NYT says Saddam wanted to make a deal.

[Evolver]

From the NY Times. Valid login needed. (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/politics/06INTE.html?hp)
As American soldiers massed on the Iraqi border in March and diplomats argued about war, an influential adviser to the Pentagon received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman: Saddam Hussein wanted to make a deal.

Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections

The messages from Baghdad, first relayed in February to an analyst in the office of Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy and planning, were part of an attempt by Iraqi intelligence officers to open last-ditch negotiations with the Bush administration through a clandestine communications channel, according to people involved.

The efforts were portrayed by Iraqi officials as having the approval of President Saddam Hussein, according to interviews and documents.

Bush ignored the offer. We, the public were not told of it.

The "Bush can do no wrong" side will tell us that Saddam could not be trusted. I do agree with that, but I also feel Bush was railroading the country into war.

[Tricky]

Sorry, Evolver. I accidentally posted a similar thread. I can't delete it but I'll go back and edit it to refer to this one.

--------------
This may explain puzzle of why Saddam, knowing he would be crushed, didn't give in. It also jives with Saddam's well-known desire to "save face" with his people. By negotiating in private through intermediaries, he could keep it from looking like he had knuckled under.

But of course, by that time, Dubya had already decided to invade, and nothing, not even surrender, was going to stop him.
------
Edited to add a link to the Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2204760) (You don't need an ID for this one.)

[Skeptic]

Bush ignored the offer.

That might have SOMETHING to do with the fact that the word of a mass murderer to keep the peace is not worth much.

We, the public were not told of it.

Imagine that. Classified intelligence from a less-than-dependable source (A lebanese businessman?) about a vague "peace" offer of unkown validity and even lesser reliability was not made public.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya!

[Luke T.]

Poor Saddam. He tried to surrender. He must be on a golf course with O.J. somewhere, looking for someone to surrender to.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[Imagine that. Classified intelligence from a less-than-dependable source (A lebanese businessman?) about a vague "peace" offer of unkown validity and even lesser reliability was not made public.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya!

As opposed to classified intelligence from a single unreliable source which wasa release almost immediately when it supports the position you are taking (the 45 minute claim).

BTW I happen to think that striking a deal with Saddam Hussein would have been politically impossible for those people who supported the war.

[Crossbow]

There was a good piece about this event on NPR as well.

Saddam was willing to allow thousands of inspectors and some US military troops in Iraq in order to verify that they did not have any WMDs. However, the offer was not taken very seriously by Bush & Co. since they were already satisfied with their own data sources.

Report: Washington Rebuffed Iraq's Pre-War Overtures
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=06-Nov-2003&prgId=3

[Luke T.]

I thought I caught all of Saddam's bunker broadcasts before the war. Somehow I missed the one where he said he had turned over a new leaf and would hand over a terrorist and would be a good boy from now on. I only saw the ones where he was saying "You want a piece of ME?!?" and "You talking to me? Are you talking to me? I don't see anyone else here, so you must be talking to me."

Maybe Al Jazeera suppressed the surrender speech. I don't know.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Imagine that. Classified intelligence from a less-than-dependable source
No doubt (http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030612224244.wn2uid4i.html)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Skeptic

That might have SOMETHING to do with the fact that the word of a mass murderer to keep the peace is not worth much.


Yes, I dont belive a word Bush says!

Bush: "Iraq is chock full of WMDs"
Saddam: "There arent any WMDs in Iraq"

There werent any.

Whose the liar?

[Supercharts]

I'm very skeptical about this story.
The source isn't identified - why?

Since there were many legitimate channels of communication open why would SH choose to use a businessman with no influence? Why not just call in the French ambassador?

The NYT publishes a story that cannot be proven to be true. It also cannot be proven to be false. Yet this story is now being repeated as fact?
:rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I thought I caught all of Saddam's bunker broadcasts before the war. Somehow I missed the one where he said he had turned over a new leaf and would hand over a terrorist and would be a good boy from now on. I only saw the ones where he was saying "You want a piece of ME?!?" and "You talking to me? Are you talking to me? I don't see anyone else here, so you must be talking to me."

Maybe Al Jazeera suppressed the surrender speech. I don't know.
As I mentioned earlier, this type of behavior would be expected of a leader who was trying to keep the respect of his people. He probably wanted to avoid war and remain the boss. If he blinked (publicly) he might not be able to do that.

