OT - Dubya v. Saddam, Wild West style?

[Zen-like Todd]

Ok... I had to post this because its too damn funny.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/03/iraq.bush.duel/index.html




W.H. rejects Bush-Saddam duel offer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House scorned an Iraqi leader's suggestion that President Bush and Saddam Hussein could resolve their differences in a duel, calling it an "irresponsible statement" that did not justify a "serious response."

"I just want to point out that in the past when Iraq had disputes, it invaded its neighbors," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters.

"There were no duels; there were no invasions. There was use of weapons of mass destruction and [the] military. And that's how Iraq settles its disputes."

Fleischer was responding to comments made Thursday by Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan in an interview with Abu Dhabi television that was also broadcast by CNN.

The Iraqi leader argued that instead of going to war with Iraq, Bush should participate in a personal duel with Saddam.

"Bush wants to attack the whole Iraq, the army and the infrastructure," Ramadan said. "If such a call is genuine, then let the American president and a selected group with him face a selected group of us and we choose a neutral land and let [U.N. Secretary-General] Kofi Annan be a supervisor and both groups should use the same weapon."

"A president against a president and vice president against a vice president, and a duel takes place, if they are serious," the Iraqi vice president said. "And in this way we are saving the American and Iraqi people."

In other developments, the White House voiced confidence that the United Nations would ultimately approve a tough new resolution, even as Russia rejected the U.S.-British draft, which calls for a timetable for Iraq to comply with U.N. disarmament demands and military action if it does not comply.

"I think what you're seeing is diplomacy unfold, and in the end, the president remains optimistic the outcome will be solid," Fleischer said.

The press secretary disputed any notion that Bush is getting frustrated with the pace of negotiations; three weeks after his U.N. speech, there is no sign an agreement is imminent.

"I think the president understands how the U.N. works," Fleischer said. "And when the president went up there, he said that this would be a matter of days and weeks, not months. And it is not a matter of months."

Fleischer repeated that the United States believes inspectors should not return to Iraq without a new inspections regime in place.

"If they go in under the current regime, it is a fool's errand to call them inspectors. They will be nothing more than tourists who get a run-around," Fleischer said.

"There is widespread recognition in the Security Council that the existing regime failed to do the job," he said. "It failed to disarm Saddam Hussein and it has left a threat in place."

Hans Blix, chief of the U.N. weapons inspection team, briefed the U.N. Security Council Thursday on his meetings with Iraqi officials. Blix will be in Washington Friday to update U.S. officials.

Fleischer said Bush remained convinced that any U.N. resolution has to lay out how Saddam has defied U.N. resolutions, what it would take for him to comply and the consequences if he does not comply.

"Those are the three pillars that the president has outlined and that is what the president expects, and that's what the president will fight for, and that's what the president expects," Fleischer said, refusing to say whether those requirements are non-negotiable.

The Senate Thursday debated the question of whether to use U.S. forces to disarm Iraq, the chamber's senior Democrat warning that a pre-emptive strike would turn the United States into a "rogue nation." (Full story)

With White House officials confident the president will have strong bipartisan support in the Congress for a war resolution with Iraq, Bush has turned his focus on pressing the United Nations to act and stressing that if it doesn't, the United States would not have to act alone.

"The choice is up to the United Nations to show its resolve," Bush said in a speech to Hispanic leaders. "The choice is up to Saddam Hussein to fulfill his word. And if neither of them acts, the United States, in deliberate fashion, will lead a coalition to take away the world's worst weapons from one of the world's worst leaders.

"My intent is to put together a vast coalition of countries who understand the threat of Saddam Hussein," Bush said.

Fleischer would not say how many countries have agreed to be part of any military coalition or what help various countries have agreed to provide.

At least two countries, Romania and Bulgaria, have announced they would allow U.S. forces to use their air bases and resources in a war against Saddam Hussein.

