French having second thoughts?

[Kontiki]

The article takes a very narrow perspective. I don't think there was much doubt that the Iraqi people in general are happy to see Saddam gone, and I doubt that many people who opposed the war in the west did so because they thought the Iraqis loved Saddam in the first place.

There is already growing animosity in Iraq towards US occupation, however, and we'll still have to see how detremental the invasion/occupation was to the already poor US sentiment in the region.

[Giancarlo]

Kontiki, I think the Iraqi People will thank the US. I believe this will turn out the right way.

And those quotes you have of me? I never said that...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Menlas

Is Jack Straw trying to beat the Iraqi information minister ?

Menlas, The goal was to get Saddam to cooperate. Are you suggesting that nothing at all would have gotten him to cooperate?

There was interesting factoid that came out of the arrest of Aziz. A member of the Bush I admin said that he gave Aziz a personal note from Bush to Saddam urging him to capitulate and withdraw from Kuwait. Aziz never delivered that message to Saddam. Why?

The speculation is that Aziz feared Saddam's reaction. But this does indicate that Saddam was not getting any messages from his subordinates that were even potentially in the nature of capitulation. I have also read, I believe here on Apolyton, that Saddam held out hope to the very end that France and Russia would pull off a compromise that would allow him to save face. I believe he was looking for some concessions from the Kuwaiti's on their outstanding disputes.

So who knows what Saddam might have done if the UN message was uncompromising and direct? But clearly, without such a message, Saddam held out hope that France and Russia would again pull off a last minute compromise.

[Giancarlo]

Nobody beats the Iraqi Information Minister in BS. Just look at the quotes I got in my sig... lol...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kontiki
The article takes a very narrow perspective. I don't think there was much doubt that the Iraqi people in general are happy to see Saddam gone, and I doubt that many people who opposed the war in the west did so because they thought the Iraqis loved Saddam in the first place.

There is already growing animosity in Iraq towards US occupation, however, and we'll still have to see how detremental the invasion/occupation was to the already poor US sentiment in the region.

I don't know about Europe, but the protests here were (mostly) all about George Bush. Many of the protesters didn't even know what the issues were in Iraq, or about the first Gulf War, or anything at all about Saddam. All they knew was that the American Imperialism was on the march and had to be opposed.

[Menlas]

Originally posted by Ned


Menlas, The goal was to get Saddam to cooperate. Are you suggesting that nothing at all would have gotten him to cooperate?

There was interesting factoid that came out of the arrest of Aziz. A member of the Bush I admin said that he gave Aziz a personal note from Bush to Saddam urging him to capitulate and withdraw from Kuwait. Aziz never delivered that message to Saddam. Why?

The speculation is that Aziz feared Saddam's reaction. But this does indicate that Saddam was not getting any messages from his subordinates that were even potentially in the nature of capitulation. I have also read, I believe here on Apolyton, that Saddam held out hope to the very end that France and Russia would pull off a compromise that would allow him to save face. I believe he was looking for some concessions from the Kuwaiti's on their outstanding disputes.

So who knows what Saddam might have done if the UN message was uncompromising and direct? But clearly, without such a message, Saddam held out hope that France and Russia would again pull off a last minute compromise.

Ned, i'm laughing because anyway, the goal of the coalition was not to destroy those WMD (which are still hidden if i'm not wrong, by the way ), but to change the regime. So, what Straw said here is complete BS (sorry, but i can't find any other word for it) : Bush would have attacked Iraq even if those WMDs had been destroyed.

[Giancarlo]

But of course the WMDs would of never been destroyed.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Menlas



Ned, i'm laughing because anyway, the goal of the coalition was not to destroy those WMD (which are still hidden if i'm not wrong, by the way ), but to change the regime. So, what Straw said here is complete BS (sorry, but i can't find any other word for it) : Bush would have attacked Iraq even if those WMDs had been destroyed.

Menlas, it is true that Bush never believed that Saddam would cooperate. However, I sincerely doubt he would have gone ahead without Blair and the rest of the coalition.

Now, it is clear to me that the coalition truly wanted Saddam to cooperate. We knew that without his cooperation, the weapons inspectors could be there permanently and never be able to give reliable information on Iraq's WMD programs, one way or the other. We had intel that Saddam made major investments in WMD even while the UN inspectors combed all over Iraq throught the '90s. Only Saddam's genuine cooperation could end this cat and mouse game and bring closure to this issue.

What we needed is the 5-point program proposed by Blair. The French really should have cooperated, even if they mistrusted Bush. In Straw's estimation, Saddam would have cooperated.

I, though, do not believe so. I think he would have found some way to half cooperate and still leave the whole question up in the air as to what to do.

But, back to your point. No Bush would not have gone ahead without Blair. But once the decision to act came, they made it clear that Saddam's regime was history.

[Frogman]

Regime change was only an issue because Saddam proved himself to be a liar and a deceiver. If Saddam had any sense he would still be running Iraq which is quite sad. The global community must at some point stand up for human rights and not let them be stolen by thugs who can hide behind the borders of their stolen nation.

[GePap]

If little or no WMD's are found then you will see the French gloating big-time towards Blair and his gov. (people in the US will by then have forgotten what WMD's are). And we have no clue yet about what will replace the Saddam government.

In short, everyone is jumping the gun big time when it comes to a war post-mortem. Anyone who thought it would be long and bloody was deluded anyways: it is within the next 12 months that we will see the real judgements begin. The French still have a chance to end up being the Cassandra that people ignored but proved to be ultimately correct.

[LoneWolf]

Yes, Americans are truly and uniformly complete idiots. And yet, we get by somehow...
As for the French being right, we have a saying about a blind pig eventually finding an acorn...

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Anyone who thought it would be long and bloody was deluded anyways:

I actually voted for two weeks. It took three, but we had a bad sandstorm. As I said in another thread, this battle looked a lot like the way Patton broke free in France and could have driven all the way to Berlin had Ike not stopped him. Airpower, armor and speed!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Frogman
Regime change was only an issue because Saddam proved himself to be a liar and a deceiver.

Unlike most politicians

I thought the US decided on regime change after declaring Saddam to be as evil as Hitler, or was it as evil as Stalin. One of the two.