But regardless of the method of conveying the offer, it should have been examined. If this horrible waste of life and resources could have been avoided by any means, then we should have done so, or at least tried. It may be that the message never got delivered and the story may not even be true (we are talking about the New York Times, after all). But if the message did get through, the Bush administration would either have to have been fools or warmongers to ignore it.

[Tmy]

I thought I rememberd stories, at the start of the war, about Saddams people being in touch with the CIA trying to negotiate surrender. Generals and people like that.

If they catch Saddam, what do they charge him with. What "crime" did he commit. Human rights violations???

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Imagine that. Classified intelligence from a less-than-dependable source (A lebanese businessman?) about a vague "peace" offer of unkown validity and even lesser reliability was not made public.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell ya!

Bush had absolutely NO qualms about releasing intelligence information from a source that was known to be unreliable (Nigerian uranium purchase anyone?) when it supported his war drums.

OTOH, I agree that I am not shocked. Bush wanted war so bad that he was willing to suppress any information that might weaken his case.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Supercharts
I'm very skeptical about this story.
The source isn't identified - why?

Since there were many legitimate channels of communication open why would SH choose to use a businessman with no influence? Why not just call in the French ambassador?

The NYT publishes a story that cannot be proven to be true. It also cannot be proven to be false. Yet this story is now being repeated as fact?
:rolleyes:

That is a good point and it shows one of the ways dictators like to work, in that they often do not trust the bureaucracy because they could be a threat if they knew too much about what the dictator is planning. Therefore, the dictator sometimes likes to at least set things up through a private channel that can readily disavowed/destroyed in case anything goes wrong. By the same token, because the dictator was the one who set up the channel in the first place, talking to the channel is like talking to the dictator himself.

While such maneuverings make sense in police states, they are looked at with some askance in democracies because the elected officials tend to trust their staff instead being constanly worried that they are plotting an overthrow.

In any case, I do feel like this case should be investigated since it shows that goals of the war (get rid of the WMDs and terrorism links) could have been accomplished without the tremendous violence and expense that has since occurred.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by Tricky
Sorry, Evolver. I accidentally posted a similar thread. I can't delete it but I'll go back and edit it to refer to this one.

--------------
This may explain puzzle of why Saddam, knowing he would be crushed, didn't give in. It also jives with Saddam's well-known desire to "save face" with his people. By negotiating in private through intermediaries, he could keep it from looking like he had knuckled under.

But of course, by that time, Dubya had already decided to invade, and nothing, not even surrender, was going to stop him.
------
Edited to add a link to the Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2204760) (You don't need an ID for this one.)

Thanks, Tricky, you are quite the gentleman.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Supercharts
I'm very skeptical about this story.
The source isn't identified - why?

Since there were many legitimate channels of communication open why would SH choose to use a businessman with no influence? Why not just call in the French ambassador?

The NYT publishes a story that cannot be proven to be true. It also cannot be proven to be false. Yet this story is now being repeated as fact?
:rolleyes:

There is an account of this story in 'Yahoo! News' that has his name:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20031106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraqi_appeal

Iraq Made Last-Ditch Effort to Avoid War

...

An influential adviser to the Defense Department received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman indicating that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) wanted to make a deal, they said. The businessman, Imad Hage, told the Associated Press Thursday that he believes an opportunity was missed.

...

[Evolver]

It all makes it look like Bush was going to have his war no matter what.

[phildonnia]

If I recall, around that time, Sadaam was in the habit of pledging full cooperation every other week. He had dealt with numerous "last chance warnings" by pulling last-minute deals out of his butt. Given the last 10 years of appeasement, he probably didn't consider a military attack likely.

I think we would have been fully justified to enter Iraq on the following pretext: that we had no clue about whether WMD's were there, and that lack of knowledge was unacceptable, given the tendencies of the Baghdad government.

Had that been our motivation, a failure to find WMD's would have been considered a success, and finding WMD's a bigger success. Instead, Bush took a gamble on a more urgent (but ultimately false) necessity.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by phildonnia
If I recall, around that time, Sadaam was in the habit of pledging full cooperation every other week. He had dealt with numerous "last chance warnings" by pulling last-minute deals out of his butt. Given the last 10 years of appeasement, he probably didn't consider a military attack likely.
Yeah, that was very frustrating. Saddam was the ultimate games-player. But each time, he gave a little bit more. He let the UN arms inspectors in. He had stopped the most egregious brutality. By all appearance, he was trying to "tone it down" while still maintaining the image of the iron fist. I don't condone what he did, but if the US is the peace-loving nation it claims to be, then it should have tried absolutely every option other than war. Some have claimed that we did, but stories like this point out a strong possibility that we did not.

