What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Iraq Surrenders.

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
President Bush:
"I want to remind you that it's his choice to make as to whether or not we go to war. It's Saddam's choice. He's the person that can make the choice of war and peace. Thus far, he's made the wrong choice."

An oldy but a goody.

........Over the four months before the coalition forces invaded Iraq, Saddam's government made a series of increasingly desperate offers to the United States.
In December, the Iraqi intelligence services approached Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-terrorism, with an offer to prove that Iraq was not linked to the September 11 attacks, and to permit several thousand US troops to enter the country to look for weapons of mass destruction.
If the object was regime change, then Saddam, the agents claimed, was prepared to submit himself to internationally monitored elections within two years. According to Mr Cannistraro, these proposals reached the White House, but were "turned down by the president and vice-president".

By February, Saddam's negotiators were offering almost everything the US government could wish for: free access to the FBI to look for weapons of mass destruction wherever it wanted, support for the US position on Israel and Palestine, even rights over Iraq's oil.
Among the people they contacted was Richard Perle, the security adviser who for years had been urging a war with Iraq. He passed their offers to the CIA. Last week he told the New York Times that the CIA had replied: "Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad".

Saddam Hussein, in other words, appears to have done everything possible to find a diplomatic alternative to the impending war, and the US government appears to have done everything necessary to prevent one.

This is the opposite to what we were told by George Bush and Tony Blair. On March 6, 13 days before the war began, Bush said to journalists: "I want to remind you that it's his choice to make as to whether or not we go to war. It's Saddam's choice. He's the person that can make the choice of war and peace. Thus far, he's made the wrong choice.".......

...........The same thing happened before the war with Afghanistan. On September 20 2001, the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer. On October 1, six days before the bombing began, they repeated it, and their representative in Pakistan told reporters: "We are ready for negotiations. It is up to the other side to agree or not. Only negotiation will solve our problems." Bush was asked about this offer at a press conference the following day. He replied: "There's no negotiations. There's no calendar. We'll act on [sic] our time."

Tuesday November 11, 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1082289,00.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1106-02.htm

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=richard_perle
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Interesting.

I am not sure I would have trusted such offers either, especially since Hussein was shooting at US airplanes enforcing the no-fly zone. IMO, Hussien may have been using such back channels to buy time.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,474
Reaction score
12,376
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
That WAS the whole plan. Delay until it was to hot to invade, or until France, China and Russia could dissuade us from invading.

Saddam was OFFICIALLY still stone walling and still playing bait and switch.

My opinion is he thought his buddies would stop an outright invasion from happening. He guessed wrong.

Unofficial overtures are not worth the time wasted in listening to them when the goal is so blatantly obvious.

Saddam could have done a number of OFFICIAL things that would have prevented our attack. HE chose not to.
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Interesting.

I am not sure I would have trusted such offers either, especially since Hussein was shooting at US airplanes enforcing the no-fly zone. IMO, Hussien may have been using such back channels to buy time.

That WAS the whole plan. Delay until it was to hot to invade, or until France, China and Russia could dissuade us from invading.

Saddam was OFFICIALLY still stone walling and still playing bait and switch.

My opinion is he thought his buddies would stop an outright invasion from happening. He guessed wrong.

Unofficial overtures are not worth the time wasted in listening to them when the goal is so blatantly obvious.

Saddam could have done a number of OFFICIAL things that would have prevented our attack. HE chose not to.


Sounds like RightWing kook-nut conspiracy theories to me.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
50,474
Reaction score
12,376
Points
2,190
Location
North Carolina
Sounds like RightWing kook-nut conspiracy theories to me.

So Saddam couldn't have done anything official to stop the Invasion? As I recall there were specific requirements and he CHOSE not to do them. But do go on with your leftoid kook conspiracy theories.
 

maineman

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
574
Points
83
Location
guess
didn't Bush tell Blix & Co. to get OUT of Iraq so we could invade?
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
So Saddam couldn't have done anything official to stop the Invasion? As I recall there were specific requirements and he CHOSE not to do them. But do go on with your leftoid kook conspiracy theories.

Which specific requirements?

like
"the Iraqi intelligence services approached Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-terrorism, with an offer to prove that Iraq was not linked to the September 11 attacks, and to permit several thousand US troops to enter the country to look for weapons of mass destruction."

Or maybe
"Saddam was prepared to submit himself to internationally monitored elections within two years."

potentially even
Saddam's negotiators were offering almost everything the US government could wish for: free access to the FBI to look for weapons of mass destruction wherever it wanted, support for the US position on Israel and Palestine, even rights over Iraq's oil.

But then again YOU cant trust everything I read in the news.
 

maineman

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
574
Points
83
Location
guess
As I recall there were specific requirements and he CHOSE not to do them.


seems to me that I recall that the biggest one of those specific requirements was to disarm. LOL. mission accomplished!

and if we had let Blix do his job for about six weeks longer, he would have told us that.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
seems to me that I recall that the biggest one of those specific requirements was to disarm. LOL. mission accomplished!

and if we had let Blix do his job for about six weeks longer, he would have told us that.

