STORM2K

tommy franks was asked in his news conference if he knew of a plan for saddam to go to syria. he said he heard the reports but could not comment. WHAT????? what worries me is yet once again, a top bush official had a chance to state unequivically that saddam's only choice is unconditional surrender, but did not. our pow's were executed!!! if bush is negotiating with saddam behind our backs he should be impeached. also, even if saddam SNEAKS into syria the president should state to syria that we will declare war on syria unless saddam is given up. remember, anything less than unconditional surrender means negotiation is possible.
if saddam goes into exhile he will be a hero to the arab wrld , and being next dor in syria, he will be able to destabilize iraq. WHY WONT BUSH SIMPLY ANNOUNCE A POLICY OF UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER?

If we cannot get the unconditional surrender of Iraq here, then we have failed at this point

this war is sounding very politically correct to me. i fear that saddam will negotiate with saddam to avoid casualties to our forces. that sounds good, but it will be a half measure that will result in more casualties later.

I agree about the "political correctness" of this war! It is a growing concern for Americans, at least this American. It is time to fight fire with fire. We have warned those civilians to get out of harms way. It is their choice to stay. Not our choice to carefully bomb to avoid those casualties while we lose more and more of our soldiers needlessly. LET'S ROLL!!

Our military casualties should be of more importance!!

rainstorm wrote:this war is sounding very politically correct to me. i fear that saddam will negotiate with saddam to avoid casualties to our forces. that sounds good, but it will be a half measure that will result in more casualties later.

That would be a neat trick.Saddam is now going to negotiate with Saddam.
I realize it was a faux pas..no problem.
However..you seem obsessed with some backdoor deal/conspiricy.This is not the first time you have mentioned this.It was very clever of you to paraphrase and nearly misquote Gen Franks.That is not what he said in context.What you state is out of context.I saw the press conference,and I thought it was well done.
What he responded to was a series of questions...the crux being..did Franks believe that Saddam was alive or not.He said he did not know.Therefore..he could not speculate on the activities of the Saddam inner circle or it's plans.It had nothing to do with Pres Bush. nor was he about to second guess his Commander in Cheif.
Reading between the lines and reading into something that I believe does not exist are two seperate issues.Think or believe what you will.Gen Frank's concern is waging a winning campaign,as he was charged with by his Boss.Bush has made it clear as has Franks.The Regime is dying,he will be removed and disarmed.Period.

It is their choice to stay

I TOTALY understand where you guys are coming from.... But just remember NO it is not there choice.... They either stay and die from our attacks, or they flee and get killed by iraqi soldiers for leaving..Not much of a choice. (Not that the iraqi's are leaving us a choice either though) We either attack and kill these innocent people or we dont attack because of the innocent people..... WAR SUX

You are so right Chad and thanks for calling that to MY attention. Those people including women and children have suffered long enough, we sure do not need to add any misery.

I read an article about how they are using women and children that are fleeing Iraq as human shields and shooting them. Devastating!!

As I mentioned before, in another thread...the possibility of a government-in-exile, based in Damascus and leaving the top Iraqis intact should NOT be permitted, much less discussed. I'm sure that the coalition member goverments are equally aware of this scenario and its implications.

I, too, am waiting for a clearer signal on this point.