Anybody else hear this?

[dt3]

A totally unnecessary war and reading stuff like that just makes me sick! I guess the main thing now though is to make sure we do our best over there to put our wrongs as right as possible.

:homo:

 

[Tim]

A murderer should not be allowed to bribe their way out of jail/be set free. (unless your name is OJ of course ) 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.

I disagree. Iraq wanted to get out from Saddam's power and there were many in Iraq's government that wanted change. Do you remember when Iraq invaded Kuwait? After the US kicked Iraq's butt out of there, we were in secret talks with some Iraqi government officials and military leaders who wanted to overthrow Saddam and take the country in a new direction. They are the ones that wanted change. Yet when it came time for this to happen, Saddam found out and had all these people put to death and had his helicopter gunships wipe out the rebels... we did nothing to help them. Schwartzkopf even allowed Saddam to fly these helicopters over Iraq when Iraq was a giant "No fly zone" for military aircraft. See this article.


The WHOLE point to invading Iraq was to remove Saddam from power. Remember?

 

[dt3]

He had a government full of others just like him in place that would continue to lead things in the same direction Saddam did.

I disagree. He had some who were loyal to him, but most of them were only loyal out of fear.

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.

I disagree. Do you realize how many of his top Generals turned themselves in immediately after we took Baghdad? I don't have an exact number, but I know it was a lot of them.

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.

Except he wouldn't be in hiding. We would've put him somewhere we could've kept an eye on him, out in the open.

Normally I'd agree with you (you know that Grace ), but I think if we could have avoided the cost, both human and financial, of this war, then we should have.

I've been a supporter of the invasion all along because I believed military force was the only option. This news stunned me. But if Saddam was willing to step down, I would've been completely for it.

 

[groundpounder]

It absolutely breaks my heart to see a good military man become disenchanted. Hang on to your service, Donnie. We're all proud of the job that you did and your comrades are still doing. Don't believe everything you hear or read.

This could be some kind of liberal media hoax, a left wing extremist attempt to discredit the whole thing (as if it needed help), and by God I hope it is.

I believe that if this was credible information (103 articles doesn't really mean anything), don't you think it would be on every mainstream media outlet, being addressed in Congress, the U.N. and who knows what else? There would have to be a smoking gun somewhere, and heads would roll. Think about it.

 

[Peter Parka]

Just like to point out at this point that evil political leaders who have been over thrown going into exile isn't exactly a new thing. Kaiser Wilhelm after WWI and Idi Amin are just two of many examples.

 

[dt3]

I believe that if this was credible information (103 articles doesn't really mean anything), don't you think it would be on every mainstream media outlet, being addressed in Congress, the U.N. and who knows what else? There would have to be a smoking gun somewhere, and heads would roll. Think about it.

I first heard it on Fox News this morning...and I don't think they'd be saying it unless there was a basis, given their conservative tendencies.

 

[groundpounder]

I first heard it on Fox News this morning...and I don't think they'd be saying it unless there was a basis, given their conservative tendencies.

Agreed. That is a concern.

I will be watching this story. As it grows and gains credibility (hopefully not), the more disenchanted I will become. This would be bad, but the spin would be Grace's argument - setting a dangerous precedent paying off a madman, giving other madmen (Kim Jong-il) the green light for atrocities/WMDs/genocide et al so they can retire on the United States' dime.

 

[Tim]

Agreed. That is a concern.

I will be watching this story. As it grows and gains credibility (hopefully not), the more disenchanted I will become. This would be bad, but the spin would be Grace's argument - setting a dangerous precedent paying off a madman, giving other madmen (Kim Jong-il) the green light for atrocities/WMDs/genocide et al so they can retire on the United States' dime.

He wanted to take 1 billion in Iraq's money. He wasn't asking us to pay him 1 billion.

Don't you remember when we first invaded the country and we found a couple of tractor trailers filled with billions of dollars? That wasn't our money, he was stealing it from his own country. So we wouldn't be paying him to go into exile.

There is another point you are missing here. We didn't invade Iraq because Saddam was a criminal. According to the Bush administration, we invaded because Saddam posed a threat with his WMD's, because he refused to disarm and comply with UN resolutions. So having him step down from power would be exactly what we were trying to accomplish.