It was not quite that simple. There is also the small matter of UN resolutions and compliance with the cease fire ...

I also think that if he was truly serious, he would have made such negotiations public...like running them through the UN (the UN would have done cartwheels over such offers!).
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
It was not quite that simple. There is also the small matter of UN resolutions and compliance with the cease fire ...

I also think that if he was truly serious, he would have made such negotiations public...like running them through the UN (the UN would have done cartwheels over such offers!).

Saddam is a fool for trying to negotiate directly with the people threatening him.

Silly Saddam.

Who's face is red now?

uh, looks like everyones.
 

maineman

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
574
Points
83
Location
guess
"Our mission [singular] is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament."
George W. Bush, March 03
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
Saddam is a fool for trying to negotiate directly with the people threatening him.

Silly Saddam.

Who's face is red now?

uh, looks like everyones.


Saddam was a fool, alright.

Saddam wasn't negotiating with anyone...didn't see his name in there as talking to anyone directly....

Saddam was a fool for under estimating the US and over estimating his European allies.


I bet his face was pretty red when they found him in that hole and even redder when they hung him.
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas
So Saddam couldn't have done anything official to stop the Invasion? As I recall there were specific requirements and he CHOSE not to do them. But do go on with your leftoid kook conspiracy theories.

The UN resolution was the UN resolution. The call was to be made by the UN – not the USA. In my opinion, the war in Iraq was unnecessary. Containment was working just fine. Occasionally Saddam would make a small show of force in the “No-fly” zone and we would easily push him back. We did not have to go to war and create this much death and destruction. He was not an immediate threat to us, he did not have WMD to any significant degree, and his relationship to AQ was tenuous at best. Yes, Saddam was a ruthless dictator but he did keep order – now Iraq is a mess of civil factions fighting among themselves with us in the mix. The USA is in no position to be the world’s police man. We have Afghanistan if we need a presence in the Middle East. We also have Israel, Kuwait, to some extent, Saudi Arabia. We can use these allies to make our presence known. We should have finished in Afghanistan, brought much of our military home, and use more of our resources to strengthen and shape up our intelligence and border security. Thanks to trigger-happy Bush, we have a quagmire in Iraq with no end in sight.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
The UN resolution was the UN resolution. The call was to be made by the UN – not the USA. In my opinion, the war in Iraq was unnecessary. Containment was working just fine. Occasionally Saddam would make a small show of force in the “No-fly” zone and we would easily push him back. We did not have to go to war and create this much death and destruction. He was not an immediate threat to us, he did not have WMD to any significant degree, and his relationship to AQ was tenuous at best. Yes, Saddam was a ruthless dictator but he did keep order – now Iraq is a mess of civil factions fighting among themselves with us in the mix. The USA is in no position to be the world’s police man. We have Afghanistan if we need a presence in the Middle East. We also have Israel, Kuwait, to some extent, Saudi Arabia. We can use these allies to make our presence known. We should have finished in Afghanistan, brought much of our military home, and use more of our resources to strengthen and shape up our intelligence and border security. Thanks to trigger-happy Bush, we have a quagmire in Iraq with no end in sight.


Of course you are correct. That's why we need to allow the US military to use the same methods Saddam used to control the country...

Oh, you didn't mean THAT, did you!
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
23,234
Reaction score
8,098
Points
910
Location
Charleston, SC
What difference does it make now? Right or wrong, for better or worse, we're there right now. We are responsible for what happens next. Considering how the decisions made thus far have turned out, let's all hope that the next round of decision making results in some substantive changes for the better. For the Iraqi people and for the troops deployed in the region.
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Saddam was a fool, alright.

Saddam wasn't negotiating with anyone...didn't see his name in there as talking to anyone directly....

Saddam was a fool for under estimating the US and over estimating his European allies.


I bet his face was pretty red when they found him in that hole and even redder when they hung him.

You are the second person to ask for direct quotes when it comes to refuting information.

Do Tony Snow, Scott McClellan not speak for the White house or the President?

We should record all meetings by the president, and all things said by all presidents just to make sure the information asserted is unrefutable.
 

mattskramer

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
5,852
Reaction score
362
Points
48
Location
Texas
Of course you are correct. That's why we need to allow the US military to use the same methods Saddam used to control the country...

Oh, you didn't mean THAT, did you!

We need to apologize for the mess that we made and leave the new Iraq government to take care of its own country.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
You are the second person to ask for direct quotes when it comes to refuting information.

Do Tony Snow, Scott McClellan not speak for the White house or the President?

Did I ask for quotes anywhere in my posts in this thread?

I didn't even refute the information.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
? I’m sorry but I don’t know what you mean. The USA is a republic – a representative democracy – not a ruthless dictatorship.

Your lament was:

"Yes, Saddam was a ruthless dictator but he did keep order – now Iraq is a mess of civil factions fighting among themselves with us in the mix."

It appears that we know what DOES work in keeping order over there!
 
OP
Superlative

Superlative

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,382
Reaction score
109
Points
48
Saddam wasn't negotiating with anyone...didn't see his name in there as talking to anyone directly....

Forgive me if I misunderstood this as a request for a quotation.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$85.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top