Is Saddam Serious with This?

Remove all ads!

NEW YORK (CNN) -- CBS News reported Monday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has challenged President Bush to a live international television and radio debate via satellite, saying, "As leaders, why don't we use this opportunity?"
"I am ready ... to conduct a direct dialogue, a debate, with your president," Saddam was quoted as telling news anchor Dan Rather in a three-hour interview. "I will say what I want, and he will say what he wants."
If Bush is "committed to war," Saddam said, this would be his chance to "convince the world."
Asked if he was joking, the Iraqi president said, "This is something proposed in earnest, out of my respect for the people of the United States and my respect for the people of Iraq and the people of the world. I call for this because war is not a joke."
The White House said it was not taking Saddam's debate suggestion seriously.
"There's no debating what's required of him," White House communications director Dan Bartlett told CNN.
CBS did not broadcast portions of the interview Monday, but it showed graphics of quotes from the interview. It said portions of the interview will be shown Wednesday on "60 Minutes II."
According to CBS, Saddam also flatly denied that Al Samoud 2 missiles violated U.N. range restrictions and indicated he has no plans to destroy them, as demanded by U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix. Blix has put a Saturday deadline for Iraq to begin destroying the missiles.
"Iraq is allowed to prepare proper missiles, and we are committed to that," Saddam was quoted as telling Rather.
Is the Al Samoud 2 proper?
"We do not have missiles that go beyond the prescribed range," he said.
Earlier, Iraqi officials said they were considering how to respond to the Blix demand that Iraq begin destroying the missiles this weekend.
If Iraq does not comply, White House officials said, Saddam is helping to make the case for a new U.S.-backed resolution, introduced Monday, that could clear the way for military action against Iraq.

 

That is something I would pay to listen two. Some evil genius Dictator versus the *good* (yeah right) but amazingly stupid president Bush. America should be scared to let this guy into any debate, especialy one like this

 

lol, yeah, cos he would make buch look like more of an arse

 

Probably just to 'test' one of his missiles on accuracy .
Bush already said he doesn't want to particepate for good or ill I wouldn't know.

 

I think Bush should take him up on his offer.If you are willing to raise war on the mans country you should be willing to meet him in open debate.

 

The problem with the debate is that it will give lots of opportunity for misinterpretation and media spin. All Sadaam would have to do is pull off a few good sound bites and the liberal media will run with them for years.

Also, many here think Sadaam has a martyr complex. I wouldn't trust him in the same room as Bush. Who knows what he would do.

 

I don't see why Iraq can't have weapons. The US and Russia has enough to destroy the world a few times, why can't Iraq have enough to kill a chicken? If they can trust a weirdo like Bush with nukes, Saddam could be trusted with a few missiles.

 

Well, it's probably because Bush doesn't have a secret police and hasn't declared himself Presidnet-for-life. Nor does he spread around propaganda or other stuff that dictators in the past have done. Of course, it is very reasonable to get rid of nuclear weapons for major countries, especially Russia, as their country, AFAIK, is under lots of civil strife.

Well, frankly, I think it's a great idea. Personally, I believe that Bush will have plenty of reasons to use force to get rid of Saddam's weapons. But at least they aren't talking it over a table or something. Saddam could pull off something devious, like he did to Bush Sr. Maybe kick Dubya in the shin or something.

 

Saddam is posturing. Debate sounds nice and a great alternative, but realistically it's too late for that now, whether you like it or not. And for the record, I don't like it.

 

bush does have secret police, there are many agencies inside the US that do that job. and bush does spread propaganda, the whole reason for this war right now is propaganda.

and with regards to disarming by force, the inspectors have found no weapons, and iraq says they are destroyed, they present evidence as they find it which is then validated and verified by the inspectors, so iraq is complying with the resolution, bush on the other hand qill not be satisfied until he has invaded iraq, no matter what iraq does its never enough for that madman - disarm bush, then disarm saddam.
the US loses on average 10 nuclear weapons a year, and on average only recovers 6 of them, that leaves 4 nuclear weapons which go missing every year, and thats without the countless tonnes of nuclear material the US loses.

 

I liked it too, BTA.

 

Shoshino, even if that were true, no U.S. president comes near as being as a bad leader as a Hussein. Think about it. Would Saddam tolerate thousands of his citizens protesting against him?

 

we dont know because his people havent protested against him

 

If people are willing to protest against their country's invasion of another country for security reasons (supposedly), I would think that they would also protest against their country's invasion of another country for oil.

Not to mention that Bush doesn't test chemical weapons against his own people, torture political dissenters (if journalists can uncover that in Iraq, it is likely they would be able to do so in America), or overglamorize himself.

 

all the things which you mention are things which saddam has done in the past, not does currently do, america has also done terrible things in the past, but they argue that the world cant hold that against them because it happened in the past, well likewise dont hold these things against saddam and iraq

 

Saddam has been President of Iraq since 1979. As far as I know, the U.S. has not done anything that would be on par with Saddam's acts since 1979. You can hold what Saddam did because he has done those things but still keeps himself in power. You can't hold those same things against the U.S. because different leaders and parties were in control at different times.

Bush is not a dictator. He may be exerting more power than previous Presidents, and the Republicans may be in power of the Senate and the Presidency, but that is nowhere near what Saddam has done. The democratic party is not outlawed. Bush has not declared himself President for life.

 

so? that is the way it is over there, they dont live the same way as we do over here, infact it doesnt work out there, iran tried free elections, they fell apart. you cannot judge them by our morals, their religions are different, their way of life is different. most americans look out tehre and see the oppression of women... these women are not oppressed, they chose to live that way because it is denoted by their faith, their religion.

and another thing, you dictate dates which suit you, just because you havent done anything really bad since 79 and saddam has doesnt make the US any better then iraq. and infact, the US's position is even worse then his because the US gave him the weapons in the first place.

 

"they chose to live that way"

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...