I cannot believe that you guys would rather go to war in Iraq rather than see Saddam leave power quietly. Are you that blood thirsty that you would rather see thousands of American troops die than to at least try a peaceful solution first? The military option would have still been there if a Saddamless Iraq still didn't play along with the UN resolutions. How many time did we hear the president say that Saddam must be removed from power....

Was going to war in Iraq that important to you that no matter what, we had to go?

 

[NightWarrior]

I think you guys read some info and think that it was just as easy as letting Saddam walk away. There had to be more to it. No country likes to go to war for nothing, its expensive in terms of lives lost and money spent.

I will believe for now that there is way more to this then just letting him walk away.

 

[dt3]

I think you guys read some info and think that it was just as easy as letting Saddam walk away. There had to be more to it. No country likes to go to war for nothing, its expensive in terms of lives lost and money spent.

I will believe for now that there is way more to this then just letting him walk away.

I sure hope so.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

A murderer should not be allowed to bribe their way out of jail/be set free. (unless your name is OJ of course ) 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.

Totally agree with you Grace.

Additionally I'm getting mixed signals about the currency we are referring to.

Is it US$ 1 billion or
$1 billion Iraq currency?

And is it that the USA was supposed to pay him the money
OR Is he asking to be allowed to take $1 billion of Iraq's money?
------->Please clarify.

If it is US$1 billion, forgive my ignorance, but that seems to be an awful amount of money.

And if the USA was to bow to his demands on this wouldn't that be tantamount to giving in to terrorists demands and therefore setting a precedence and encouragement to others?

Many questions. Need answers.

 

[Peter Parka]

And is it that the USA was supposed to pay him the money
OR Is he asking to be allowed to take $1 billion of Iraq's money?
------->Please clarify.

He was to pay $1 billion of Iraqs money, no one would have been paying him.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

He was to pay $1 billion of Iraqs money, no one would have been paying him.

Just to clarify.
He (Saddam) was to pay $1 billion of Iraqs money? And to whom?

 

[Tim]

Is it US$ 1 billion or
$1 billion Iraq currency?

And is it that the USA was supposed to pay him the money
OR Is he asking to be allowed to take $1 billion of Iraq's money?
------->Please clarify.

If you read any of the articles, it's very clear where the money was to come from.

Outlining contacts between Saddam and Egypt, Mr Bush said: "He's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1bn and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction."

He wanted to take $1billion with him when he left Iraq. He wasn't asking anyone to pay him that money.

 

[NightWarrior]

Just to clarify.
He (Saddam) was to pay $1 billion of Iraqs money? And to whom?

It claims Saddam was to walk away with Iraq's $1 billion he had already pilfered from the Iraqi people.

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

If you read any of the articles, it's very clear where the money was to come from.

He wanted to take $1billion with him when he left Iraq. He wasn't asking anyone to pay him that money.

Didn't have time to read any of the articles. Tight time. Thanks for clearing it up. I understand clearer now.

Still, i have to say, his demands to take $1billion with him when he left Iraq and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction doesn't seem right anyway I look at it.

And still don't like the precedence and who knows what else it would set.

 

[groundpounder]

whoa whoa whoa. Let's get ourselves a little further away from the left edge and the right edge.

He wanted to take 1 billion in Iraq's money. He wasn't asking us to pay him 1 billion.

Don't you remember when we first invaded the country and we found a couple of tractor trailers filled with billions of dollars? That wasn't our money, he was stealing it from his own country. So we wouldn't be paying him to go into exile.

you make a good point here, and I know what you mean. We allow him to take money that he's stealing anyway from someone other than us, so it's not "our dime" technically. I do get that. But I think there is a bigger point here, not speaking of the war itself (get to that in a sec) it's a dangerous precedent for the most powerful country in the world to "allow" if you will a certifiable mad man to fleece his own people, perform genocide, wantonly show naked agression to his neighbors etc, and then say, "OK - if you'll just pick up your ball and leave, we'll let you leave with $1,000,000,000 for your trouble."
Now, obviously juxtaposing that (if the newstory is true, mind you) against the trillions spent and lives lost, it's a small penance, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. $1,000,000,000 does NOT equal civil war, American lives lost, families destroyed, ill will, US imperialism and cavalier foreign policy, no bid contracts for Haliburton....
But you would be remiss if you said that it wasn't a dangerous precedent to set. It is. Kim Jong-il would be licking his lips saying, "Fire up the reactors, boys, we're going to be RICH!!!"

