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.

 

They chose to reject a proposal that may have prevented the war

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 07:03 AM
link   
A Lebanese-American businessman has said he conveyed a last-ditch Iraqi plea to the US administration to avoid war but the approach was rebuffed.
The offer from Saddam Hussein's regime was turned down about a week before US-led forces invaded Iraq in March, Imad Hage told the BBC...
Mr Hage told the BBC's Newshour programme that the deputy head of Iraqi intelligence, Dr Hassan Obeidi, had visited his Beirut office and "at the end of the day he had made it clear that the Iraqis wanted to cut a deal to avert a war"...
"I don't know of they vetoed it or turned it down, but it was no-go," Mr Hage said, adding that the US rejection came a week or 10 days before war broke out...

According to Mr Hage, the Iraqis offered a package of "concessions" to the US administration:
*Allowing US inspectors to visit Iraq to inspect for WMD;
*Holding free and fair elections within a specified period of time;
*Concessions to the US in the oil sector and "business dealings";
*Concessions to help the Arab-Israeli peace process;
*Handing over Abdul Rahman Yasin, a top al-Qaeda suspect wanted in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

The rest of the article is here:
newsvote.bbc.co.uk...

It seems to me that it would have been to our advantage to at least attempt to come to one last agreement. When it comes to war, a president doesn't have the right to run out of patience with the opposition. Not when it is American lives and innocent Iraqi lives that have to pay the price for the President's itchy trigger finger. He owed it to us, and to them, to give it at least one more chance before sending us into a war, that we didn't want in the first place. Iraq hadn't attacked us, and Bush said, himself, that they were a "gathering threat".

How dare they reject a possible olive branch, no matter how slender it might have been! I have always known that they lied to get us into a war, but this is the first I've heard of them actually rejecting an option, from the Iraqi's themselves, to avoid it.

If this news is old hat to some people, I apologize. It's the first I've heard or seen of it, and I'm even more disgusted than I already was.



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Wh yare you disgusted? Are you disgusted that after years of lying and not living up to any deal, anybody would even think of believing a Hussein concession?
If that is the case, I agree with you. How many times would someone have to lie like that before one would wake up and realize he says whatever it takes to buy more maneuver room?



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Even if Saddam had turned up himself and said I give up. The war would have still gone ahead. If you want the contract to re-build a country you first have to distroy it. As for consession for the oil, bollox why would you want that when you can take the whole dam thing. Got to give the folks back home cheap fuel. Beside the US government has to show the rest of the Arab world who boss.....right!

Saddam might have been a total nutter but Iraq was one of the most forward thinking Arab countries.



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 07:56 AM
link   
we might have gone for the deal if saddum had had a better history of actually following thru on what he says he would agree to. it was just a ploy to get more time to get his weapons and power infrastructure hidden...which is what he did... the public blames bush for the whole iraq thing that is going on now. the blame needs to be put in perspective and put on those it should be on.....that damn annoying dovish left-wing losers in this country

the 1st war, bush snr was pressured to stop (yes, he was) and look how long the 2nd war was delayed even though saddum was given more chances than a whore on the street. why do u think we launched a suprise cruise missle attck and tried to get saddum? becuase bush and the military knew that they missed the oppurtunity to chop the head off iraq and we would have a tough time of it afterwards if we do not get saddum. thank u left-wingers...now here we are going thru all this because we did not do what we know we should have done in the begining.
sometimes delay and thinking are what needs to be done....but u need to know when it is time for action and bush decided to give the left-wings notions a chance..and now look where it brought us........maybe had did that for a reason???



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 08:11 AM
link   
...A Gigantic Chess Match...

(jezebel, if you make commentary at a match- you'll be 'sssuusshhed')



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Britman, I think the silly war to steal oil crap has gone beyond plausability, and I think most would agree.

I would also like to point out that your insinuation that America wants to slap the Arabs around to show them who is boss is extremely insulting. There is more reason for the war on terror than just to pimp-slap the Arabs around, and I believe that unless you just came out of a coma yesterday, you should know this.



