> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryon Daly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 01:38 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: V-I Day +1 - endgame scenarios?
> 
> 
> "Miller, Jeffrey" wrote:
> 
> > > My guess is that Saddam has a multitude of emergency 
> escape plans in 
> > > place, and as soon as he sees the jig is up, he'll disappear to 
> > > Argentina or someplace else he can live anonymously, rather than 
> > > risk being killed or face trial.  I also think, though, that the 
> > > soldiers going after him won't especially go out of their way to 
> > > capture him (vs. killing him).
> >
> > How is that not assassination?
> 
> Well, I was thinking along the lines of a scenario such as if 
> the army knew Saddam was in some well-defended bunker, they'd 
> just as soon drop a bomb on it as expend their soldiers lives 
> to take him alive.  I wouldn't consider that assasination.

Ah.. yeah, that's acceptable.  If he were to die while in custody, I don't thin that 
anyone is going to believe the "he tripped and fell on a bullet" story.

> > > > international court -- on what charges?  "gassing his 
> own people"? 
> > > > There's enough clouds around this charge to make it 
> difficult to 
> > > > stick, and it would highlight US involvement in both this
> > > and Kuwait
> > > > (our military assistence to Iraq and greenlighting the Kuwait
> > > > invasion.)  Is that something we really want to remind the
> > > region of?
> > >
> > > Do you really think Saddam's not that bad a guy?  Just 
> some bad PR?  
> > > How would Saddam's gassing the Kurds after the Gulf War 
> highlight US 
> > > military assistance to Iraq?
> >
> > I didn't claim he wasn't.  Again I ask - what charges?
> 
> I thought the "gassing his own people" was a good place to start.

..except that the "gassing his own people" episode most refer to happened years ago, 
and there's been no outcry about it until now. (Not that it is invalidated by the lag 
time, but it doesn't quite rise to a major human rights violation, as dispicable as it 
is)

> > > > exile -- who'd take him?  ..and is he truly going to be out
> > > of power
> > > > if his backside is parked on a rock in the middle of the
> > > Indian Ocean?
> > >
> > > A few countries have already offered to take him.  And I'm sure a 
> > > few others would also accept him and his money.
> >
> > Such as?
> 
>  http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/7/025620-9837-010.html
>                 "President Bush said last month that he
>                  would welcome exile for Hussein, and some
>                  Arab countries -- most notably Saudi Arabia
>                  -- have proposed offering him exile to avert
>                  war."

Thanks for the link.  I have to wonderjust how long, no matter which country takes 
him, before he tripped and fell onto a bullet 6 or 7 times.. :)

> > The linkage between "regime change" and averting a war is sudden.
> 
> I think I understand your point now  - my guess is that it 
> ties back to the point Jon and I were both making, which is 
> that Saddam can continue to play the "don't cooperate - 
> marginally cooperate - don' t cooperate - marginally 
> cooperate" game indefinitely while he still works behind the 
> scenes to obtain/develop WMD, only marginally hindered by the 
> ineffective inspection process.

Ah.. 

Do you consider the inspection process to be truly ineffective, even given its 
monumental task and what it managed to achieve before we pulled out the inspectors?

> My question to you: What would it take for you to agree with 
> having a war on Iraq?  I.e.:  In what circumstances would you 
> see it justifiable?

Why do you think I disagree with a war? :) Not only do I think wars are perfectly 
legitimate means of accomplishing goals, I think that oil is a perfectly valuable 
thing to spill blood over.

Speaking off-the-cuff - war should always be the last resort of a peace-loving nation. 
 It should be wielded as a credible threat, but not until other options are played out 
- unless or until there is a credible, legitimate, and urgent threat that can only be 
overcome in a timely fashion by the application of force.  I don't see that situation 
existing today.

-j-
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to