Imagine if a frustrated parent said, "I don't know what to do with Billy. He is rude. He is a bully. He ignores everything I tell him to do. I guess I'm just going to have to kill him."

Originally posted by phildonnia
I think we would have been fully justified to enter Iraq on the following pretext: that we had no clue about whether WMD's were there, and that lack of knowledge was unacceptable, given the tendencies of the Baghdad government.

Except that we did have a clue, and there was a UN team there gathering more clues. We aborted the clue-finding mission in favor of a monumentally stupid war.

Originally posted by phildonnia
Had that been our motivation, a failure to find WMD's would have been considered a success, and finding WMD's a bigger success. Instead, Bush took a gamble on a more urgent (but ultimately false) necessity.
And it looks like that was a possibility, if the report is true. If it was a possibility, then Bush et. al. blew a chance for the Nobel Peace Prize. (But that wouldn't have helped Halliburton.)

[Grammatron]

Sadam had 12 years to comply with the terms of the first GW. Did he? No, he deliberately and repeatedly chose to disobey those terms, kick the inspectors out, and hide his weapons not to mention misappropriating of funds from the Oil for Food program so his people literally starved to death. I'm not even going to go into the punishment of people who supported US troops/rebels.

Forgoing how evil you think Bush is, what do you think Sadam did with all the weapons inspectors were looking for? If he destroyed them, then why all the secrecy and run-around for UN, why not just show them everything?

About the story, it's pathetic. This is supposed to be a skeptic’s board, but you all jump on this as conclusive proof. You all seem to be skeptical unless it comes to Bush; you read anything negative about him and leave your skepticism at the door when checking its validity. You people make me sad.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky
Imagine if a frustrated parent said, "I don't know what to do with Billy. He is rude. He is a bully. He ignores everything I tell him to do. I guess I'm just going to have to kill him."


I'm a little confused as to why you bring this analogy up. In the case of Billy, he doesn't "deserve" to be killed. In the case of Iraq and Saddam, what exactly do you think they respectively "deserved"? Saddam himself deserved no second chances (what, you actually think you can teach him to be a decent human like you can teach a brat to behave? If so, you need a hard beating with a heavy clue bat). Saddam deserved to be brought to trial for crimes against humanity. Hell, he really deserves to be tortured to death, although I believe in institutional justice systems that preclude anyone actually doing so. And Iraq never deserved to be under his brutal dictatorship at all, ever, period. Parenting is not world politics, or vice versa.


Except that we did have a clue, and there was a UN team there gathering more clues. We aborted the clue-finding mission in favor of a monumentally stupid war.


I see it a little differently. I see it as abandoning a tactic that hadn't worked for over a decade for one that would remove Saddam once and for all.


And it looks like that was a possibility, if the report is true. If it was a possibility, then Bush et. al. blew a chance for the Nobel Peace Prize. (But that wouldn't have helped Halliburton.)

Boo hoo. He won't get to hang out in the esteemed company of such peace-makers as Yassar Arafat (yes, I know, some great people have also earned them for great things, but doing anything FOR a peace prize is stupid, and it isn't even in itself very meaningful).

Is the report true? I really have no clue. But the fact that Saddam offered a deal to avoid war doesn't mean the deal was worth taking, or that it would actually solve any of the underlying problems. His time was up long ago as far as I'm concerned.

[Skeptic]

Imagine if a frustrated parent said, "I don't know what to do with Billy. He is rude. He is a bully. He ignores everything I tell him to do. I guess I'm just going to have to kill him."

That might very well be justified, if the "bullying" part was little Billy killing 300,000 people or so, and the "rudeness" was establishing a reign of terror to make sure he would continue to do so.

[Skeptic]

You have to be naive in the extreme to believe that this "peace offer" was some sort of IMPORTANT intelligence that was "deliberately" hidden from the public.