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Why are you disgusted? Are you disgusted that after years of lying and not living up to any deal, anybody would even think of believing a Hussein concession?
If that is the case, I agree with you. How many times would someone have to lie like that before one would wake up and realize he says whatever it takes to buy more maneuver room?


So far, there's no proof that he lied about the so called WMD. There's only proof that we did. Saddam Hussein, bastard that he may have been, did not attack us. We had no evidence that he was in league with the al-Qaeda. There was no immediate threat of an attack from him. It would not have harmed anything to at least try one more time, hell, even ten more times if it could've avoided a war, to find some kind of peaceful resolution. He was a "GATHERING threat" that might have, possibly, attained "weapons of mass destruction" sometime in the future.

The truth is that the PNAC had been planning the war, before Sept.11, 2001 even happened. They couldn't take the chance that Saddam might be telling the truth about making a deal. They had been planning to take control of the middle east for a long time, and a legitimate concession would have thrown a wrench in their plans.

From the PNAC website:
www.newamericancentury.org...

July 6, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO: OPINION LEADERS
FROM: TOM DONNELLY, Deputy Executive Director
SUBJECT: Iraq

George W. Bush came to office declaring he would “defend America’s interests in the Persian Gulf” by reviving “the vision” of his father’s “Gulf War coalition.” But more was promised. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz were signatories to a May 1998 letter, sponsored by the Project for the New American Century, calling for the establishment of a provisional, free government in those areas of northern and southern Iraq not under Saddam’s control. The letter also argued that U.S. and allied military forces should be prepared to support the Iraqi opposition and “be prepared…to help remove Saddam from power.” Likewise, the Republican Party platform demanded “a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.”


If you want to know more about the Project for a New American Century see the R.A.T.S. thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Jez........
You said:
"So far, there's no proof that he lied about the so called WMD."

There is more than enough proof that Saddam lied and had WMD.......it is well documented.
What I assume you are eluding to is the claim by UK and the US in proclaiming and justifying the 2nd war on Iraq. That is the matter......the matter that they have not discovered mass WMD's thus far. The evidence was documented....the "murder weapon", per se' and certainly debated, is still "missing" or not found in quantities enough to appease those who have deemed this war unnecessary and unjust.........
Even 'if' they do find those WMD, this war will still be claimed unjust and unnecessary....

Iraq's WMD programs, usage, and having of them, as well as Saddam decieving and lies concerning WMD are certainly well documented, by many organizations and nations....not just the US.

PNAC is certainly debatable, though I believe it is in "play" but to what degree is uncertain, the US alleged "conquest" of the Middle East is debatable also. The Western world has foreign policies, and have always had such policies, concerning the Middle East and the oil that many of the Western nations depend on........
This should have been remedied many years ago, but wasn't. The Middle East 'oil' nations have been and are continuing to hold the Western world 'hostage' by the sheer oil requirements and consumption needs of those particular nations. Note: this does not imply that we or any Western nation needed to "conquest" to 'secure' such needs.....going to war over just the 'oil' is a myth....
Those who 'claim' that the US went to war for the 'oil', as in seizing Afhganistan's and Iraq's oil and thus assuring cheap oil for the United States, are not considering a number of factors. When the Gulf nations nationalized American oil companies operating in their nations over the past half century, the U.S. did nothing.....no going to war, no nothing. THe Middle East has been dictating 'oil' to the Western world since. In assuming that after the U.S. liberates Iraq it is going to turn around and steal all the oil has no basis in fact or history whatsoever. I have read and heard all the arguments on this....and this is just my opinion....

The gas prices where I live have dropped a couple of cents....and yet.....the US has "all" that "oil"....right......



