October 29, 2005
Arab Leaders Queered Saddam-Exile Plan
— Ace Hussein himself agreed to the plan of peaceful exile to avoid the war. "Leaders" of Arab countries vetoed it. The US indicated its support of the plan (indeed, George W. Bush specifically gave Saddam the option of peaceful exile in his prewar ultimatum).
— Ace Hussein himself agreed to the plan of peaceful exile to avoid the war. "Leaders" of Arab countries vetoed it. The US indicated its support of the plan (indeed, George W. Bush specifically gave Saddam the option of peaceful exile in his prewar ultimatum).
Under the plan, Saddam & Co. would have departed Iraq for the UAE, with the promise of freedom of prosecution for their myriad crimes.
So if Arabs don't like the war, they can blame the tyrants who rule them.
It is not explained why the deal was rejected. The obvious theory is that the other tyrants in the Arab world did not want the precedent of one of their own being forced into exile by a US ultimatum, and wanted the removal, if unavoidable, to be costly and bloody, so as to make it the last one.
Posted by: Ace at
02:02 PM
| Comments (18)
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Not one Arab leader could believe that the US would oust Saddam in three weeks. Now they have a democracy in their midst that is making their citizens wanting the same.
Posted by: Jake at October 29, 2005 02:40 PM (r/5D/)
2
What I don't understand about this story is how the Arab League was able to veto the deal. If Saddam, the US, the UK, and the UAE all agreed to the deal, why did the Arab League's opinion matter in the slightest?
I certainly understand why they would oppose it. But they also opposed the invasion and their opposition didn't mean a damned thing. How, exactly, did they prevent that deal from taking place?
My suspicion is that the report is wrong, and that Saddam hadn't actually agreed to it.
I certainly understand why they would oppose it. But they also opposed the invasion and their opposition didn't mean a damned thing. How, exactly, did they prevent that deal from taking place?
My suspicion is that the report is wrong, and that Saddam hadn't actually agreed to it.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at October 29, 2005 02:55 PM (CJBEv)
3
As I recall, the French had assured Saddam that they would veto any plan for war and this led to his refusal to depart peacefully.
Posted by: Sam Boogliodemus at October 29, 2005 02:55 PM (MANw6)
4
Saddam always styled himself as the Pan-Arab hero for opposing us. That image was strengthened in the first gulf war where he kicked his ass so hard our toes hurt, so we decided not to finish the job. For, uh, some good reason that probably made sense to peaceful minded folk at the time...
That he survived that engagement to defy us, no matter how lamely, was the source of a lot of pride and fueled the belief that we could be safely provoked because we wouldn't or couldn't follow through on the response. That's one of the reasons it was important for us to finally put this bastard to bed, and the previously held belief that the Americans only rattle their sabres is one of the unfortunate reasons Saddam's neighbors didn't take him in.
Then again, the thought of him sipping coffee in exile instead of facing a noose rankles. Probably worth it if it could have avoided combat, but I feel better knowing he's both deposed AND facing justice.
That he survived that engagement to defy us, no matter how lamely, was the source of a lot of pride and fueled the belief that we could be safely provoked because we wouldn't or couldn't follow through on the response. That's one of the reasons it was important for us to finally put this bastard to bed, and the previously held belief that the Americans only rattle their sabres is one of the unfortunate reasons Saddam's neighbors didn't take him in.
Then again, the thought of him sipping coffee in exile instead of facing a noose rankles. Probably worth it if it could have avoided combat, but I feel better knowing he's both deposed AND facing justice.
Posted by: Sortelli at October 29, 2005 03:05 PM (tHvzT)
Posted by: Elmo at October 29, 2005 03:06 PM (NVEZI)
6
we could be safely provoked because we wouldn't or couldn't follow through on the response
Yup. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
The best guaranty of peace is obviously the will and the means to crush your rivals. It takes a special kind of stupid to require that self-evident lessons be be taught and retaught. Our will has been in question for decades thanks to our internal rivals. If we are bleeding for any mistake at all, it is for having been too reluctant to do what we needed to make examples of our enemies.
We had better not make that mistake this time.
Yup. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
The best guaranty of peace is obviously the will and the means to crush your rivals. It takes a special kind of stupid to require that self-evident lessons be be taught and retaught. Our will has been in question for decades thanks to our internal rivals. If we are bleeding for any mistake at all, it is for having been too reluctant to do what we needed to make examples of our enemies.
We had better not make that mistake this time.
Posted by: VRWC Agent at October 29, 2005 03:23 PM (R8TOH)
7
Good grief. Is it just me or did that sound a little too much like Spurwing?
Posted by: VRWC Agent at October 29, 2005 03:26 PM (R8TOH)
8
It ws no thing like him, you told the truth like and upstanding Repulican an used latin words to! Go troops!
Posted by: lauraw at October 29, 2005 03:51 PM (M7kiy)
9
I'm sorry, that was uncalled for. It felt really good though.
Hey, has anybody been reading the Mesopotamian lately?
"This is not resistance to occupation (an occupation that does not exist), as some like to call it, nor is it an “insurgency” with any clear objective except some vague and false slogans; it is essentially racist and sectarian hate crimes. That’s what it is without doubt."
My emphasis.