It is, after all, clear to everybody but the "useful idiots" on the left (who for some reason feel all warm and gushy inside when they hear a mass-murdering dictator say the magic word "peace") that this is merely a desperate last-minute PR-move "offer" that isn't worth the paper it's written. A five-year-old wouldn't be fooled by it for a millisecond, for goodness' sake.

Accusing the government of "hiding" this "important information" (a cynical dictator offering a dishonest "peace" to stay in power at the last moment??? Really??? What a shock...) makes as much sense as Icke accusing the government of "hiding" the "shocking fact" that Bush is a seven-foot reptilian from outer space.

What is "important" intelligence whose non-publication is a deliberate "coverup" depends, after all, on what "impotant" is. And I just don't see how anybody except the usual gang of useful idiots could consider this nonsense "important" at all...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Supercharts
I'm very skeptical about this story.
The source isn't identified - why?

Since there were many legitimate channels of communication open why would SH choose to use a businessman with no influence? Why not just call in the French ambassador?

The NYT publishes a story that cannot be proven to be true. It also cannot be proven to be false. Yet this story is now being repeated as fact?
:rolleyes:

Not only was Lebanese businessman Imad Hage named as trying to orgainse the agreement (on behalf of whoever is the 'Jack of Diamonds' on the most-wanted Iraqis deck of cards), but Richard Perle has actually said that he had a meeting with this man over the issue.

But I supposed Perle is lying too.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Sadam had 12 years to comply with the terms of the first GW. Did he? No, he deliberately and repeatedly chose to disobey those terms, kick the inspectors out, and hide his weapons not to mention misappropriating of funds from the Oil for Food program so his people literally starved to death. I'm not even going to go into the punishment of people who supported US troops/rebels.
Well this is truly surprising. A country doesn't like what the UN decides and refuses to comply. I guess it's time to bomb Israel. :rolleyes:

My point is that although Saddam was being an a**hole and not playing fair, that does not mean that we (the US) should also degenerate into lawlessness. That only gives outlaw governments more excuses for ignoring the law.

Originally posted by Grammatron
Forgoing how evil you think Bush is, what do you think Sadam did with all the weapons inspectors were looking for? If he destroyed them, then why all the secrecy and run-around for UN, why not just show them everything?
Because (as I say again since you apparently don't read my posts) he had to keep the support of the Iraqi people. You don't get that by crying "uncle". This diplomacy thing is complicated. (And I don't think Bush is evil. He's just stupid.)

Originally posted by Grammatron
About the story, it's pathetic. This is supposed to be a skeptic’s board, but you all jump on this as conclusive proof. You all seem to be skeptical unless it comes to Bush; you read anything negative about him and leave your skepticism at the door when checking its validity. You people make me sad.
I've qualified everything I've said with the caveat "if this is true". I don't know that it is. Although it seems extremely likely that an egomaniac like Saddam would pursue negotiation through obscure, non-public channels, that may be just the reason why a plausible story like this was planted. I'm waiting for verification. Everything I say on this subject is contingent on that. However, even without verification of this specific detail, I still contend the invasion was the wrong thing to do. If I am shown good reason, I will change that opinion, but nothing has come close yet. Every single thing that comes up (like this story) seems to validate it.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I'm a little confused as to why you bring this analogy up. In the case of Billy, he doesn't "deserve" to be killed. In the case of Iraq and Saddam, what exactly do you think they respectively "deserved"? Saddam himself deserved no second chances (what, you actually think you can teach him to be a decent human like you can teach a brat to behave? If so, you need a hard beating with a heavy clue bat). Saddam deserved to be brought to trial for crimes against humanity. Hell, he really deserves to be tortured to death, although I believe in institutional justice systems that preclude anyone actually doing so. And Iraq never deserved to be under his brutal dictatorship at all, ever, period. Parenting is not world politics, or vice versa.

Yes, I considered not using this analogy, because parenting is not world politics, nor are we Saddam's parents. But I did anyway because I thought it illustrated the point that you don't try to change behavior by killing the misbehaver. Saddam was changing. That is pretty much beyond dispute. He deserved to be punished (and indeed he was being punished), but such drastic measures call the motives of the punisher into question as much as the punished one. That hurts the US by making them look like a vindictive control-freak, and is contrary to our best interests. When people cry that Saddam deserves to be "tortured to death", then they show that they are at heart, the same kind of barbarians that they claim to be opposed to.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I see it a little differently. I see it as abandoning a tactic that hadn't worked for over a decade for one that would remove Saddam once and for all.

