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.

 

Saddam Hussein Tried to Give up and Leave Iraq - Bush White House Kept Facts Secret

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Saddam Hussein Tried to Give up and Leave Iraq - Bush White House Kept Facts Secret


infowars.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.

"Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion)," reports the Daily Mail. ...
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:02 PM
link   
So, one billions dollars to prevent a war vs how many billions of dollars we have already spent on the war? Although I'm sure that most of ATS knows that the war isn't "genuine", this certainly does add more credence to that fact.

infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
www.dailymail.co.uk...


"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."


Guess Saddam still wanted WMDs even in exile if allowed.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I wonder if Tony Blair knew about this offer at all?

Could change a lot of things.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Guess Saddam still wanted WMDs even in exile if allowed.


Well, if he was put in exile, they could always monitor his activities to make sure he didn't do anything. Or they could give him false information about weapons of mass destruction, and he would not find out it was fake until after he was exiled. The government can't be that ignorant. Or can they?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SonicInfinity
 


If they paid the 1 billion dollars, they would not have been able to make money out of this racket called the Iraq War. Halliburton wouldn't have made money. Blackwater wouldn't have made money. A lot of other American interests wouldn't have made money. It was simply not as efficient.


*Double speak in effect



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
The question is would that have prevented this debacle? I doubt it. Would have made the war part a bit easier, but the post Saddam era? They would have still had thier BS game plan and more likely with less ground troops than before.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beachcoma
If they paid the 1 billion dollars, they would not have been able to make money out of this racket called the Iraq War. Halliburton wouldn't have made money. Blackwater wouldn't have made money. A lot of other American interests wouldn't have made money. It was simply not as efficient.


*Double speak in effect


I don't understand, though. The US deficit is 8,995,632,173,634.97 as of 1:42:57 PM PST (close to the 9T mark--are you excited?
). If they are making so much money, what do they plan on doing with it all? Have they all, collectively, made more money than the entire US deficit? Or do the companies that have profited plan on getting out of the US eventually?


Originally posted by FredT
The question is would that have prevented this debacle? I doubt it. Would have made the war part a bit easier, but the post Saddam era? They would have still had thier BS game plan and more likely with less ground troops than before.


True, but why would the government keep Saddams "surrender" as a secret?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity

True, but why would the government keep Saddams "surrender" as a secret?


If I remember just prior to Iraq War, Saddam didn't even mentioned anything about surrendering or going to exile. Unless he works for the U.S. govt.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SonicInfinity
 


Who said American interests were the same as the interests of the American people? In the context of my previous post, clearly I was referring to American corporate interests.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
If I remember just prior to Iraq War, Saddam didn't even mentioned anything about surrendering or going to exile. Unless he works for the U.S. govt.


The US Government? Nah, that's absurd. I mean, who could ever think up something so unimaginable? >_>

But yeah, you said that he did not even mention anything about that. Well, if it was kept a secret, how could the general public have heard about it?



Originally posted by Beachcoma
Who said American interests were the same as the interests of the American people? In the context of my previous post, clearly I was referring to American corporate interests.


I don't recall calling American interests the same as the interests of the American people. If my post has been interpreted as such, I apologize.

[edit on 9/27/2007 by SonicInfinity]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SonicInfinity
 


Who knows why? I had an old history prof who had been an analyst at the CIA. he said alot of stuff gets classified not because of what it is but rather to protect teh source of the information. maybe they are protecting the go betweens in the deal?

Also you have to remember that this administration basicaly has made a secret out of everything.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Excuse me while I cuss viciously like the sailor (that I was) into my monitor.

Of course they hid the fact.... this god forsaken war was all about a pathetic little man's ego, so he could claim that he finished what his father started.



[edit on 27-9-2007 by grover]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I've found this story on my local paper (The New Zealand Herald), but I can't find it on CNN or Fox.

Correction: Found it on Fox. I wonder how this story will develop, if it all.

F

[edit on 27/9/07 by Fuggle]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I remember discussing this issue when it came up before the Iraq invasion, perhaps not on this board (may not have been a member then) but on others.
Saddam stepping down and going into exile was definitely put on the table previously but ignored in favour of the more profitable alternative.
Of course, in exile he would have been free to give interviews and could have provided some rather embarrassing snippets on previous shenanigans on the part of his subsequent accusers and enemies in the west.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
and the sad part in all of this, i think if the bush administration knew then what they know now, they would still do it all over again.
this war had to happen. not for the sake of the , but for the sake of a long list of events that will unfold in the near future.a sacrifice had to made. this war had to start some way, and 9/11 worked well.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
I don't recall calling American interests the same as the interests of the American people. If my post has been interpreted as such, I apologize.


You mentioned the US trade deficit. I interpret that as the interest of the US public a.k.a. the people. The trade deficit means absolutely squat to corporate interests. It doesn't reflect their profit.

Are we on the same page now?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Who knows why? I had an old history prof who had been an analyst at the CIA. he said alot of stuff gets classified not because of what it is but rather to protect teh source of the information. maybe they are protecting the go betweens in the deal?

Also you have to remember that this administration basicaly has made a secret out of everything.


But if the deal fell apart, there would be no go betweens left to protect. In that case, there is no reason (other than massive profits) to keep the information secret from the general public.


Originally posted by Beachcoma
You mentioned the US trade deficit. I interpret that as the interest of the US public a.k.a. the people. The trade deficit means absolutely squat to corporate interests. It doesn't reflect their profit.

Are we on the same page now?


I guess. What you are saying is that corporate interests are not linked at all to public interest? Although that is obvious, what I don't understand is how they would let the deficit, even though it is none of their concern, to get so high unless they had a plan to make sure that the deficit could never harm them. Is that why so many companies are moving oversees--cheaper labor and protection from the upcoming "crash" in America? We can't keep building up a deficit forever. Something's going to blow eventually.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Dan Rather interviewed Saddam Hussein February 24, 2003.

If Saddam was that desperate, what better forum than CBS News and Dan Rather?

I am not prepared to believe this bogus report.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
It was just on CNN. They should have just set up the deal and nabbed him.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join