Saddam's exile

Every black guy?

Look out Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, and Africa.

First we're mad that the US is going into Iraq to depose Saddam. Then we're mad that he is getting an out (if he accepts).

Do y'all want a war or not? The administration has bent over backwards to prevent one, short of just letting Saddam do whatever he wants. Your issue should be with Saddam, not with W.

If Saddam and his ilk are the perpetrators of human rights abuses, how is exiling him (and his lieutenants) from power not improving the human rights situation in Iraq?

Well, to play Devil's Advocate:

Basically, removing Hussein from power eliminates a "threat to world peace" (I personally regard Iraq as about as much of a threat to the US as Texas, but anyway...); even in the long run, a US subsidized exile would cost MUCH less, in dollars and especially lives, than even the shortest war possible in Iraq. And we get a handpicked puppet to lead the oil-rich nation just the same, along with not having to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.

And an Iraqi president/prime minister/whatever would, theoretically, NOT commit the human rights abuses that Hussein did while in power.

Of course, the supposed "evil monster" gets off scot-free on our dime, but hey, no plan is perfect, right? Let me tell you about this insanely complicated tax cut on stocks that benefits ALL Americans, since you're here.....

Well, duh...conservatives don't seem to interested in issues that "brown persons" in the US have.

For whatever reason, Bush has a hard-on to take out Hussein; given his soft shoe to "valued ally" treatment of regimes perpetrating similar abuses/mounting similar threats worldwide (the short list: N Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel), the dichotomy should have gotten much more coverage than it did. But I suppose that in a time of "war" we should really suspend all criticism of the administration.

Israel aye?

I bet we're gonna here that a lot more lately.

Mandela even mentioned it in a speech that was surprsingly cut from the NY Time article.

I say give Saddam the deal...then pull a Jack Ruby on him as he's riding off into the Saudi sunset.

No war, no Saddam.

Works for me!

Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Man I love human beings..

In my deal Saddam is the only one damned.

I could live with that Kronos.

I don't care if he's exiled, bombed, or taken out from food posioning after being force-fed Waffle House cuisine for 5 days...

What I DO care about is what are our plans afterward. No operation, from exile to full on invasion, makes ANY sense unless we have a clear cut plan to restore stability in that country, unite or destroy the warring factions running through it, and a clear long-term committment to supporting Iraq in every way possible.

Without that, it's just Afghanistan 2: The Quickening, which gains us nothing whatsoever and saves no lives on their end.

lol Mikah if dictatorship is a must in Iraq then I will be first to say my vote will go to Michael Ironside or John C McGinley to take Saddam's chair.

Who cares? Building a stable nation doesn't make for good TV! This whole conflict has nothing to do with oil, little to do with regime change, and only vaguely to do with weapons of mass destruction. Sure, those things are a consideration, but they're are all secondary benefits to the real meat of the issue.

This conflict, the reason it's happening and -crucially - the reason it's happening now is, in the absence of Bin Laden's head on a spike on the White House lawn, to make Bush look good.

That's why this "exile" offer, an offer that they know a vain and arrogant twat like Saddam will never take, has more to do with the PR department than the war room.

I think this exile business is Bush's way of admitting he was wrong in chomping at the bit without admitting he was wrong in chomping at the bit. As you say, a PR move.

You're exactly right. Fortunately, it sounds like we do have a plan for a post-Saddam Iraq - but would this plan change those plans, if Saddam were to take it? The anonymous letter to Bush in Thomas Friedman's Wednesday column opined that a military general from the Iraqi army could do it. I respectfully disagree. You do that, then you have Afghanistan 2.

What is this plan, Sorro?

I'd love to read it.

I don't have a website that has it all laid out, but from the pieces I've seen in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and elsewhere, it looks something like this:

After the invasion, CENTCOM will be in charge of Iraq. They could pass some responsibility (or a lot of responsibility) on to the UN (if it participates) or coalition partners. If the UN participates, a general given a UN mandate will probably rule, if it is a coalition, Tommy Franks will rule Iraq. Over the course of three or so years (more or less, depending on progress), the nation will be democratized by degrees, starting with local elections, then regional, then parlimentary, and finally they will elect someone to replace Gen. Franks. Occupation forces may stay there after the presidential election to make sure things run smoothly, then they will mostly pull out with some troops remaning behind at new US air and army bases. While they are there, they will work to repair infrastructure, probably auction off rights to Iraqi oil fields (the companies that get rights would be exclusively from coalition partners - at this point it would be ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, BP, ConocoPhillips, and Royal Dutch Shell. Lukoil, TotalFinaElf, and others would get a shot if their governments join in), and try and repair the damage Saddam did to the marshes between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Oh, has anybody mentioned...Tommy Franks is a complete nutball?

He does look a bit like those loopy generals often encountered in comedies.

