Anybody else hear this?

dt3

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
2 2 2 2 1
15 Year Club Well Known
I heard on Fox News as I was walking out the door this morning that they had a transcript of Bush before we invaded Iraq saying Saddam said he would abdicate power and go into exile if we paid him $1 Billion.

I wanna know more, but I can't find anything online about it. Has anybody else heard it?
 
I don't know what to say. The only reason I can think of to not do that would be him possibly giving the $ to terrorists. But there must have been a way we could control that.

I honestly feel betrayed. I spent a year with my ass on the line, friends of mine are dead, some of them had their marriages destroyed. All because we wouldn't let him walk away???

The military doesn't ask for much. Just a little respect, support, and that it's leaders don't risk their lives unnecessarily.
 
Ok, so if I'm reading this right... Saddam said he would basically Go Away if we allowed him to take $1 billion of his nations money (not our money) and the information of WMD's.


So where is the downside to that?

My points on taking the money... He already raped that country and $1billion of Iraqi money would have been a very small price compared to $1,000 billion of our money, 3,800 American lives and over 1 million Iraqi lives.

My point on him taking the information of WMD's... He already had years to share this information with anyone he wanted to. It isn't TOP secret information that other countries would pay billions for or need.

Now my big point... We should have let him go, let him take the money and info and go. We would have been able to walk into Iraq and helped them rebuild a new government without military force. There would have been a much greater probability of success of Democratizing Iraq without turning the world against us. And at this point, Saddam would be alone and in exile. We keep close tabs on him and if need be, remove him from the face of the earth. Because he would no longer have a nations military to hide behind, he would no longer have any country to hide behind.

But on the other hand, I see why Bush didn't consider the deal... It's not as fun to let the other guy give up when you are all ready to play war with your army....

I swear to God, Bush is a fucking idiot that needs to be tried for war crimes.
 
RecklessTim said:
Ok, so if I'm reading this right... Saddam said he would basically Go Away if we allowed him to take $1 billion of his nations money (not our money) and the information of WMD's.


So where is the downside to that?

My points on taking the money... He already raped that country and $1billion of Iraqi money would have been a very small price compared to $1,000 billion of our money, 3,800 American lives and over 1 million Iraqi lives.

My point on him taking the information of WMD's... He already had years to share this information with anyone he wanted to. It isn't TOP secret information that other countries would pay billions for or need.

Now my big point... We should have let him go, let him take the money and info and go. We would have been able to walk into Iraq and helped them rebuild a new government without military force. There would have been a much greater probability of success of Democratizing Iraq without turning the world against us. And at this point, Saddam would be alone and in exile. We keep close tabs on him and if need be, remove him from the face of the earth. Because he would no longer have a nations military to hide behind, he would no longer have any country to hide behind.

But on the other hand, I see why Bush didn't consider the deal... It's not as fun to let the other guy give up when you are all ready to play war with your army....

I swear to God, Bush is a fucking idiot that needs to be tried for war crimes.
Click to expand...
I agree except for the bold. And I might agree with that now too. I've done a complete 180 on this in the last 10 minutes and my head is spinning. It almost makes me wanna puke. This is complete bullshit.
 
But you can invade a country and secure their resources without the military.
Our country has done that for decades. They do it through regime change and setting up a US friendly government. Letting Saddam go would have been the best way to accomplish this. Even it it didn't work, the military was still an option. But to say, NO, I want to invade and we won't let him concede, is absolutely criminal.
 
RecklessTim said:
But you can invade a country and secure their resources without the military.
Our country has done that for decades. They do it through regime change and setting up a US friendly government. Letting Saddam go would have been the best way to accomplish this. Even it it didn't work, the military was still an option. But to say, NO, I want to invade and we won't let him concede, is absolutely criminal.
Click to expand...
I think there are various up-sides in Bush's eyes for invading instead of letting him walk. But, thats for a different thread all together.
 
A murderer should not be allowed to bribe their way out of jail/be set free. (unless your name is OJ of course :p) Saddam was not the only problem. He had a government full of others just like him in place that would continue to lead things in the same direction Saddam did. The military would have to go in with or without Saddam in power as they were not going to just lay down and neither would others in the middle east, as it is a terrorist ridden region.

Great message to send to terrorists and dictators "Commit genocide and then ask for a billion dollars and we'll let you go into hiding". Mmmmhymmm. Uh, no.
 
Back
Top