Exile to Saddam?
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030119_893.html"; target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030119_893.html</a>;
I´m quite sure this is part of the tactic play. Rumsfeldt is greeting a Saudi proposal so it can´t be said that every stone wasn´t turned before letting the bombs speak. And as Rumsfeldt says it would surprise me very much if Saddam took the offer so the Bush cabinet isn´t risking anything.
BUT lets say Saddam took the offer would it be a good idea?
If Saddam took of to some arab country and lived there for the rest of his life he would NOT become some kind of gathering point for islamic forces. From a religious POV he is a joke and its clearly he is only using religion (and the palestinian case) when it serves his purpose. And if Iraq became a democratic state (with the portion of islamic influence that would mean) and succesful he would become
an embarresment to the arab states. In short: If he went into exile his influence would dissapear rather quickly. Another good thing would be all the suffering to the Iraq people a war would mean could be avoided. That would be the positive.
The negative would be that a mass murdere would be pardoned. I hope that at some point he will stand trial to all what he have done to his population during his regime. If all those who had the power to avoid what was done to the iraq people can say "good bye. It was fun as long as it lasted" a huge unjustice will have been done to millions of people and may even set a presedence for future dictators.
So do the positive have more weight than the positive or what?
I´m quite sure this is part of the tactic play. Rumsfeldt is greeting a Saudi proposal so it can´t be said that every stone wasn´t turned before letting the bombs speak. And as Rumsfeldt says it would surprise me very much if Saddam took the offer so the Bush cabinet isn´t risking anything.
BUT lets say Saddam took the offer would it be a good idea?
If Saddam took of to some arab country and lived there for the rest of his life he would NOT become some kind of gathering point for islamic forces. From a religious POV he is a joke and its clearly he is only using religion (and the palestinian case) when it serves his purpose. And if Iraq became a democratic state (with the portion of islamic influence that would mean) and succesful he would become
an embarresment to the arab states. In short: If he went into exile his influence would dissapear rather quickly. Another good thing would be all the suffering to the Iraq people a war would mean could be avoided. That would be the positive.
The negative would be that a mass murdere would be pardoned. I hope that at some point he will stand trial to all what he have done to his population during his regime. If all those who had the power to avoid what was done to the iraq people can say "good bye. It was fun as long as it lasted" a huge unjustice will have been done to millions of people and may even set a presedence for future dictators.
So do the positive have more weight than the positive or what?
Comments
then send in the official CIA 'cook' for some special food . . . just get them the hell out of the Mid-East, and save the people of Iraq a lot of unnecessary anguish as well as probable inflamation of the region.