Care to share any stories about him? (I hope none mentions precious bodily fluids)

Just one story on 60 Minutes was evidence enough.

We don't get 60 minutes over here.
Please elaborate, I'm intrigued...

Questions I have:

- Is the military force left behind going to be sufficient to wage (and win) ground war with every armed faction controlling a piece of Iraq for as long as it takes to dissolve them, bring them under central government rule, and then enforce that rule?

- What are the plans to heal Kurd-Shiite relations in general?

- After the military leaves, who would rule Iraq - a Kurd or a Shiite?

- What are the long term resources to helping the millions of refugees and to building a sustainable economy for Iraq after we've demolished the current one?

The thing is, it would be very, very dangerous for us to try and remove Saddam by force.

the Iraqi military is a joke. No one disputes that. Our forces would role over them this time in much the same fasion that we roled over them in Deasert Storm.

The problem is that their military is not the primary threat. The greatest danger our nation faces right now is the small terrorist cell; five or six guys with a bottle of anthrax and a magic carpet ride to paradise if they blow themselves up. We are not prepared to defend against these people, and if we go into a Muslim nation with force, it becomes much more likely that these people will attack us.

We want Saddam removed from power. If that can be accomplished without force, it will be a much safer situation for us and our allies. Yeah, it'd be great if we could kill him, but getting him out of power is the most important thing.

Yes, that's exactly why he kept pushing this when the majority of Americans were opposed to invading Iraq.

This isn't about popularity. It's about an evil man that is supporting other evil men, all of whom want to murder every Jew and Christian alive.

Actually, that's what a lot of us in the evangelical christian circles have been praying for. We aren't realy wild about going into Iraq, and a lot of us think that there could be some very serious, unforseen consequences. But we also realise that Saddam is a danger to us and his own people, so...

The plan is to auction the oil fields to foreign oil companies? Wouldn't such an important (read: rich) resource be important for the new iraq to control themselves? Are the oilfields currently owned by foreign companies? It kind of throws out the arguement that the war isn't about oil.

Yeah, but an evil secular dictatorship, so...

Another problem with the oil arguement.

If we attack Sadaam and he destroys his oil fields won't it take something like 10 years before all are operational again?

Seems Bush won't even be in office at that point and thus can't benefit at that time.

So Bush wouldn't benefit now from American oil companies knowing they will be able to purchace Iraqi property on the cheap in the near future?

They haven't yet so that remains to be seen.

They haven't what yet? Given Bush money? I think that has happened.

Well until you can show me proof of that it remains speculation.

But his backers can.

The oil that's there will wait. Blowing up refineries won't change that. Refineries can be rebuilt. Given control of the country, I'd bet a bunch of mines and new refineries would be going up following a period of exploration anyway. So having facilities at the ready isn't as important as access to the oilsands or potential wellsites themselves.

Has Saddam Hussein promised a Scorched Earth policy if attacked? I wasn't aware of that.

Just as sure that proof has yet been shown to you about going for war.

All speculation.

wink

You might want to pull back the wool from your eyes.

It's not speculation. American companies already get oil from that region among several other countries.

There's no reason whatsoever they'd stop for any particular reason given our current fuel demand.

Iraq may not make up a large part of our total oil picture, but if you removed them from the equation, it'd make enough of an impact to send prices soaring and global economies reeling.

And would you be offended if I asked the same of you?

It is speculation to say the big oil companies have already paid Bush money for land in Iraq. From a business perspective that is a truly stupid thing to do considering what happenes if Sadaam chooses exile instead. Because if he exiles himself that means far less US control of the situation that happens within the country.

Doesn't matter, if it was all about oil Anwar would have been wide open by now.

The new Iraq would get the money for letting these companies explore the oil fields, just like other arrangements in the Gulf, the Caspian, the Gulf of Mexico, etc.

It would be like their 8 billion dollar contract with Lukoil, or their 2 billion dollar contract with TotalFinaElf, just with (possibly) different companies taking their place.

Not as much of an impact as Venesuela has had, yet we are still here.

</strong>

I believe the payment was in the form of campaign contributions.

Yeah, right. In no way would that satisfy our current fuel or oil demands. That wouldn't even replace Iraq's output.

Their oil capacity is greatly reduced due to employee problems. Their oilfields are not DESTROYED, as was suggested above. Destroy Venezuela's total oil capabilities, then let's talk.

I am looking at how much capacity is off the market. It looks like the strike might finally end, but oil prices have been driven up by 5-10 dollars/barrel since it started. Iraq being offline for an unknown amount of time would be tough, but we'd get through it. Russia could pick up the slack, and if we get Venesuela back, that's another 3 million barrels a day back on the market.

Get through it, yes. Without global economies being adversely affected and prices soaring as I noted above? No.

Hussein ordered a number of refineries torched during the Gulf War. No reason he wouldn't do it again.