"I think the days of anybody saying the United States would do anything unilateral are over," Fleischer said. "I think it's very clear to everybody what the United States is doing, it's doing with the support of many nations around the world."

[Fred Smoot Fan]

Lol Bush is too much of a pu$$y to ever do that throw in Dick Cheney who was afraid to go outside for 3 months after 9/11 and somehow I doubt that would ever happen. Although it is a pretty good solution, costs a lot less money and US soldier lives, doesn't put a strain on the economy and have Bush back up his rhetoric with some action instead of sitting on his *** in Washington sending our young people to die for no good reason.

[lavarthebeast]

But if Jessie Ventura was our president, I'd be all for it.

[Mad Mike]

Fred Smoot Fan

Do You have a clue hidden somwhere? Dick Cheney has been following a protical set up back in the cold war that insures that this country has leadership that is alive and directing the defense of the nation. I call it smart. You must be one of the idiots that think Bush should have flown directly to the whitehouse while the planes were still crashing on 9/11 like some modern day John Wayne.:doh:

We've had this discussion re: Iraq before so I won't get to deep into it other than to say there sure as h#ll ARE good reasonsto go after Iraq. YOU just don't agree with them. I find it funny that you call others pu$$y while arguing that the United States should once again tuck it's tail and run. News Flash... FREEDOM IS NOT FREE. Bin Laden was not afraid to attack us because, he said we lacked the guts to make the tough calls to defend ourselves if it meant loosing lives. Now here you are trying to prove him right.

:puke:

[Zen-like Todd]

FSF's political comments are just as astute as his football comments. :rolleyes: How insightful.

[Fred Smoot Fan]

What does Bin Laden have to do with Iraq. There's ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that Saddam has ANY connections with Al Queda or Bin Laden. If you actually believe that republican BS that Saddam is gonna nuke us next month unless we take him out now you must not be that bright. Attacking Iraq is senseless waste of taxpayer $$$ and American lives. And how exactly has Saddam attempted to take away your freedom, he sure didn't bother me much yeah he's a dictator who does some sick $hit with his people but thats his own business really.

[Zen-like Todd]

This is pretty funny. No one actually needs to rebut any of your posts because they are daming enough on their own. Are you so retarded that you don't understand the Bin Laden reference he made? It has absolutely nothing to do with a personal Bin Laden/Saddam connection.


BTW, think before you open your mouth and spout drivel like this:


he sure didn't bother me much yeah he's a dictator who does some sick $hit with his people but thats his own business really.


Tell the truth. You don't actually know anything about him or what he has done. You also don't know anything about "the Republicans", or "the Democrats" for that matter.

I've never asked anyone this question before, but how old are you?

[Tarhog]

Smoot,
Just because the White House and State Dept haven't felt the need to put all of their intelligence on the front page of the Washington Post doesn't mean evidence doesn't exist. And as far as calling our Pres and VP p*ssies, unless YOU are active duty military, what category do you fit in? A lot of us on this board have put our *****es on the line, rather than just talking about feeling strongly about our political beliefs. Yeah, you have the right to an opinion, but until you do more than just snipe from the sidelines (and in an incredibly disrespectful way I'll add), it doesn't amount to much in my book. :dunce:

[Mad Mike]

FSM

Do you believe that Clinton BS that he tried to get Bin Laden? 8 years with 8 attacks while Bill Clinton was President and Hellery asks what Bush knew and when? Should I trust democrats to defend the nation better? :doh:

Before 9/11 nobody thought a handfull of men could turn 4 comercial airliners into weapons that could take down the World Trade Center, attack the freekin Pentagon and almost hit another target in DC. Sadam has a very bad record of atacking nations and using whatever chemical weapons. He tried to assasinate Bush Sr. (confirmed by Clinton). He IS trying to build a nuke. If he does, there is a high likelyhood he would use it. All he would have to do is hide it in the billions of tons that are shipped into the U.S. and set them off in the major ports like NY. Would it be rational for him to do? No. But he is NOT a rational man. Sadam and Bin Laden?... I'm not sure who coined the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but I wouldn't be suprised if it came from the region.

