Saddam was willing to go into exile

9

9sublime

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
2,620
Location
Bristol
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/saddam-was-open-to-exile-report/2007/09/27/1190486484569.html

Saddam was willing to go into exile for $1 billion. Sure, its a ridiculous sum of money, and he was a total arsehole, but Bush knew and should have done it.

I have seen estimates around the 600,000 mark for deaths in Iraq, and the cost of the Iraq war is supposedly up to 450 billion dollars.

Exile Saddam, take the oil that way, save half a million lives and 449 billion of the tax payers money. Sure, Saddam remains a figurehead, but its not like he isnt a maytr so some now anyway. And America could always do the casual assasination.
 
Werbung:
9sublime said:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/saddam-was-open-to-exile-report/2007/09/27/1190486484569.html

Saddam was willing to go into exile for $1 billion. Sure, its a ridiculous sum of money, and he was a total arsehole, but Bush knew and should have done it.

I have seen estimates around the 600,000 mark for deaths in Iraq, and the cost of the Iraq war is supposedly up to 450 billion dollars.

Exile Saddam, take the oil that way, save half a million lives and 449 billion of the tax payers money. Sure, Saddam remains a figurehead, but its not like he isnt a maytr so some now anyway. And America could always do the casual assasination.
Click to expand...

And information on weapons of mass destruction....not sure that's a good bargain.
 
Interesting to say the least. But that is a perfect example of hindsite being better than 20/20. In March of 2003 I would have been outraged to hear that we paid Saddam off to leave. While, I dont support this war, I dont think it wise for America to be subjected to blackmail, intimidation or use wars of agression or revenge in its foreign policy.
Plus, looking at the two players with Bush and Saddam, since when did one of them actually follow through on a deal they made. I doubt Saddam would have actually done it. I would like to read the actual report the news article is based on. I went to the Washington Post where it originated but dont have an account to read the entire article.
Sublime, what makes you think he would have left behind the information. And what information if any? Last I remember, the WMDs that have been located to this point, and the only ones thought to exsist are a few worthless relics with only trace elements involved.
 
Bunz said:
In March of 2003 I would have been outraged to hear that we paid Saddam off to leave. While, I dont support this war, I dont think it wise for America to be subjected to blackmail, intimidation or use wars of agression or revenge in its foreign policy.
Click to expand...

So just to preserve the pride of your country, and because of your opinion on Saddam, it was worth all this money and bloodshed (and all the money and bloodshed that still needs to flow)? From your previous posts I thought you were more intelligent that.
 
9sublime said:
So just to preserve the pride of your country, and because of your opinion on Saddam, it was worth all this money and bloodshed (and all the money and bloodshed that still needs to flow)? From your previous posts I thought you were more intelligent that.
Click to expand...

Well I am putting myself back in the time period. I was one of the %70 of Americans who believed there was WMDs at the time before the war and have now since realized I was misled, re-directed, bull****ted, and flat out lied to. That single event has turned me very cynical about the federal government and has lead my charge to pursue local politics and work from within to inform myself as best as possible and change the system from within, though that doesnt flow uphill very well. I wont sit here and pretend I was one who could predict the future on the issue. I was wrong, I now know the truth and I think it is shameful what Bush has done to this country.
The bottom line is, at that point in history. Bush wouldnt have truely let Saddam go into true exile for 10 bucks. He was going to war bottom line, any excuse to make it happen.
 
I will point out again as I did in my post, that I dont believe in a foreign policy where the US negotiates from a point of being blackmailed. Him being able to keep in on WMDs that most people thought he had at the time. The American people would have never gone for it. Also hat billion dollars if this whole thing is true was nothing but extortion. I realise now that we have spent something like half a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands have died. But if this whole invasion/occupation wasnt run through absolute incompetence, the situation should have never gone this far.
 
10 bucks

Bunz said:
The bottom line is, at that point in history. Bush wouldnt have truely let Saddam go into true exile for 10 bucks. He was going to war bottom line, any excuse to make it happen.
Click to expand...

I think thats the <b>real</b> problem. I don't think Osama was the real issue and neither were the wmd's (weird that there's actually an abbreviation that we all get for something that never was) it was just a guy who wanted to go to war, no matter how he swung it.
That's why I gotta say that some of those 9/11 conspiracy theorists that claim Bush was, at least in part, responsible for the attacks sound eerily close to the truth.
You ould never have found a (moderately) sane and non-drunk (yet) person saying that out loud three or four years ago either.
 
Kwaku,
We arent entirely in agreement. The notion that Bush was in on 9-11 is grasping at something that simple isnt there.
 
Werbung:
I'm not saying he flew the plane, I'm just saying that he may not have tried as hard as he might have to prevent it from happening.
It worked out pretty convenient for him.

I seriously doubt if without this he could have got his war started.
 
Back
Top