There is another point you are missing here. We didn't invade Iraq because Saddam was a criminal. According to the Bush administration, we invaded because Saddam posed a threat with his WMD's, because he refused to disarm and comply with UN resolutions. So having him step down from power would be exactly what we were trying to accomplish.

I'm not missing that point in the least. Not one iota. Here's my take on the Iraq war in a nutshell (and that's a hard thing to do, but I dont want to rant too much):
Saddam had to go. He was Hitler incarnate, and we see how that worked out for 6 million Jews, Poland, the world. Naked aggression against Kuwait, Iran in the 80's, the Kurds (imagine if Bushie said, "Well, we don't like all you okies, so we're gonna GAS YA! Hook 'em 'Horns!!"). Sooner or later became sooner rather than later.
NOW, if you ascribe to the notion that we were led into war by the Administration under false pretense (which I do), how do you reconcile the fact that Hussein was asking to leave with the money AND WMD information?? Isn't that tacit admission that they were there, or that at least the technology to create them was there, and he didn't want the world to know? Think about that. More later!

 

[Peter Parka]

Um, does anyone still actually believe Saddam had WMDs? And as for the war Iraq against Iran, I was under the impression that the US was supporting the Iraqis and providing them with weapons, the same ones which Saddam used on his own people.

 

[All Else Failed]

whoa whoa whoa. Let's get ourselves a little further away from the left edge and the right edge.you make a good point here, and I know what you mean. We allow him to take money that he's stealing anyway from someone other than us, so it's not "our dime" technically. I do get that. But I think there is a bigger point here, not speaking of the war itself (get to that in a sec) it's a dangerous precedent for the most powerful country in the world to "allow" if you will a certifiable mad man to fleece his own people, perform genocide, wantonly show naked agression to his neighbors etc, and then say, "OK - if you'll just pick up your ball and leave, we'll let you leave with $1,000,000,000 for your trouble."
Now, obviously juxtaposing that (if the newstory is true, mind you) against the trillions spent and lives lost, it's a small penance, and I agree with that wholeheartedly. $1,000,000,000 does NOT equal civil war, American lives lost, families destroyed, ill will, US imperialism and cavalier foreign policy, no bid contracts for Haliburton....
But you would be remiss if you said that it wasn't a dangerous precedent to set. It is. Kim Jong-il would be licking his lips saying, "Fire up the reactors, boys, we're going to be RICH!!!"



I'm not missing that point in the least. Not one iota. Here's my take on the Iraq war in a nutshell (and that's a hard thing to do, but I dont want to rant too much):
Saddam had to go. He was Hitler incarnate, and we see how that worked out for 6 million Jews, Poland, the world. Naked aggression against Kuwait, Iran in the 80's, the Kurds (imagine if Bushie said, "Well, we don't like all you okies, so we're gonna GAS YA! Hook 'em 'Horns!!"). Sooner or later became sooner rather than later.
NOW, if you ascribe to the notion that we were led into war by the Administration under false pretense (which I do), how do you reconcile the fact that Hussein was asking to leave with the money AND WMD information?? Isn't that tacit admission that they were there, or that at least the technology to create them was there, and he didn't want the world to know? Think about that. More later!

Saddam wasn't even close to Hitler. Although, he did have similarities, but so do all dictators.


Saddam did have certain nerve gases at one point, thats for sure, but he didn't pose a direct threat to us at all and odds are he didn't have the kind of WMD's dubya wanted us to believe he had. Its about oil folks, read the PNAC documents. Him wanting to leave with the money is simply him wanting to save his own skin.

 

[NightWarrior]

Um, does anyone still actually believe Saddam had WMDs? And as for the war Iraq against Iran, I was under the impression that the US was supporting the Iraqis and providing them with weapons, the same ones which Saddam used on his own people.

no of course not, it was proven that he didn't have them AT THAT TIME. Was he capable of producing them? Yep. Would he use them? Yep. We don't go beating up on China because they have WMDs because at least they are smart enough not to use them...Even Russia wasn't that dumb.