Possible deal to end the war?

[gnome]

Came across this article at salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/04/14/baghdaddeal/

Arabic media are speculating that a "safqua" -- Arabic for a secret deal -- was arranged between the United States and Iraq's Baath regime to hand over Baghdad.

Do the facts cited hold up?

What do you all think?

[richardm]

I'd think it was more likely that the Arab media can't understand how the Iraqi army was so thoroughly trounced so fast. All the promises of bloodbaths in the street didn't materialise mainly because the citizens of Baghdad didn't want to have a bloodbath - after all the rhetoric that's going to be a tough pill to swallow.

Much easier to tell yourself that it was a secret deal - even though there was and still is a good amount of resistance going on.

[corplinx]

I think something smells like horse ****. Oh wait, you linked to Salon.

[Supercharts]

Many "Arabs" are very disappointed that the US & UK won so quickly. Any excuse for "Arab" failure that sounds even remotely plausible will have an audience.

[corplinx]

For the benefit of those who dont understand, Ill explain why Baghdad toppled.

Baghdad did not foresee close-air support and underestimated our armored divisions.

I think partially because of Bush's "shock and awe" they expected a massive bombing period. Instead they had tanks on their doorstep within a few weeks. The ground units took out the remaining anti-air. So what did the Iraqis do? The republican guard rushed out to meet them. Unfortunately, close-air support ripped these divisions to shreds before they got in contact range with our ground troops.

"Nothing up my sleeve, Presto!"

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Many "Arabs" are very disappointed that the US & UK won so quickly. Any excuse for "Arab" failure that sounds even remotely plausible will have an audience.

Surely it was a Zionist plot. Who but the zionists (and the British, French, Turks, Indians, and U.S.) could defeat the proud and noble and united Arab nation? Oh, wait.
I sense that the Arabs are practicing effrontary against the US to try to rival us. But, like the French, they are laughable.

-Ben

[Jon_in_london]

Well in 1967, the Jordanians and Egyptians accused the US and UK of taking part in the pre-emptive strike.

Why? because they just couldnt believe a country 1/50th the size of the 'Arab nation' wiped out their entire combined airforces in less than 24 hours.

Its just denial.

[dsm]

Originally posted by corplinx
For the benefit of those who dont understand, Ill explain why Baghdad toppled.

Baghdad did not foresee close-air support and underestimated our armored divisions.

I think partially because of Bush's "shock and awe" they expected a massive bombing period. Instead they had tanks on their doorstep within a few weeks. The ground units took out the remaining anti-air. So what did the Iraqis do? The republican guard rushed out to meet them. Unfortunately, close-air support ripped these divisions to shreds before they got in contact range with our ground troops.

"Nothing up my sleeve, Presto!"

LOL :D

[Mel]

(Slightly edited from original)

There are many, many highly educated, civilized and very moral Arabs.... unfortunately they are also SILENCED.

I think the people you see chanting are encouraged by the media AND their own governments. Without the handy US/Israel scapegoats to bash, the citizens might actually start taking a good close look at their OWN GOVERNMENTS.

The terrorists and most of the governments are in bed together. You can not destroy one and leave the other, if you want a real peace in the middle east.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Mel

The terrorists and most of the governments are in bed together.

One man's "terrorist" is another man's "capitalist".

:p

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
I think something smells like horse ****. Oh wait, you linked to Salon.

Ahhh...hahahahahaha!

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by gnome
Came across this article at salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/04/14/baghdaddeal/



Do the facts cited hold up?

What do you all think?

It didn't happen. There was no negotiations between the Baath Party and the US government once the war started. The Baath Party immediately lost power once US forces went into the country. That happened because elements of the Baath Party were used as cover (the Minister of Information, for example) while the rest fled Baghdad into Syria and other nation-states.

Now, I am willing to bet there was some dealing going on with Iraqi military commanders who were probably schooled in the logic that there was no reason to die for a regime that ceased to exist at H-Hour +10 minutes.

JK

[gnome]

Originally posted by corplinx
I think something smells like horse ****. Oh wait, you linked to Salon.

Ha ha.

Seriously, I go to Salon not for their legendary accuracy [/sarcasm] , but because they feature more diverse points of view. Lots of horse s**t, yes, but also lots of good stuff that you wouldn't be likely to find on CNN or Fox news.

[Mel]

(Slightly edited from original)


I still maintain that it's their corrupt governments that are the problem AND the way the rest of the world has come to "accept" their uncivilized behavior.

Stop buying their oil & you'd see how fast those OPEC countries would change their tunes.