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 8-11-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I have heard this story already. On the news. Now YOU expect me to believe that Saddam was gonna permit "free" elections? Oh wait, I guess he could have. He would have just made sure HE was the only name on the ballot. Help the Arab-Israli peace process? Sure I believe that.
Letting in our inspectors wouldnt have changed a thing. We would have still said he was hidding something. The war might have just been delayed. And ofcourse the Iraqi people would still be getting tortured and raped on a regular basis.



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 07:34 PM
link   
THIS is the CLASSIC stalling tactic that a tyrant who knows his number is up employs to BUY TIME to secure his stolen treasure and his future hiding place.

Historical FACTS of Hussein make these "concessions" LAUGHABLE to read.

HELL YES Saddam was offering concessions! What else could he do?! Every hour he delayed the invasion he got that much more of his future secured.

The UN gave him THREE MONTHS, notice we HAVE NOT found him yet?!

THAT'S what you should be
ABOUT!!!

P...
m...

[Edited on 11-8-2003 by Springer]



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 08:00 PM
link   
What a cretinous post Springer.

Iraq "was actively, sometimes proactively cooperating with the UN inspectors" to put it in the language of the wise and respected Mr. Blix who gently supervised Iraq's succesful disarmament process and re-entry into the international community.

And in retrospective, Saddam Hussein was totally truthful and honest in the last years, especially about the false WMD accusations, while the world's current top mass murderer and war criminal IQ Bush was forging false documents with his insectoid friends to further his agenda of hate, global terror, and making as many enemies for the US as possible. So why should anyone distrust the reformed Mr. Hussein ? Sure, he was obsessed with security and swift to crush uprisings endangering his rule, but he apparently changed over the years, and this latest evidence plainly shows whére the real bad guys sit.



[Edited on 8-11-2003 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 08:17 PM
link   
What?
Saddam was "totally truthful"?
What you been smoking?
Moku....you might want to dig up some threads and read a bit more on this....Saddam was a natural born liar. Saddam was "totally truthful".........good gracious....thats about the most totally absurd bull# I have seen in awhile.
The "wise and respected" Hans Blix is a fruitcake who is upset that he was proven to be full of bull#...his own staff pretty much commented so, but I'm sure you failed to see those "documented" comments as you have failed to also note that "your favorite organization"...the UN also had multitudes of documentation showing that Saddam was indeed a liar and had WMD and the programs......
You disputing the UN findings and documentations or just going with the Hans Blix defense?



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 8-11-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Interesting that Blix, in your words, is wise, when those aren't the words used by others on the inspection team.

Funny, I've never heard that Hussein was ading in the inspections, although it was no secret that he was playing shell ganes and stalling inspections while items were being moved.

While it is clear that Hussein had converted to JIT manufacturing, ingredients and mobile manufacturing labs have been found, you haven't found 100 nuclear-tipped missiles aimed for London so you deny Hussein was a threat. While some remember he had a passenger jet fuselage out in the desert for training, are you going to tell me that was so that he could flood the airline workforce with Iraqi flight attendents? Well, I guess if you think his weather balloon production facilities were so hi-tec they needed to be mobile so as not to fall into the wrong hands, I guess that would be believable as well.
Furthermore, it was European intel that connected Hussein to Al-Quada, not ours, but I guess it is more fun to believe the unfounded internet stories connecting bin Laden to Bush.

Jez, the truth is not that PNAC made this war with Iraq. PNAC is a conservative think tank, not the Pentagon. Truth is, Hussein has been having it coming for a while, we just never had a prez in a while that would deliver it. That, and the war on terror, which made it more likely that Hussein would be whacked. Still, I find it interesting that people will defend that murderous animal to the hilt, the man who ran peolle through plastic shredders, imprison children and gas entire communities, and speak as if Bush and a conservative think tank is the rise of the anti-Christ.



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 08:27 PM
link   
You are obviously Al Queda's operative here on ATS, therefor YOU are my ENEMY, you need to thank Allah or whoever, that you are not standing in front of me.

Your twisted sense of reality is disgusting, your utter support of the terrorists is against Civilized Humanity and you don't deserve the electricity required to illuminate the pixels of your scandelous diatribe. YOU and your ilk are what's WRONG with the world.

m...



