Its makes me so sad that the supporters of the war are deluding themselves that they are for the freedom of all Iraqi's. Tell that to the poor civilians who have died so far from the bombings, especially as diplomacy and weapon inspections were working.

Resolution 1441 called for the immediate and total dis-armment of Iraq. Saddam simply has not complied. He has shown complete disregard for the United Nations.

Saddam was given over 4 months to disarm - he failed to do this.

I honestly believe Bush and Blair had no option but to go to war. Sanctions were indeed hurting the average Iraqi. The infant motality rates were pretty high.

Arms Inspectors were making a certain amount of progress - but there was big gaps in information supplied by Iraq.


There was no sign of dis-armment.

I think war is the last resort - but I do not think more time for arms inspections would have worked. Arms Inspectors were in Iraq for over 8 1/3 years.

I was talking to an UN guy last week and he stated that Iraq did not want to be a sitting duck for invasion by another country.

But all the UN were doing asking Saddam to account for various chemical & biological weapons. This should not not have taken long.

Saddam had no intention of complying with UN resolutions. What alternative had a UN that was devided?

froggy 2

"Saddam has yet to comply with resolution 1441".

I) In fact, I don't think there is any proof (and even serious clue) proving he has not. The evidence given by both BLAIR (and his student report) and BUSH (about uranim) were, at the very best, suspicions.
To be more specific:
-Nuclear: it's clear there is no nuclear programm in IRAK. It is something you cannot conceal; you cannot put a plant to elaborate nucelar fuel in a truck; furthermore, structures used in nuclear process need years (or even decade) to be dismantled.
-Biological and chemical: you can imagine (no evidence was ever given) that there are crude weapons of that kind, since there are easy to make. We are far from being sure: you can say it's a gap, since noone trust HUSSEIN. On the other side, BUSH and BLAIR have not been able to show any evidence despite 20 satellites and a 24-hours-a-day watch (and litening) of the country for monthes; not mentionning that at least some of their important info has proved to be false.
-The only point relevant regarding 1441 resolution is the Al-Samoud-2 rocket programm: 100 missiles ranging 190km (... theorically) instead of 150km. I don't think it is worth a war; furthermore, they were being destroyed. Oh, I forget... additionally, since yersteday, it seems IRAQ had several SCUDS left. So far not totally sure (no picture) since at least some of those missiles were smaller (made in china) and IRAQIS still deny there was any SCUD.

II) The reason now given by BUSH (install democracy) for the war is a very recent one (I don't think I had not heard of it before february) . Furthermore, BUSH did not hesitate to help a coup attempt in VENEZUELA against a democratic (if not pleasant) leader...

III) In fact, I think the USA defend their interest in the area, that's all (I don't think FRANCE would do any better, but that's not the question)...

Anyway, you can do bright things while defending your interests (sometimes good things happen for bad reasons); getting ride of SADDAM HUSSEIN, why not?
But it would imply that there is a broad international agreement on that subject (wich BUSH has never brought to discussion to the UN), and that American explain what they have in mind for IRAK's future (American plans about that are as fuzzy as POWELL's photograph) it ranges from "democracy for the whole region", to a "liberal dictatorship" (strange thing indeed).
If they have in mind to replace HUSSEIN by someone like NELSON MANDELA, I say : " very bright idea". If they have in mind to raise some kind of TALIBANS or KABYLA (or even a SADDAM-2), I don't think it is such a good thing.

As a conclusion, I'd say
1) BUSH has been willing war for monthes. He even originally did not want the inspectors to go back to IRAQ (remember they had left at CLINTON's demand).
2) I'm against this war but, since it has happened anyway, I hope it willl be short and the american will win quickly with minimum casualties on both sides... If they don't, all of us are in deep mess.

Meh

Originally posted by froggy 2
"Saddam has yet to comply withresolution 1441".

I) In fact, I don't think there is any proof (and even serious clue) proving he has not.

You have it the wrong way round. The burden of proof is on Saddam to show that he has complied with 1441.

froggy 2

Originally posted by MEH:

---

You have it the wrong way round. The burden of proof is on Saddam to show that he has complied with 1441.

---

OK it is hard to catch a black cat in a dark room... especially if there is not cat.
What I mean is that there is no proof of IRAQ's innocence (hard to prove anyone’s innocence)... but you must admit that an intensive watch and hear (not mentionning conventionnal spying) of IRAQ over months, inspections over years with no result except a British report (supposedly a major proof) that had been written by a student, false documents about Uranium (supposedly purchased by IRAQ from a Nigerian general that was no more at power) and fuzzy photographs that was mocked by BLIX even at UN… well it may be considered as a beginning of proof.

I hardly can admit you (originally posted by Cork)
"I honestly believe Bush and Blair had no option but to go to war. "
while there is such faint clues.

Cork

What I mean is that there is no proof of IRAQ's innocence (hard to prove anyone’s innocence)...

It is not a criminal trial where a defenddant is persumed innocent untill proven guilty.

Resoulution 1441 called for complete and immediate disarment.

Saddam needed to either dis-arm or covince Dr. Blix that he had disarmed.

I completely agree with you about evidence brought up by the UK and US. It was wanting to put it mildly.

But, I hope the war will indeed be a short one & that the lot of the average Iraqi will improve. They deresve some peace after years of wars and sanctions.

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh
You have it the wrong way round. The burden of proof is on Saddam to show that he has complied with 1441.

How can you show that you do not have something....especially when those making the allegations will be about as specific as :

"We know he has stuff. We're not entirely sure what, how much, where, or what delivery mechanism, but he has stuff. We have the proof...we just cant tell anyone."

In the face of such strong allegations, it is impossible to prove innocence.

jc

mike65

...all of which overlooks the previous 16 (?) resolutions which Saddam singuarly failed to comply with.

Mike.