Let me simplify this for you. The risk if leaving him in power, with access to weapons of mass destruction is too great to ignore. The cost would simply be too high.

It's a new world now and it's not quiet out in the jungle. There are real dangers we face and nuts like Sadam and Bin Laden are only the begining. We WILL be attacked again, and we very well could loose a city or two next time.

In order for us to enjoy the freedom that this country provides we are going to have to risk american lives. Our forces know their job. They know the risks and the dangers. The reason I have so much respect for those who serve is that they are ready and willing when our nation calls on them. They always have and I pray that they always will. Because if we cannot defend ourselves with might AND WILL, we have lost.

And before you go labeling me as a republican, I'm an independant thinker. I callem' as I seem'.

[Kizer Jose]

Well, as long as we won, that sure as hell would be a lot cheaper.

[Orange&Blue Skins]

Phred Smoot Phan:

For God sake man where have you been all your life? Enough with the hippy-dippy bull****. Put down the bong, get a hiarcut, hang-up the rap records, quit bad mouthing your country and get a job.

:stupid:

[Mad Mike]

Orange&Blue

Come on now; not all of us long haired hippy freaks are bad.:high: :laugh:

[Larry]

You must be one of the idiots that think Bush should have flown directly to the whitehouse while the planes were still crashing on 9/11 like some modern day John Wayne.

Well, I'll go on record as one of those "idiots". My reasons (as I stated them at the time: not some morning-after democrat who'll declare, later, that whatever Bush did was wrong):

Terrorism is not an act of war. It is an act of politics. It's aim is not to cripple our economy, our military, or some other real target: It's aim is to scare the people into doing what the terrorists can't accomplish themselves.

In short, September 11th was a publicity stunt.

(Yeah, I'm exagerating some. But not nearly as much as those folks who claim that this was an attempt to 'strike at the very fabric of our freedoms' or some such. Al Queda isn't capable of damaging our country: there aren't enough of them. All they can do is try to scare the voters into doing what they want).

I would have thought that a professional politician would know how to respond to a publicity campaign.

My opinion as to how Bush should have responded:

He should have immediatly gone to the White House. (Cheney should have gone to a classified, secure, location. Bush has the right to risk himself, not the country). Bush's speach should stress that some terrorists are attempting to scare a bunch of us. They want us to do something. It's a safe bet that what they want is for us to:

Act immediatly, without thinking about our actions.
Crack down on our own citizens, with various "security" proceedures.
Conduct some form of military retaliation against somebody (and they'd prefer it if it's the wrong somebody.

Well, there's going to be some responses to this, but we're going to think about them, first. And because these people operate covertly, most of the responses will not be visable to the American people.

The strength of the United States doesn't come from the Pentagon, or from this office. It comes from the american people. And you, the people, are the targets of these events. The terrorists can't target all of you (because there aren't enough of them), all they can do is try to scare you.

If you, the people, want to know how to fight the terrorists, my advice is: Go to work. That's what the terrorists don't want you to do.

[Orange&Blue Skins]

Well, I'll go on record as one of those "idiots". My reasons (as I stated them at the time: not some morning-after democrat who'll declare, later, that whatever Bush did was wrong):

Ok you're on record.

I don't throw around the term "Knumbnuts" loosely. So it is with great care and consideration that I say: "Larry, you are a knumbnuts."

Gosh, why not fly directly to New York and climb to the top of the south tower for that matter. That would really show 'em. The fact is, there was still a flight in the air over Pennsylvannia inbound to DC and the Whitehouse. It is believed that the bird that hit the Pentagon may have been trying to get to the Capital but diverted to it's secondary objective. Not only that, but there were also 10,000 other aircraft in the air over and inbound to the United States, and there was no way of telling which had hijackers aboard and which didn't.

