It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Neo-Cons ignored Saddam proposed Exile

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Neo-Cons ignored Saddam proposed Exile


www.prisonplanet.com

Neo-Cons could have saved a trillion dollars, spared over a million lives and prevented tens of thousands of dead and injured U.S. soldiers but decided to unleash carnage anyway, after it was revealed last night that Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.dailymail.co.uk




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:25 AM
link   
So this totally disproves the idea that the Neo-cons agenda was to remove the tyrant. This is absolutely proves that there was another motive and I'm suggesting it was Oil and power via disruption of the middle east.

Why are these murderers still in office?

www.prisonplanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I don't think it was a secret that he offered to go into exile. It was around the same time that he provided all the weapons disclosures to the UN and Bush flat out rejected them because there were too many pages to read. That was just before Bush realized the UN wouldn't support a resolution to go to war against Iraq and starting forming the "coallition of the willing". Down the memory hole I guess..



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard


So this totally disproves the idea that the Neo-cons agenda was to remove the tyrant. This is absolutely proves that there was another motive and I'm suggesting it was Oil and power via disruption of the middle east.

Why are these murderers still in office?

www.prisonplanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Yep "totally" I could think of a better place to find the truth than prison planet. Just look at all the evidence they offer to show this.

I wonder what the 48 hours to get out of town was about. I’m sure Saddam could have made it to Syria rather easily, but I think even in his deranged mind he never thought the US would go all the way.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
It's in the Daily Mail, not just Prison Planet. Although I think they got it wrong about Saddam asking Bush for money. I think he was referring to the $1Billion he had stashed in Iraq Bank that he wanted to take with him. Remember that was found missing just after the invasion..

This quote is interesting..



"The Eqyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein," said Mr Bush.

"It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction."

Asked by the Spanish premier whether Saddam - who was executed in December last year - could really leave, the President replied: "Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated."

But he added that whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."

Mr Bush went on to refer optimistically to the rebuilding or Iraq.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
This quote is interesting..



"The Eqyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein," said Mr Bush.

"It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction."

Asked by the Spanish premier whether Saddam - who was executed in December last year - could really leave, the President replied: "Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated."

But he added that whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."

Mr Bush went on to refer optimistically to the rebuilding or Iraq.


It would not have mattered in the end. Asking for 1 billion dollars and WMD info I would have delivered my answer of NO on the side of a 4000 pound bomb. The war with Iraq was over very quickly and so it really would had been about the same. The bad situation we are in with this 5 year nation building effort that the numbers are all based on in the article would still happen in either case of Saddam being removed by force or exiled.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by Xtrozero]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
This is like the script to a tasteless Hollywood movie.

There can be no way around impeachment now. Of course it's not out of Georgy boy's own slightly disabled head, so much evil is concieved.

Mr. Big gotta go also, real bad ...and then indict, sue, assassinate the whole bunch of NC creep.

Georgy Boy could have spared his own personal peace, plus the whole world's, not to mention the lives of scores of thousands of innocent Americans ...and more than a million Iraqis', not to forget.

-----------------

'"Thinks he's Mr Arab", he said about the Froggy Don. IOW, you can't trust him, can you? No Tony Boy, you see.. he's the kinda of guy..

"I don't mind being the bad cop if he's the good cop," he now said and then in a low voice:

"Saddam won't change, he'll keep on playing games... The time has come to get rid of him."

After a pause, that felt like a moment of meditation, Georgy Boy spread his hands out by the palm, and concluded:

"That's the way it is."

-----------------

A real bad movie.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon

There can be no way around impeachment now. Of course it's not out of Georgy boy's own slightly disabled head, so much evil is concieved.



Now you want to impeach him because he didn't want to give a dictator 1 BILLION dollars?

18 UN Resolutions didn't phase this guy, and you expect him him to disappear with 1 BILLION dollars. When we caught Saddam he made it known that he would have liked to return to power one day. So you think he would have gone gently into the night, with 1 BILLION dollars?