I like the guy....he is getting to be more Western sounding every day...
Hey, has anybody been reading the Mesopotamian lately?
"This is not resistance to occupation (an occupation that does not exist), as some like to call it, nor is it an “insurgency” with any clear objective except some vague and false slogans; it is essentially racist and sectarian hate crimes. That’s what it is without doubt."
My emphasis.
I like the guy....he is getting to be more Western sounding every day...
Posted by: lauraw at October 29, 2005 03:55 PM (M7kiy)
10
O.K. The story was from al Reuters, that makes it unquestionably true up front. The last paragraph was the obligatory death count and morass spew. Can't discount how heavy the toll, especially to the peace-lovin' "insurgents".
Even if it did happen as reported in this story, who cares? As exemplified by the rejection by all Arab states of millions of Palestinians when they had the chance to take them from Israeli-occupied land, they show once again just how compassionate their religion is when the chips are down.
They've had their butts whupped often enough, they don't cotton to publicly and openly helping anyone but #1, and that's just fine. In spite of the America-haters here at home celebrating 2000 deaths, we'll still be standing when it's all over.
Even if it did happen as reported in this story, who cares? As exemplified by the rejection by all Arab states of millions of Palestinians when they had the chance to take them from Israeli-occupied land, they show once again just how compassionate their religion is when the chips are down.
They've had their butts whupped often enough, they don't cotton to publicly and openly helping anyone but #1, and that's just fine. In spite of the America-haters here at home celebrating 2000 deaths, we'll still be standing when it's all over.
Posted by: Carlos at October 29, 2005 05:49 PM (Vd5xZ)
11
Perhaps the UAE (being a small country) would only accept the plan if other Arabs accepted it. Otherwise they could have faced problems with their own population, neighbors, etc.
More likely is that the deal was never fully done.
More likely is that the deal was never fully done.
Posted by: Aaron at October 30, 2005 05:43 AM (TFeKS)
12
Arab leaders are queer?
Aren't you the one who is always saying, "Thanks to Allah"?
(And if you want to be grammatically incorrect, it's, "Thanks be to Allah.")
Aren't you the one who is always saying, "Thanks to Allah"?
(And if you want to be grammatically incorrect, it's, "Thanks be to Allah.")
Posted by: rd at October 30, 2005 06:04 AM (lpbk9)
13
why are we just finding out about this? What is the purpose of the story coming out now? And where are the journalists that can uncover the smallest fib in a stupid "outing" of a CIA agent (but not really) and NOT get this story??????
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at October 30, 2005 06:24 AM (CtDzx)
14
More on this has come out. The deal was that Saddam would go into exile in the UAE, and the Arab League and the UN would supervise elections in Iraq 6 months later.
So the reason the Arab League was able to kill this deal was that it refused to help with that latter part of it.
And thank goodness, too. The result would have been a catastrophe for us by comparison to what actually did occur. I'm rather amazed that the Bush administration was even willing to consider this silly offer.
So the reason the Arab League was able to kill this deal was that it refused to help with that latter part of it.
And thank goodness, too. The result would have been a catastrophe for us by comparison to what actually did occur. I'm rather amazed that the Bush administration was even willing to consider this silly offer.
Posted by: Steven Den Beste at October 30, 2005 09:54 AM (CJBEv)
15
So, just like you right wingers hate the MSM until they write something you like, at which point you quote them like they're the word of God, now we have Al Arabiya. I suppose you considered them credible when the US banned them from Iraq after for "incitement to murder" after they broadcast messages from Saddam while he was still in hiding? I have no idea if this story is true, I just think it's kind of funny how you're all leaping to believe it because you like what it says.
Oh, by the way, I just heard al-Jazeera report that Libby is innocent. Quick, start posting!
Oh, by the way, I just heard al-Jazeera report that Libby is innocent. Quick, start posting!
Posted by: Chris at October 30, 2005 05:39 PM (elnyq)
16
Dumbass. When a story runs against the bias previously exhibited, this time by al-Reuters, it is going to be credible. It has nothing to do with wanting to believe it. Frankly, if there's anything I'm supposed to like about this story, I can't figure out what it is. Now what al-Reuters doesn't like about it, that one's easy.
Posted by: spongeworthy at October 31, 2005 04:33 AM (uSomN)
17
Chris,
I think questioning why this story comes out now is hardly quoting them like they are the world of God.
We don't trust them too much. Isn't that obvious?
I think questioning why this story comes out now is hardly quoting them like they are the world of God.
We don't trust them too much. Isn't that obvious?
Posted by: Rightwingsparkle at October 31, 2005 05:25 AM (CtDzx)
18
For some Mac users the following are some useful converters for iPod/iPhone/PSP/Zune…
Mac Video Converter
Mac Mp4 Video Converter
Mac iPhone Video Converter
Mac iPod Video Converter
Video Converter for Mac
Mac Video to AVI Converter
Mac Video Converter
Mac Mp4 Video Converter
Mac iPhone Video Converter
Mac iPod Video Converter
Video Converter for Mac
Mac Video to AVI Converter
Posted by: yujinxiang at March 25, 2009 10:48 PM (x6PsB)
71kb generated in 0.0515 seconds; 50 queries returned 149 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
