Saddam refuses to destroy missiles & challenges Bush to TV debate

Au contraire MadMax, the very fact that Bush will oppose this debate attests to his incompetence.

Bush gives a third of the press conferences that Clinton gave, he micromanaged the governor's conference this weekend and now he is afraid to debate a leader that also enjoys stealing elections.

Bush is such a wus. Hulk Clarkster would take Hussein, put him in the sleeper hold, and solve childhood hunger all at the same time.

 

There should be a test firing of the missiles if we are going to use the missiles range as a new high priority reason for invasion. Saddam's interview with Dan Rather is a classic PR move, Iraq's monitoring of anti-war protests proves this beyond doubt.

 

Classic PR move? How do you figure that? The less he says, the less despicable he appears to the ignorant masses - those who have never actually studied him/seen him in action. This is not a "classic PR move", it simply proves that he is disconnected from reality, does not understand the world beyond the Gulf at all, and is in general just a real dumbass.

It also proves that he totally misread the anti-war protests to mean that the world supports him. While I think many things about the antiwar movement, I do not think that they actually support Saddam (at least, not outside of Islamic/Arabic circles). He has miscalculated again. Unfortunately, I can confidently promise you that it will not be the last time.

 

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.
--Missionaria Protectiva, Text QIV (decto)

 

The missiles would have the same purpose whether they had the ability to travel 15-30 miles farther than allowed by the current sanctions on missile range. A test would show a clear violation instead of the current debate on whether payload or various guidance systems would put the missile within the allowed range.

"Classic PR move? How do you figure that? The less he says, the less despicable he appears to the ignorant masses"
Saddam's interview in which he calmly answers questions from Dan Rather for 3 hours, is a PR move to transform his world image that he is an insane, erratic dictator who would use WMD.

 

King Cheetah:

The Al Samoud is also of a larger diameter than is allowed. This fact is used in the calculations of its range, but it is important in another respect: the diameter allowed under the cease-fire was not large enough to accommodate what was believed to be the Iraqi US design for a nuclear device (based on plans given by Saddam's former bombmakers). It was too small to hold a planned nuclear bomb. The Al Samoud is large enough...

BTW, did your opinion of Saddam go up after watching the interview?

 

What are these tomes that you keep citing?

 

Would be a nightmare. I hate Saddam, but he's not a dummy. Could he embarass Bush, hypothetically?

 

Saddam would have a look-alike take his place at the debate, silly!

And I can see Dubya actually showing up to this instead of his doppleganger and the Iraquis assassinating him while we take out the Saddam look-alike.

Wow...that Saddam is quite the evil genius!

 

Forget about the debate. They need to take it to the basketball court, one-on-one style. Sadam's shot can't be any worse than Griffin's.

 

i think you're kidding...right? certainly you see how engaging in a debate on an undebateable position is ridiculous...or that it gives a dictator more credibility than he deserves. you don't recongize tyrants with civil debate. it only seeks to fuel their ego-mania.

 

It seems almost as a catch-22 for Iraq. If they disarm and destroy their missles and they believe the US will attack them no matter what, they have no way to protect themselves. But if they don't destroy their missles then the US will attack them and they may at least have some form of defense.

Do you honestly believe that even if these few missles are destroyed that the US will not attack??

 

Although I would rather see a negotiation rather than a debate, the U.S. would be stupid not to debate.

A) You can win a debate. You push someone into comments they woudn't normally make. You can do this in front of the world.

B) The U.S. needs a unified U.N.. If Sadaams threats not to disarm don't give this to us, we could debate, and possibly win the U.N. over. We would have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

C) The only way to lose a debate like this is if the U.S. has no real evidence and if Sadaam cannot prove he has disarmed. Both of which we know to be true if our government is to be believed. So we have nothing to lose.

A debate is a stupid political move by Sadaam, but if the U.S. wants to go for the throat they should have this debate and turn him into a fool in front of the world.

 

debates are fine...but aren't fine when the other side says, "look...he's lying again...he's just a liar." debating with tyrants is useless. there is nothing to be gained by it.

 

By the way, I do think this is a debateable. The question is has Iraq disarmed according to the mandate? And nobody seems to really know the answer. But everybody seems to have an opinion.

 

Agreed. I think the debate would turn into both sides calling each other liars no matter what proof is brought to the table.

 

giddy,

his quotes are from the Dune books. Frank Herbert was always real big on making sociological and philosophy statements in his writings.

duncan,
You know I appreciate the Dune references, but how bout some personal statements? You will get farther here if you post your opinions instead of just using quotes from fiction.
No offense intended, just a tip from someone who has been reading the debates here for quite some time.

 

Maybe true Mad Max, and that is a waste of time, but what if it wasn't. There are possibilities here.

 

but that's all we've gotten so far....in response to everything, we get..."oh, he's lying." powell presents solid evidence and the iraqi govt. calls it hollywood. there is no indication from the conduct of these guys that debate would be even close to fruitful. they're playing a game of hide and seek with weapons...not even perry mason could debate them into some admission before the world.