And you refuse to acknowledge that it was working. Maybe not as well as we would like, but gradually. I would prefer he complied instantaneously too, but I am a realist.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Boo hoo. He won't get to hang out in the esteemed company of such peace-makers as Yassar Arafat (yes, I know, some great people have also earned them for great things, but doing anything FOR a peace prize is stupid, and it isn't even in itself very meaningful).

(sigh) I guess I need to use smilies when I employ irony. My point (which you ignored) is that (if the story is true) then Bush could have avoided war and chose not to. Unfortunately for him, there is no Nobel Warmongering Prize.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Is the report true? I really have no clue. But the fact that Saddam offered a deal to avoid war doesn't mean the deal was worth taking, or that it would actually solve any of the underlying problems. His time was up long ago as far as I'm concerned.
Exactly. You (and Bush apparently) decided that this expensive, deadly war was preferable to trying any diplomatic solution that might present itself, even at the last minute. That attitude makes it clear to me that Bush had no real interest in a peaceful solution.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Sadam had 12 years to comply with the terms of the first GW. Did he? No, he deliberately and repeatedly chose to disobey those terms, kick the inspectors out, and hide his weapons not to mention misappropriating of funds from the Oil for Food program so his people literally starved to death. I'm not even going to go into the punishment of people who supported US troops/rebels.
He didn't want Americans to poke around sensitive sites, sites to do with the security of Iraq. This was agreed to by the security council. Naturally, the US didn't think that was good enough for them. There are also occasions where the inspectors being 'kicked out' was more of a case of Richard Butler withdrawing them in contravention of the Security Council guidelines and saying he was kicked out. Naturally, the US spin doctors did nothing to clarify this point. To this day, many think that the inspectors were kicked out in '98 when they withdrew.

As to the Saddam-as-dictator argument... This argument is pretty hollow when you consider the brutal regime of Saudi Arabia (aka, America's no 2 ally in the Middle East and biggest business partner), China (increasingly important business parter of the US) and Indonesia (long-standing business partner). Obviously the US doesn't give a damn about oppressive regimes. Let's not forget the amount of support that Regan and Bush snr gave Sads during the Reagan administration.

Forgoing how evil you think Bush is, what do you think Sadam did with all the weapons inspectors were looking for? If he destroyed them, then why all the secrecy and run-around for UN, why not just show them everything?

See above re: sensitive facilities. Weapons inspectors, under Butler, were being deliberately provocative. Saddam intially destroyed WMD's because he wanted to destroy all evidence of them ever existing (probably in case the US used the argument that if Iraq had them before, she'd have them again- not such a bad leap of logic when you consider the US's form in justifying the current war), and possibly because he wanted to hide a few for himself. If he did keep some WMD's, they would have been too few and too scattered to be an 'imminent threat' as Bush implied. There was plenty of time to let the UN do their job. Not good enough for trigger-happy Yanks.

About the story, it's pathetic. This is supposed to be a skeptic’s board, but you all jump on this as conclusive proof. You all seem to be skeptical unless it comes to Bush; you read anything negative about him and leave your skepticism at the door when checking its validity. You people make me sad.
Seeing as how you are the master of skepticism, why don't you find something wrong with the document and post your concerns here? So far, all I've seen is a lot of bombast and spluttering disguised as argument against the document.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

He didn't want Americans to poke around sensitive sites, sites to do with the security of Iraq. This was agreed to by the security council. Naturally, the US didn't think that was good enough for them. There are also occasions where the inspectors being 'kicked out' was more of a case of Richard Butler withdrawing them in contravention of the Security Council guidelines and saying he was kicked out. Naturally, the US spin doctors did nothing to clarify this point. To this day, many think that the inspectors were kicked out in '98 when they withdrew.

Ok yeah, the inspectors were NEVER kicked out; they all left on their own terms when they wanted. :rolleyes:

As to the Saddam-as-dictator argument... This argument is pretty hollow when you consider the brutal regime of Saudi Arabia (aka, America's no 2 ally in the Middle East and biggest business partner), China (increasingly important business parter of the US) and Indonesia (long-standing business partner). Obviously the US doesn't give a damn about oppressive regimes. Let's not forget the amount of support that Regan and Bush snr gave Sads during the Reagan administration.