Little tip: Think, before you speak.:doh:

[Larry]

Little tip: Just because somebody disagrees with you, doesn't make them an idiot. (Nor does it mean they haven't thought about it, at the time or later).

Yes, returning to the White House would have been a risk. I think it was a risk that should have been taken.

People who don't take risks don't inspire people. And the events of September 11th were about producing an emotional reaction in the people, not about destroying targets as such.

And, frankly, the president really isn't all that important to our country. He's a great symbol (and, because terrorism is a policical conflict, symbols are actually very important), but, for that same reason, returning to the White House also becomes a very important symbol. (In a war, symbolism doesn't matter, but in that case, the President also is less important).

[Zen-like Todd]

I understand where you're coming from Larry, but really, that's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

[codeorama]

Reasons why you should not talk politics among friends:
1. Everyone is entitled to their opinion
2. There usually is no right or wrong answer, yet both sides feel they are right
3. Usually results in name calling
4. When someone feels strongly about their opinion, they are NOT going to listen to someone else's attempt to tell them why they are wrong and their opinion is right.
5. An opinion is like an ***** hole, everyone has one.

[Art]

Code,

There is ALWAYS a right and a wrong answer. In every conversation someone is right and someone is wrong. Sometimes that's immediately clear. Sometimes that takes years to discover. But, in everything, there is a right and a wrong.

[Glenn X]

There is ALWAYS a right and a wrong answer. In every conversation someone is right and someone is wrong.For those of you who don't already know this, Art is an absolutist. There is no gray area with Art. Frequently, though, I do find this quality about him rather endearing and even admirable. Give 'em hell, Art. Give 'em hell. :)

BTW, Larry, with all due respect, you seem to be the only person in America who, over a year after the fact, still cares about whether or not Bush should've quickly (and hastily, it could be said) made his way to the White House on 9-11-01. Hell, I don't even think Peter Jennings still cares about this matter anymore, sir.
the events of September 11th were about producing an emotional reaction in the people, not about destroying targets as such.Not about destruction, Larry? Not at all? Tell that to the families of the 3,000 individuals who were slaughtered that day, sir.

[RiggoDrill]

Everyone who's beating their chest for us to go it alone in Iraq should remember:

Iraq is NOT Afghanistan.

repeat:

Iraq is NOT Afghanistan.

This is NOT a country, like Afghanistan, where the little people will joyously do our dirty work, while we send a few advisors and drop a few cluster bombs.

In fact, we are HATED by the average citizen in Iraq, more so than Hussein himself. One could draw a parallel to WWII Soviet Union, where the Nazi invasion drew all Russians together, despite nearly every one fearing and despising Stalin.

The possibility of this conflict getting small-scale, residential and horrifying like Somalia is not too far-fetched ... it might get even worse. How "morally right" will we seem if we end up killing tons of civilians in our efforts to install a "better regime"?

And, unlike the war on Al Queda, we do not have the backing of anyone significant other than the UK. Who's going to back us up if this goes sour?

Moreover, other enemies, like Iran, who were fairly neutral during the Afghanistan invasion, have already stated that they are making plans to subvert our attempts to place "puppet regimes" in the region.

On top of all this, we may undermine any empathy or diplomacy we may have engendered in the Middle East since 9/11.

Heck, even Jordan, which kisses our ass, wants us to lay off.

And what if the war fails while our economy is in it's present state, complete with the budget deficits we're growing to "feel more secure"

[Yusuf06]

As much as I hate to admit it, I understand and somewhat agree with Larry's position. Had "W" returned to the White House it would have been a major statement of courage by him and by extension the country....not unlike Yeltsin's stand in Russia during the attempted coup.

With that said, I don't fault him for choosing discretion over valor though were it me, I would have returned without a second thought. However, I will point out that my wife feels I take too many unnecessary risks. However, in my mind, the risk of letting people like Al Qaeda think that they can break the spirit of this country is a far greater risk.

