Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7148

on CBS news just a few minutes ago they were talking about dan rather's exclusive interview with saddam hussein. they're going to be airing it tomorrow on their early show. they mentioned this evening a few things that they discussed, and one of them caught my attention. apparantly in this interview, saddam makes an open invitation for george bush to hold a live television debate with him so that they can discuss the need for war. and the white house immediately refused.

my question to you is: why would the white house refuse? are we that afraid of facing our "enemy" and stating our case? or is there some other reason that i'm just not seeing? i would hope that our government would attempt to do anything possible to prevent a full fledged war. what's wrong with talking things out?

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by morgana
my question to you is: why would the white house refuse?

---

Last edited by philjit on 02-25-2003 at 12:31 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

...and he has.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location:
Posts: 3030

Why would we dignify him with a debate?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

added stuff above

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7148

thanks phil.

i completely see your point. so instead of an outright refusal, why not offer instead a private discussion at the UN? you know that saddam would refuse outright (at this stage in the game he'd be too paranoid to leave the country), and then the gambit wouldn't have worked- perhaps it would even throw more needed support to the war camp.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Rio de los Brazos de Dios
Posts: 3876

I agree wholeheartedly with Phil's expanded reply. Where is Bill Clinton when we need him? I jest! I woiuldn't have Clinton back even if we HAD to debate Sadeyes.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

oxsan


Don't kick until yer spurred.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 7504

Debate implies the existence of a common, objective value structure and an agreed-upon set of facts. There are no agreed-upon facts here and very few common values. The questions of whether Hussein has eliminated his stockpiles of WMD and whether his existing missile stockpile violates UN standards are questions of fact; they are not debatable.

Also, any REAL debate must have a proposition to be debated and a set of impartial moderators. What "proposition" would be debated here? Where will you find the moderator?

This is a red herring of the most blatant and obvious sort; Phil has Saddam's motives exactly correct, and the US was entirely correct to reject it out of hand. Anyone who holds this against Bush forfeits the right to be taken seriously.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by morgana
so instead of an outright refusal, why not offer instead a private discussion at the UN?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16728

quote:

---

Originally posted by nymbus
Why would we dignify him with a debate?

---

Last edited by euphorbia on 02-25-2003 at 12:52 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia
Why doesnt he want to debate Blair?

---

Last edited by philjit on 02-25-2003 at 12:54 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16728

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil
well with the greatest of respect to Bush. Blair is a trained barrister, its hardly a wise opponent to pick. Secondly Saddam is probably thinking, "I don't want to talk to the organ grinders monkey". Thirdly, Blair's dad, nor his Defence Secretary were once mates with Saddam. What ammo is he going to have interviewing them?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia
the point is phil...like we have already discussed...it benefits Saddam to make this about just him and Bush.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16728

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil
Well not if Bush refuses it doesn't.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

quote:

---

Originally posted by euphorbia
just the challenge itsself gives the appearance of it just being about saddam and Bush.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2001
Location:
Posts: 16728

quote:

---

Originally posted by Phil
I am not sure what you mean being about 'saddam and bush' only? Who is the target of the play if that is the overriding reason for it?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: my mother's bloody womb
Posts: 7148

i would think that US troop deployment to the region and all the media coverage of bush saying that basically no matter what we're going to war would make it between saddam and bush.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

Bush is not the number one opponent of Saddam?

Surely if Bush went into exile and democracy was installed war could be averted?

It's a damn shame the White House turned down the invitation for the interview, it would have made for some interesting television.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

Interesting television, to be sure. But in terms of helping pretty much any interest involved beside Saddam Hussein's, I can't see any reason why ANYBODY would accept or even consider an offer like this. The US has, in retrospect mind you, done a poor job of bolstering their case (turning around now, I guess). But seeing this as anything more than a sham, and thinking that any good could come of it (in terms of truth coming out or useful suggestions coming up where they otherwise wouldn't, or any other perspective that you want to take besides being used as anti-US or anti-invasion-of-Iraq), it should be obvious to even the most heavily-biased person that such an offer, in the context of things, is not only bullshit in its own right, but something that the US should, as it has done, reject, as CHiPsJr said, out of hand.

I've had many many many problems with how Iraq has been handled lately. This is not one of them. Not even in the ballpark, not in the leauge. Not even the same fucking sport.

If there is any reason why anybody thinks that Saddam Hussein and GW Bush going head to head in a live televised debate would be helpful to anything, I'd love to hear it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15003

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs
But in terms of helping pretty much any interest involved beside Saddam Hussein's, I can't see any reason why ANYBODY would accept or even consider an offer like this.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalie
Um, Hussein wants to avoid war, which is basically what the everyone in the world wants, unless they've been bought.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26420

If you allow me to write your response for you, can I just say that Americans are hypocrites and war is bad, and we can cut that all out of your pontification.

I know you'll claim otherwise, but forgive me if I say that I just took two pages off a one page post.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35669

It would be even less meaningful than the presidential debates in the run up to presidential election, and that is some feat. Be interested to see who was more believable, though: mass murdering man and well known liar with moustache speaking foreign language, or Bush.

The issue with which Iraq could embarass us should already be covered on the news here and in speeches by some of our own honest politicians, of course.

On the subject of how our leaders have conducted this Iraq thing, one can only hope that it might be used as an example of how not to do things in the future. Tony Blair might be free for new job opportunities soon (unless they are saving some real information bombshell), he could narrate.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged