Iraqi Ambassador Leaves U.S. For Syria

he says he can't work in a country that has invaded Iraq.

? ? ? ?

[Reeka]

I heard he said that the new government would appoint their own ambassador. I also heard that he said that he was not close to Saddam Hussein.

Well here is the link to FOX's story.

I am not going to speculate on his relationship with Saddam since everyone knows that no one of importance in their government was close to the man.

You would think if he cared as much for the people of Iraq as he expressed yesterday, that he'd work for them rather than run to Syria where he knows he'll be safe.

I see it amounting to further speculation on Saddam's whereabouts and fuel for the fire to invade there next.

[Mordenheim]

I really doubt we will go to Syria at all

You never know.

If I wa shim I would be leaving America as quick as possible [img]smile.gif[/img] No doubt it will fuel the fire though

[Wutang]

Ah strange bedfellows it seems are being made now if he does indeed go into Syria as that country was never really friendly with Iraq.

With Syria's deep hatred of the US, I guess anything is possible.

But luckily, I don't think Syria is stupid enough to do anything hostile right now with the US army right next door and they are still technically at war with Israel.

[Yorick]

A couple of days ago, he was staying put. "Where will I defect to?" he said....

O.k. So he's leaving New York. Does that mean he knows something?? Is an attack of some sort imminent? Oh man...

Originally posted by Yorick: A couple of days ago, he was staying put. "Where will I defect to?" he said.... O.k. So he's leaving New York. Does that mean he knows something?? Is an attack of some sort imminent? Oh man...

Not necessarily Yorick but take into consideration the fact that the day before he had been "all happy" for the people of Iraq, glad that the regime had ended, looking forward to a peaceful relationship with the U.S. and now he's saying that we're invaders?!

From the footage I saw of an interview today, he looked like he was just asking to get out alive.

No, he has no more government to represent but where is his family if he is so concerned about them for one and why Syria when early/mid/and later reports of Saddam's whereabouts all had him being hidden there?

New York was more than willing to give him a city to live in and I am positive he could have gotten his family out of Iraq safely, provided they are there.

The media is jumping all over this, even as I am typing, making assumptions about the leadership of Iraq being in Syria because of his heading there, so yeah, it does lead to a lot of speculation and if you trust Bush not to force his hand when he wants more "peace in the Middle East" later, well you are more "American" than a lot of Americans, including the retired generals and other officials who are saying that with all the aid Syria is providing Iraq's government, with all the interference they are running with bussing suicide bombers into Iraq by the thousands, they could find themselves in some pretty deep water when all is said and done in Iraq.

[ 04-12-2003, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Lil Lil ]

[Ar-Cunin]

When a new government (US or local) is in place he'll lose his diplomatic status - and most likely be told to leave the contry. And I don't think that he would want to go back to Iraq. People assosiated with with the Saddam regime aren't exactly popular there these days.

[Skunk]

Not necessarily Yorick but take into consideration the fact that the day before he had been "all happy" for the people of Iraq, glad that the regime had ended, looking forward to a peaceful relationship with the U.S. and now he's saying that we're invaders?!

For an answer to this, I suggest that you look at the way that the allies dealt with the liberated countries of Europe in the aftermath of WWII.
Elections were swift, (the transfer of power couldn't come soon enough for the allies), there was no hint of appointed governments, tinkering with constitutions, the economy etc.

I have absolutely no doubts that the Iraqi people will have a better life now that Saddam is gone - but the question of whether this is an act of liberation or conquest depends largely on how the country is going to be administered and to what extent the social, political and economic state is affected by the coalition. According to the plans, Washington will decide everything - this is not the actions of a liberator.

A liberating army would say.
1. We will stay to ensure security and the handout of aid. We will *not* interfere in economic and political issues.
2. As soon as the situation is stable (probably around 6 months max), we will call a general election.
3. Will will stay for as long as the new government asks for our help and leave when they ask us to.

This is a far cry from what is planned.

No, he has no more government to represent but where is his family if he is so concerned about them for one and why Syria when early/mid/and later reports of Saddam's whereabouts all had him being hidden there? New York was more than willing to give him a city to live in and I am positive he could have gotten his family out of Iraq safely, provided they are there.

Syrians speak the same language and are culturally and geographically close to Iraq - and the country owes no allegiance to the US. It is a natural choice for him. It's approximately the same as a US citizen seeking refuge in Canada...

Originally posted by Skunk: This is a far cry from what is planned.

Is the United States breaking any international law(s) under which they have an agreed obligation to obey?

Syrians speak the same language and are culturally and geographically close to Iraq - and the country owes no allegiance to the US.

yeah I can easily see why he'd be there...and also be welcome there.
Thanks Skunk. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 04-12-2003, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Lil Lil ]