But whatever you do don't criticize a terrorist dictator, before you criticize President Bush. Saddam was just misunderstood?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
So RR, you think the risk of ONE man is worth a million lives?

Not to mention the costs ..or that this terrific live theater for the MIC, will likely cause thousands of potential new Saddams to emerge.

BTW, he didn't want more money, just bring the ones he already stolen with him.

What kind of thinking makes the calculated risk of ONE man worth a MILLION lives?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon
So RR, you think the risk of ONE man is worth a million lives?

Not to mention the costs ..or that this terrific live theater for the MIC, will likely cause thousands of potential new Saddams to emerge.

BTW, he didn't want more money, just bring the ones he already stolen with him.

What kind of thinking makes the calculated risk of ONE man worth a MILLION lives?


I can't answer this. I don't even think it is a question?

Are you trying to say that by killing Saddam means a million more people die? If you are, I dispute that number. Is that subtracting the people that would have been saved from Saddam himself?

Do you have any concept of a million?

3,700 US troop KIA and an estimated 65,000 Iraqis killed (insurgents included) That total is approximately 68,700.

If we keep up this pace it would take 43.5 years to reach a million deaths.

You might want to re-word your question?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
stop kidding yourself about the number of deaths in Iraq see this thread for more on this matter if you haven't already. I can remember Bush making a speech before the invasion of Iraq in which he demanded that Saddam and his sons leave Iraq with in 48 hours or face coalition military action. At the time I thought it was strange but now that this news has come to light Bush may have tried to buy Saddam off that way the corporate gravy train could reap the benefits of post Saddam Iraq.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Judging by the reaction to this story it would appear that there are some awfully short memories out there.

Cast your collective minds back to period after the end of Desert Storm and remember the activities of Saddam and his repression of the revolts in Northern and Southern Iraq. Remember the cries of disbelief that the coalition forces would leave the rebels to their fate at the hands of Saddam's intact government, remember the often voiced question of "why didn't "we" finish the job in 1991 and press on to Baghdad to remove the dictator" and remember also the irony of Bush Snr. and Thatcher leaving office through democratic processes while Saddam continued to enjoy the profits of a disgraceful regime.

It is always possible that Saddam would have cheerfully decamped to Damascus with his bulging wallet leaving some as yet unspecified coalition to attempt to govern his one time fiefdom, (although his constant lies and duplicity in the years after the first Gulf War would lead most intelligent observers to treat that scenario with more than a little caution), but consider for a moment that he would have honoured, (an unusual word to use in respect of this man), such a deal and contemplate on how the popular press which is now happy to criticise Bush Jnr. would have viewed the arrangement.

Would the mass media be singing the praises of the President who bought off Saddam and allowed him to reside in some friendly state whilst he encouraged and assisted his supporters to wage guerilla war against a new regime? Would the press gloss over the prospect of a sworn enemy on the loose in another rogue state plotting his revenge on the West in the certain knowledge that he possessed the information and resources to continue to develop appalling weapons to be used against his enemies at his leisure? Or would it be more likely that every time Western interests at home or abroad were attacked or threatened by terrorists or dissidents the Daily Mail and the Telegraph and their friends would be castigating those who had taken the easy option once again and allowed the cancer of Saddam and his megalomania to continue to haunt us?

Would certain members of this forum be slapping good old George on the back for his far sighted and pragmatic act of diplomacy, would they nod thoughtfully and support the wisdom of the compromise that had undoubtedly saved so many innocent lives? I don't think so, whatever may be written today by those who will never have to take such monumental decisions.

I'm not going to sit here and suggest our involvement in Iraq has been anything other than a failure and I'm certainly not going to deny the shocking loss of life that failure has brought upon us and the Iraqis but to suggest that packing Saddam off to a quiet retirement on a beach somewhere sipping pina colladas as the sun goes down was at any time a realistic or viable option is a fantasy born of hindsight and the safety net of knowing that the scenario can never be tested in the real world.

[edit on 28-9-2007 by timeless test]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join