realist-
i realize weve discussed this ad naseum, so ill be brief in my reply to the bulk of your post, and please dont feel you have to respond to this again.......i will simply repeat myself one more time in saying that there would be absolutely no need for negotiations beyond what was offered, as hussein was adamant about not leaving EVER for ANY deal whatsoever. further talks, in private as you say they should be, would be completely laughable under these circumstances. i suspect you privately know this to be true, regardless of your reluctance to admit it publicly. but, you have your opinion on the matter, and its yours alone.....no one else who knows a lick about hussein would expect these token and useless proceedings as you do.
i would like to respond to this, and get a reply if you have the time.......
whether these negotiations failed (if they took place) because hussein is dense or because the US did not provide sufficient guarantees can only be speculated. since the US most likely wants to control iraq the latter seems more reasonable however imo.
i commented on this idea in a previous post and specifically asked for a reply. basically, your logic here is completely baffling to me, and i have a hard time understanding how you even buy into it. if saddam and the regime were to step down, and leave the country, we would have control! we would march into the country with little or no fighting, and begin to set up an interim government. why would we need him dead at that point? wed have the oil, if thats what we are after.....what else would we need (according to you)?
aa
p.s. bttt stands for "back to the top"