State Department: Sudan an ally

[jonb]

Didn't anyone read my "Try to act surprised" request? Trust me, I know about government policies. Ever heard of Dick Wilson? I've got cousins on Pine Ridge who can tell you all about him.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by aloofman@May 4 2005, 07:19 AM
So you're disappointed that they haven't chimed in?

[post=307853]Quoted post[/post]​

Not really. But honestly, if you criticize any of Bush's policies, freepers pop in, giving the same robotic answers.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by Vix@May 4 2005, 05:02 PM
The State Department is notorious for cozying up to dictators. Historically, we have tended towards dictators we could "work with"

[post=307892]Quoted post[/post]​

yeah, like saddam hussein. we sure gave HIM a damn good working-with!

 

[KinkGuy]

Did you hear we are negotiating with him to send him into exile instead of making him stand trial in a international court? snif, snifffffff.....something is stinking up the room.

 

[Dr Rock]

negotiating? isn't he a prisoner? I mean, what's he negotiating WITH?

 

[madame_zora]

And in this age of communication, "exile" is just a pretty word. Looks like he's on the loose again anyway:

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/co...-name_page.html


Can't find Bin Laden, can't hold on to Hussien, we must have the biggest morons in history involved in this "war".

 

[KinkGuy]

The London newspaper article was from prior to his capture...but none the less, the State Dept. today admitted that we are indeed negotiating with Saddam to send him into exile rather than stand trial. Me thinks WE can't stand up to the scrutiny of a World Court.

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by KinkGuy@May 4 2005, 11:18 PM
Me thinks WE can't stand up to the scrutiny of a World Court.

[post=308125]Quoted post[/post]​

And so KinkGuy hits the nail RIGHT on the head!

Not that our administration would care... :evilgrin:

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by KinkGuy@May 4 2005, 08:18 PM
The London newspaper article was from prior to his capture...but none the less, the State Dept. today admitted that we are indeed negotiating with Saddam to send him into exile rather than stand trial. Me thinks WE can't stand up to the scrutiny of a World Court.

[post=308125]Quoted post[/post]​

Methinks that the Iraqis can't agree on which way to slowly kill him, and even if they can decide, it will make us look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world if we let them do it.

So far only "an Arabic newspaper" is claiming that an offer was made and it also claims that Saddam rejected it. That wouldn't be surprising, since the loyalty of the Sunni insurgents is pretty much all he has left. If he renounces that, even they won't mind seeing him dead.

If it is true, it might be a nice way of avoiding some crazy trial. The World Court idea is really unlikely because Iraq would want to try him. If he goes into exile, it can easily be arranged for somebody to "accidentally" get through security and take him out. Then we don't have to worry about trying to finagle a trial that pleases both the Iraqis and the rest of the world. More interesting to me is that Rumsfeld would have to be pretty desperate to even make such an offer. It would be the ultimate admission that we don't know how to defeat the Sunni insurgency.

 

[Hockeytiger]

Originally posted by KinkGuy@May 4 2005, 09:18 PM
The London newspaper article was from prior to his capture...but none the less, the State Dept. today admitted that we are indeed negotiating with Saddam to send him into exile rather than stand trial. Me thinks WE can't stand up to the scrutiny of a World Court.

[post=308125]Quoted post[/post]​

Who is this we? If you mean the US, we do not have custody of Saddam and therefore cannot conduct any such negotiations.

As for Sudan, why not work with them? If no one is going to bother to do anything anyways about Sudan, why not cooperate with them if it might save lives in Iraq? In the end, it is a net savings of lives.

BTW the article got it wrong. Washington, nor any other Western government, for that matter, has described the events in Sudan as genocide. If they do so, under international treaties, they are legally obligated to stop it. No Western government really cares, so they don't dare call it genocide.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Originally posted by Hockeytiger@May 5 2005, 02:52 AM
BTW the article got it wrong. Washington, nor any other Western government, for that matter, has described the events in Sudan as genocide. If they do so, under international treaties, they are legally obligated to stop it. No Western government really cares, so they don't dare call it genocide.

[post=308196]Quoted post[/post]​

Actually, U.S. officials have referred to the events in Darfur as a genocide. They don't care enough to stop it.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Originally posted by Hockeytiger+May 5 2005, 09:52 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Hockeytiger &#064; May 5 2005, 09:52 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-KinkGuy@May 4 2005, 09:18 PM
The London newspaper article was from prior to his capture...but none the less, the State Dept. today admitted that we are indeed negotiating with Saddam to send him into exile rather than stand trial. Me thinks WE can&#39;t stand up to the scrutiny of a World Court.

[post=308125]Quoted post[/post]​

Who is this we? If you mean the US, we do not have custody of Saddam and therefore cannot conduct any such negotiations.

As for Sudan, why not work with them? If no one is going to bother to do anything anyways about Sudan, why not cooperate with them if it might save lives in Iraq? In the end, it is a net savings of lives.

BTW the article got it wrong. Washington, nor any other Western government, for that matter, has described the events in Sudan as genocide. If they do so, under international treaties, they are legally obligated to stop it. No Western government really cares, so they don&#39;t dare call it genocide.

[post=308196]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
Well, it&#39;s the 60th aniversary of VE day coming up, and everyone will be BS-ing about "The evil is over, genocide of the innocent with blind eyes has passed".

Why the fung does the US go to war if it&#39;d be easier to just have team evil as allies...oh wait a sec..