So your point is that we should never catch criminals because no matter which one we try to catch there is always someone worse that YOU think WE should be catching. And we happen to be working with them in the past that also means no matter how bad they are we should not try to catch them. Yeah, great logic there.

See above re: sensitive facilities. Weapons inspectors, under Butler, were being deliberately provocative. Saddam intially destroyed WMD's because he wanted to destroy all evidence of them ever existing (probably in case the US used the argument that if Iraq had them before, she'd have them again- not such a bad leap of logic when you consider the US's form in justifying the current war), and possibly because he wanted to hide a few for himself. If he did keep some WMD's, they would have been too few and too scattered to be an 'imminent threat' as Bush implied. There was plenty of time to let the UN do their job. Not good enough for trigger-happy Yanks.


And just how long is "plenty?" 12 years, 20, 30, 100? Keep in mind that while we are taking our time inspecting there are British and American forces enforcing the no-fly zone, countries from the GW1 coalition having ships in the ports blocking all the traffic, and people inside dying of starvation because there's "plenty of time" for them to finish the job Sadam should have done -- explained what he did with all the weapons he should have destroyed.

Seeing as how you are the master of skepticism, why don't you find something wrong with the document and post your concerns here? So far, all I've seen is a lot of bombast and spluttering disguised as argument against the document.

I'm skeptical that a leader in Sadam's position -- the position of desperation -- would use some "guy" as contact with White House. He could have used many neutral countries to initiate contact or send out messages. It does not make sense to me he would do that, unless all he wanted to do was stall.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky

My point is that although Saddam was being an a**hole and not playing fair, that does not mean that we (the US) should also degenerate into lawlessness. That only gives outlaw governments more excuses for ignoring the law.


You might not agree with what happened or the way that it happened, however;

Is there anything the US did that was actually illegal?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
You might not agree with what happened or the way that it happened, however;

Is there anything the US did that was actually illegal?
International law is sort of a misnomer. Law is made by those who agree to abide to the law, and that is certainly not true of "inernational law". However, it is clear that the invasion was not sanctioned by the vast majority of the world. No, it isn't "offically" criminal, but it certainly looks that way to a lot of people.

I think that the UN and other international bodies are useful and should have some power. Apparantly, so does the US, since one of the pretenses they used for the invasion was Iraq's failure to abide by UN rules.

No, the US didn't do anything "illegal" because that word has little meaning in international law. But if you selected a jury from the "citizens of the world" to try the US, they would most likely be convicted of war crimes. Lucky for us, we don't answer to the "citizens of the world".

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

My point is that although Saddam was being an a**hole and not playing fair, that does not mean that we (the US) should also degenerate into lawlessness. That only gives outlaw governments more excuses for ignoring the law.


Nonsense. Outlaw regimes need no excuse whatsoever to disregard international law and commit whatever crimes against humanity (genocide, torture, etc.) they feel like. Only a fool would think that they actually take their lead from our actions.


Yes, I considered not using this analogy, because parenting is not world politics, nor are we Saddam's parents. But I did anyway because I thought it illustrated the point that you don't try to change behavior by killing the misbehaver. Saddam was changing. That is pretty much beyond dispute.


Hardly. Saddam had adapted to sanctions and inspections, but you can't seriously believe that his underlying lust for power, his desire to dominate the middle east by threat and by force, his willingness to use even the most barbaric mean available, had actually changed. That's beyond dispute except by those who would bury their heads in the sand.


He deserved to be punished (and indeed he was being punished), but such drastic measures call the motives of the punisher into question as much as the punished one. That hurts the US by making them look like a vindictive control-freak, and is contrary to our best interests. When people cry that Saddam deserves to be "tortured to death", then they show that they are at heart, the same kind of barbarians that they claim to be opposed to.


Hardly. Saddam DOES deserve to be tortured to death. But nobody deserves to torture him to death. Get the distinction? I know, it's subtle, try it out for a while. But if you CAN understand, then you'll see that there is a fundamental, inseparable distinction between me and the real monsters. Might take a little thinking, though - you up for that?

Oh, and you never addressed what the Iraqi people deserved. Hmmm....


And you refuse to acknowledge that it was working. Maybe not as well as we would like, but gradually. I would prefer he complied instantaneously too, but I am a realist.