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 08:36 PM
link   
THANK YOU for pointing out that PNAC is a NON ISSUE contrived by some rather lonely souls who don't get out much and consequently live infront of their computers searching the web for intrigue.

It IS, however, a conservative think tank which obviously makes it sinsister because they don't get off on the hollywood hype and bull# and dress up in women's clothes and smoke dope before each meeting.

Nor do they reccomend the redistribution of wealth to the lazy from the hard working.

Many thanks...

PEACE...
m...



posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
You are obviously Al Queda's operative here on ATS, therefor YOU are my ENEMY, you need to thank Allah or whoever, that you are not standing in front of me.

Your twisted sense of reality is disgusting, your utter support of the terrorists is against Civilized Humanity and you don't deserve the electricity required to illuminate the pixels of your scandelous diatribe. YOU and your ilk are what's WRONG with the world.

m...


Is this supposed to be helpful?



posted on Nov, 9 2003 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Jesus Crispies! What do you people do? Scrutinize the liberal media's archives? LOL

Look, Saddamn Hussein is not a person who could be trusted. His track record is proof of this. I mean, this guy is a tyrannic liar... A very dangerous combination.

I think that all honorable and real attempts to avert war would have been viewed and taken into consideration. The question is, how serious could the U.S. military have taken this guy?

Again, I refer to his track record of deception.



posted on Nov, 9 2003 @ 12:28 AM
link   
PNAC, via the neo-cons, was an agenda pressuring Clinton go to War in 1998 and before.

Their inflitration into government was complete with the appointment of George W Bush by the Supreme Court after the 2000 election.

9/11 was the third in the trifecta needed for the criminals in the Bush administration to justify their invasion of Iraq. George W Bush said so himself.

No WMDs were found by the UN inspectors ousted by the US after over 200 days inspection. No WMDs have been found by any US effort since the illegal invasion.

Some people on this thread are coming across as crackpots. I am not one of them.

They continue to resort to insults and stupidity. It is all they have to offer. They show no reasoning skills, research, or understanding of recent history at all.

That's the state of play in the Gulf War, and at ATS.



posted on Nov, 9 2003 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Britman, I think the silly war to steal oil crap has gone beyond plausability, and I think most would agree.

I would also like to point out that your insinuation that America wants to slap the Arabs around to show them who is boss is extremely insulting. There is more reason for the war on terror than just to pimp-slap the Arabs around, and I believe that unless you just came out of a coma yesterday, you should know this.


TC, the act that you still believe the garbage of the Bush admin and the justifcations for this disguating affair insulting, my fellow American.


I find that our govornment was hellbent on taking over the country that we rejected all pleas for peace and partial surrender, that we even bothered going over and hypocritically removed the regime that we funded, supported, and bolstered for how long.

This war is an insult, a joke, a moral tradgedy and utter humiliation. There were bigger fish to fry, we went after a small one, because he sat on huge reserves of oil, we have united traditional enemies together in jihad against us, and have now caused, what was once a snobbish universal dislike of the US, to grow into a Unilateral world wide hatred of us that is forming new alliances against us to take us down.

It is shameful, most of all, to think that Americans think all of the above are GOOD things.

I shall skulk in the corner in shame.



posted on Nov, 9 2003 @ 12:34 AM
link   
Now that many have weighed in on this subject I just want to add that the bottom line was the removal of Saddam and his regime period.

Since Saddam waited until the last minute to negotiate in good faith and he did not present an option for his own leaving and since the US should have no reason in the world to trust him, I cannot believe that the left wingers are slinging this # still.

Frankly you all bore me.

Saddam brought the war upon Iraq, he is as much responsible for the lives lost as the lefty support of anyone against the US is helping to ensure the death of soldiers in Iraq everyday since the occupation began.

You people have become what you attack everyday. Now look in the mirror and repeat after me:

I AM A HYPOCRITE!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join