Why, oh why didn't George accept Saddam's challenge in (late 2002, I think it was?). I heard it on the radio while driving home from work one day - Saddam and one of his ministers challenged George and Dick to a sword-fight to resolve their differences - a sword fight to the death. Now, although I don't condone violence at all, four old men fencing would be vastly preferable to, what has it been...? 13,000 soldiers and civilians killed?
BAGHDAD — An Iraqi vice president offered an unusual suggestion Thursday for solving the U.S.-Iraq standoff: Saddam Hussein and George W Bush should fight a duel to settle their differences and spare their people the ravages of war.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan would be the referee for the duel, which should be held on neutral territory, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said in a TV interview.
Ramadan, wearing a green uniform and a black beret, made his remarks without giving any outward sign he was joking, although reporters who were present detected a note of irony in his voice.
"Bush wants to attack the whole of Iraq, the army and the infrastructure," Ramadan said.
"The American president should specify a group, and we will specify a group and choose neutral ground, with Kofi Annan as referee, and use one weapon, with a president against a president, a vice president against a vice president, and a minister against a minister in a duel," Ramadan said. "In this way we are saving the American and the Iraqi people."
Iraq has two vice presidents. Ramadan did not say whether he or Taha Muhie-eldin Marouf might take on Dick Cheney.
In Washington, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the Iraqi offer was irresponsible and did not warrant a "serious response."
"I just want to point out that, in the past when Iraq had disputes, it invaded its neighbors. There were no duels, there were invasions. There was use of weapons of mass destruction and the military; that's how Iraq settles its disputes," Fleischer said.
Bush says he wants Saddam toppled and accuses the Iraqi leader of stockpiling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and harboring terrorists. Disarm or face attack, is Bush's message to Saddam. (Compiled from news reports)
Because George and Dick would have been skewered even if they both fought Saddam at the same time. Neither has the training for that, and besides even if they had done it and won, it wouldn't have achieved their objectives.
The world knows perfectly well that the Iraq invasion wasn't really about weapons of mass destruction nor about terrorists hiding in Iraq. There was no evidence of either. It was about creating a patriotic fervor at home in the US to help solidify the administration's chances of being re-elected, and about improving the position of American oil companies with respect to mid-east resources.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Why, oh why....?
Date: 2004-11-06 06:14 am (UTC)Why, oh why didn't George accept Saddam's challenge in (late 2002, I think it was?). I heard it on the radio while driving home from work one day - Saddam and one of his ministers challenged George and Dick to a sword-fight to resolve their differences - a sword fight to the death. Now, although I don't condone violence at all, four old men fencing would be vastly preferable to, what has it been...? 13,000 soldiers and civilians killed?
Re: Why, oh why....?
Date: 2004-11-06 06:23 am (UTC)BAGHDAD — An Iraqi vice president offered an unusual suggestion Thursday for solving the U.S.-Iraq standoff: Saddam Hussein and George W Bush should fight a duel to settle their differences and spare their people the ravages of war.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan would be the referee for the duel, which should be held on neutral territory, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said in a TV interview.
Ramadan, wearing a green uniform and a black beret, made his remarks without giving any outward sign he was joking, although reporters who were present detected a note of irony in his voice.
"Bush wants to attack the whole of Iraq, the army and the infrastructure," Ramadan said.
"The American president should specify a group, and we will specify a group and choose neutral ground, with Kofi Annan as referee, and use one weapon, with a president against a president, a vice president against a vice president, and a minister against a minister in a duel," Ramadan said. "In this way we are saving the American and the Iraqi people."
Iraq has two vice presidents. Ramadan did not say whether he or Taha Muhie-eldin Marouf might take on Dick Cheney.
In Washington, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the Iraqi offer was irresponsible and did not warrant a "serious response."
"I just want to point out that, in the past when Iraq had disputes, it invaded its neighbors. There were no duels, there were invasions. There was use of weapons of mass destruction and the military; that's how Iraq settles its disputes," Fleischer said.
Bush says he wants Saddam toppled and accuses the Iraqi leader of stockpiling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and harboring terrorists. Disarm or face attack, is Bush's message to Saddam. (Compiled from news reports)
Re: Why, oh why....?
Date: 2004-11-07 12:20 am (UTC)The world knows perfectly well that the Iraq invasion wasn't really about weapons of mass destruction nor about terrorists hiding in Iraq. There was no evidence of either. It was about creating a patriotic fervor at home in the US to help solidify the administration's chances of being re-elected, and about improving the position of American oil companies with respect to mid-east resources.