No, it wasn't working - and yes, I refuse to acknowlege a delusion. Sanctions were under threat of errosion. The people of Iraq continued to suffer greatly under his terrible mixture of oppression and neglect. Think about it from his perspective: from the way the Russians and French were behaving, why wouldn't you just drag things out as long as you could with the expectation that they'd eventually have sanctions lifted, so you could get back to how things were before? How is that "working"?


(sigh) I guess I need to use smilies when I employ irony. My point (which you ignored) is that (if the story is true) then Bush could have avoided war and chose not to. Unfortunately for him, there is no Nobel Warmongering Prize.


No, I didn't ignore that point. Perhaps my response was not sufficiently clear on my position in that regard. Yes, Bush could have avoided war. He could also have ignored the whole problem and hoped it would go away on its own - that would also have avoided war. Should England have avoided WWII by not coming to Poland's defense? That war could have been avoided NOW is not important if avoiding war doesn't solve the fundamental problems. And I see no reason to think that this offer would have.


Exactly. You (and Bush apparently) decided that this expensive, deadly war was preferable to trying any diplomatic solution that might present itself, even at the last minute. That attitude makes it clear to me that Bush had no real interest in a peaceful solution.

Like I said, if the "peaceful solution" doesn't actually solve the problems, it's not a solution at all. And I don't see this offer as having a realistic chance of doing so. Why doesn't the anti-war movement ever ask, "Why didn't Saddam avoid war?" Why is that question taboo?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Nonsense. Outlaw regimes need no excuse whatsoever to disregard international law and commit whatever crimes against humanity (genocide, torture, etc.) they feel like. Only a fool would think that they actually take their lead from our actions.
Surely you're not arguing that "tit for tat" is not one of the forces driving these long hatreds. It is this "oh, they're just crazy" type of mentality that makes people refuse to examine their own behavior. I think that is a mistake.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Hardly. Saddam had adapted to sanctions and inspections, but you can't seriously believe that his underlying lust for power, his desire to dominate the middle east by threat and by force, his willingness to use even the most barbaric mean available, had actually changed. That's beyond dispute except by those who would bury their heads in the sand.
That might be a good argument, if it weren't for the fact that every single piece of evidence is against it. Unlike you, I am unable to read Saddam's mind about what his plans were, so I can only go by the evidence that his brutality had diminished and he had destroyed most of his weapons. That's beyond dispute, except to those who ignore evidence and trust only to the inerrancy of their own psychological profile of Saddam.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Hardly. Saddam DOES deserve to be tortured to death. But nobody deserves to torture him to death. Get the distinction? I know, it's subtle, try it out for a while. But if you CAN understand, then you'll see that there is a fundamental, inseparable distinction between me and the real monsters. Might take a little thinking, though - you up for that?
Of course I see the distinction, but I have learned that holding this kind of blind hatred, even if you know you will not act on it, is not a good thing. I think that even fantacizing about torturing someone, if you continue to hold and cherish that image, is the mark of a sick mind. Obviously not as bad as actually doing it, but still not good.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
No, it wasn't working - and yes, I refuse to acknowlege a delusion. Sanctions were under threat of errosion. The people of Iraq continued to suffer greatly under his terrible mixture of oppression and neglect. Think about it from his perspective: from the way the Russians and French were behaving, why wouldn't you just drag things out as long as you could with the expectation that they'd eventually have sanctions lifted, so you could get back to how things were before? How is that "working"?
Certainly things were not great, but they were a hell of a lot better than they are now.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
No, I didn't ignore that point. Perhaps my response was not sufficiently clear on my position in that regard. Yes, Bush could have avoided war. He could also have ignored the whole problem and hoped it would go away on its own - that would also have avoided war. Should England have avoided WWII by not coming to Poland's defense? That war could have been avoided NOW is not important if avoiding war doesn't solve the fundamental problems. And I see no reason to think that this offer would have.