As for the original point, I think it's a great idea for "W" and Saddam to have a duel. Each gets to use any of his long range bombers that he so chooses to attempt to do in the other. :D

[Tarhog]

I'm staying out of this one except for this comment....I heard the same doom and gloom predictions prior to Desert Storm, and I'm still waiting to wade in my own blood!...these guys don't want a piece of what the US has to offer, I'm telling you you are dead wrong when you paint the image of massive US casualties, inspired Iraqi's killing Americans by the score. #1 we won't fight in the cities. We'll fight in a place and manner of our own choosing. #2 Most Iraqis are smarter than we give them credit for and see Hussein for what he is. When you know you'll be killed for speaking out, you can appear very supportive and patriotic. When the assault comes, you'll see how much devastation the Republican Guard and average Iraqi ground pounder wants to take for Hitler Jr. These same guys gave up in droves. I guarded over 4,000 POW's with a 30 man Marine Platoon the first day of the ground war, and it will be an even bigger collapse this time because they KNOW WHAT IS COMING.

I won't belabor the point...but the US Military is not lead by boneheads, and we'll crush them if and when the time comes. Even if all you say were to come to pass, it is still preferable to a massive nerve gas or nuclear attack on Israel, or a smallpox attack on the US. We can face up to this now, or we can do it later. But we are going to have to step up and show we will not tolerate a threat to the domestic US from anyone. I'm betting Iraq is not the last of it either.

[Tarhog]

I also wanted to mention, regardless of what you think Bush should have done the a.m. of 9/11 (and I imagine the Secret Service and their SOP's had a lot to do with how it was handled, not Bush himself calling the shots), the President has been incredibly visible, out in public nearly every week since. He has put himself at risk for assassination time and time again. I was lucky enough to be in an auditorium with him in High Point NC this year for a speech. You can't tell me it doesn't take courage to get out there with that knowledge always in the back of your mind. That speaks volumes to me, and I don't think dissecting split second decisions at an incredible moment of crisis is really all that illuminating.

[Romo]

Originally posted by lavarthebeast
But if Jessie Ventura was our president, I'd be all for it.

This goes to my wacky theory on how the world should be run.

Every country's leader should be a wrestler. USA get Jessie Ventura, Canada gets Brett Hart, Iran get Iran Sheik, Russia gets Nikolai Volkov, France would have been a challenger with Andre the Giant as would Britain with the British Bulldog, sadly both have passed away.

Well when there is a arguement between nation states they have a match to see who is right. Whoever wins is right. We could sell the matches on Pay-per-view. the money used for weapons and such could be better spend on lavish Romanesque colliseums to stage the events. Plus it would be a money maker.

Not bad eh? Well at least it maybe made one person laugh.

[Orange&Blue Skins]

Agreed, Tar. :thumbsup:

I'm confident we'll be well lead and successful. Iraq isn't Okinawa or Normandy. IF there is a concerted resistance, those forces will be the recipients of unholy violence. They will be made examples of with application of unspeakable carnage.

Even if we're wrong, and Sadam's inspirational leadership and tremendous charisma (this is sarcasm, Drill) moves every Iraqi man women and child to pick up their pitch folks to defend the homeland against the crusader colonialists, we are quite capable of fighting to the last Iraqi.

That part of the world is in for a much-needed enema. But its ills are nothing that a little old fashion killing and democratization won’t cure. Their grandchildren will thank us for it.

[Orange&Blue Skins]

OBTW, make some room on the bench, I've got a warm fanny.:peace:

[Tarhog]

;) They may be replacing the 'Benchwarmer' avatar after this weekend with 'The Wuerrfel' although I hope not. Maybe we'll live long enough (or keep our heads low enough and long enough on the board) to get a respectable avatar. I kinda liked the rookie myself!