The offers (if they were true) were addressing some of the fundamental problems. The England analogy is not a good one, because no Iraq had not invaded anyone. I don't think it is wrong to rattle sabres, but those sabres should only be used as a last resort. This was not the last resort. I know you disagree.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Like I said, if the "peaceful solution" doesn't actually solve the problems, it's not a solution at all. And I don't see this offer as having a realistic chance of doing so. Why doesn't the anti-war movement ever ask, "Why didn't Saddam avoid war?" Why is that question taboo?
But if the "peaceful solution" is shown to be having an effect, as it was, then keep doing it.
I have already addressed the question of why Saddam didn't avoid war. It's called saving face. Perhaps he thought he could avoid war and save face by using back door diplomatic channels which would give him "plausible deniability" with his people. But again, I cannot say why he did what he did. I am concerned with the actions of my country, which I love and respect. I want it to deserve to be loved and respected.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Imagine if a frustrated parent said, "I don't know what to do with Billy. He is rude. He is a bully. He ignores everything I tell him to do. I guess I'm just going to have to kill him."

That might very well be justified, if the "bullying" part was little Billy killing 300,000 people or so, and the "rudeness" was establishing a reign of terror to make sure he would continue to do so.

Or alternatively, replace "kill him" with "give him a good whoopin'." I think a loving parent could do that under some circumstances.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by phildonnia
Or alternatively, replace "kill him" with "give him a good whoopin'." I think a loving parent could do that under some circumstances.
My point exactly.

This may be a little off topic, but the phrase "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," is often misunderstood. Lots of people think it means revenge is okay. Actually, it is about measured response. When a wrong is done, you don't escalate it by committing a greater wrong. That would be taking an eye for a tooth.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Tricky
Saddam was changing. That is pretty much beyond dispute.


Tricky:

I think you raise several very valid points. I do think that this statement, however, is not supportable.

Taking the story as completely true, the only actual 'change' is what Saddam was saying; there is nothing to show that, by making this private offer that he could disclaim in front of his people, he had actually changed in either his goals or actions.

Indeed, this offer is at least as consistent with his pattern of delay and grudging speeches regarding his great cooperation over a dozen years as it is with a theory that he had undergone a sea-change and was now ready to place nice.

In short, the matter is not beyond dispute. I believe that a rational person could look at the evidence and decide that Saddam was being truthful this time or had changed -- just as I believe that a rational person could look at this as simply more of the same mouthwash that he had been handing out since the beginning of this issue.

N/A

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky
Surely you're not arguing that "tit for tat" is not one of the forces driving these long hatreds. It is this "oh, they're just crazy" type of mentality that makes people refuse to examine their own behavior. I think that is a mistake.


Hatred is not the driving power for dictatorships, nor is "tit for tat" relevant in the current context. Dictatorships are driven by greed and lust for power. This is fed by internal desires, and cannot be placated. That you do not graps this already is astounding.


Unlike you, I am unable to read Saddam's mind about what his plans were, so I can only go by the evidence that his brutality had diminished and he had destroyed most of his weapons.


What evidence that his brutality had diminished? You mean the fact that he wasn't still slaughtering Kurds (which is merely evidence that our no-fly zones, opposed by many in the "peace" camp, were effective at protecting the Kurds)? Or do you have something else in mind that shows that Saddam's brutality had "diminished"? And what of his sons, the ones he planned to pass his power on to? Was their brutality also "diminished"?


Of course I see the distinction, but I have learned that holding this kind of blind hatred, even if you know you will not act on it, is not a good thing.


No, you continue to misunderstand me. It is not hatred, it is contempt. And it is precisely because I am NOT blind to the horrors that he commited that I have such contempt for Saddam.


Certainly things were not great, but they were a hell of a lot better than they are now.


For who? And for how long? Do you for some reason believe that solving long-term problems is never worth it if there are short-term drawbacks?


The offers (if they were true) were addressing some of the fundamental problems.


Let's make it a little more clear about what we mean by "true" in this context. Let's assume that the story is "true" in the sense that such an offer was made. Is it "true" in the sense that Saddam actually intended to abide by it? Maybe, though I personally doubt it. But I see no reason to expect us to risk that chance when there were clear and explicit demands on the table that would have avoided war. And believing in him would be a major risk: we could have lost valuable time, a delay of even a month could have postponed our invasion until after the summer, enough time for Saddam to gain increasing diplomatic cover from the French and Russians for his non-compliance and for us to wear our welcome thin in countries hosting our forces.


But if the "peaceful solution" is shown to be having an effect, as it was, then keep doing it.


Having "an" effect is not sufficient.

And to come back to an earlier point yet again:
What did the Iraqi people deserve?