• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Iraq peace deal crumbled when Saddam refused to step down

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
linkage


BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Saddam Hussein personally initiated an attempt to reach a last-minute deal with Washington to avoid the U.S.-led invasion that ousted his regime, a former Iraqi government official said Friday.

The official, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, said Iraqi officials had Saddam's "full consent" when they approached the United States with the deal, offering oil contracts for U.S. companies and open access for U.N. weapons inspectors.

The aide was not part of the national leadership, but his job provided him daily contact with the dictator and insight into the regime's decision-making process during the past decade and its critical final days.

The former aide's comments to the AP came a day after a Lebanese-American businessman, Imad Hage, confirmed the last-minute offer and said he was the go-between for the Iraqis in approaching the Bush administration.


Hage said the deal fell through because the Iraqis refused to comply with a U.S. demand that Saddam step down



...
"But there has never been any hint that the concessions ever included Saddam leaving power, and I believe that this is the main reason why they were not accepted," he said. "The minimum the Americans wanted was for him to leave. They were not interested in any other concessions."
I guess this is the rest of the story...
 

VioletAura

Banned
Aug 28, 2003
302
0
0
They made that demand knowing very well that it was the one thing Saddam would not comply with, and why should he, since he is the legitimate ruler of Iraq.
Even if he did comply they would have added other demands such as standing on his head and whistling dixie. The US did not want peace.
 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
Originally posted by: VioletAura
They made that demand knowing very well that it was the one thing Saddam would not comply with, and why should he, since he is the legitimate ruler of Iraq.
Even if he did comply they would have added other demands such as standing on his head and whistling dixie. The US did not want peace.
Legitimate ruler! Whatever your on I want some. Any legitimacy he had was attained at the point of a gun. Can you name who ran against him in the last election there. No you can't because no one did at least not if they wanted to be alive the day after. There is nothing legitimate about Saddam or his government.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
Originally posted by: NesuD
Originally posted by: VioletAura
They made that demand knowing very well that it was the one thing Saddam would not comply with, and why should he, since he is the legitimate ruler of Iraq.
Even if he did comply they would have added other demands such as standing on his head and whistling dixie. The US did not want peace.
Legitimate ruler! Whatever your on I want some. Any legitimacy he had was attained at the point of a gun. Can you name who ran against him in the last election there. No you can't because no one did at least not if they wanted to be alive the day after. There is nothing legitimate about Saddam or his government.
True, makes you wonder why the US dealt with him back in the late 80's
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: NesuD
Originally posted by: VioletAura
They made that demand knowing very well that it was the one thing Saddam would not comply with, and why should he, since he is the legitimate ruler of Iraq.
Even if he did comply they would have added other demands such as standing on his head and whistling dixie. The US did not want peace.
Legitimate ruler! Whatever your on I want some. Any legitimacy he had was attained at the point of a gun. Can you name who ran against him in the last election there. No you can't because no one did at least not if they wanted to be alive the day after. There is nothing legitimate about Saddam or his government.
True, makes you wonder why the US dealt with him back in the late 80's
... and is still in bed with Saoudi-Arabia and other autocratic rulers

of course the new Bush-lite plan for democratic reform in the M-E will change everything

 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,631
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: NesuD
Originally posted by: VioletAura
They made that demand knowing very well that it was the one thing Saddam would not comply with, and why should he, since he is the legitimate ruler of Iraq.
Even if he did comply they would have added other demands such as standing on his head and whistling dixie. The US did not want peace.
Legitimate ruler! Whatever your on I want some. Any legitimacy he had was attained at the point of a gun. Can you name who ran against him in the last election there. No you can't because no one did at least not if they wanted to be alive the day after. There is nothing legitimate about Saddam or his government.
True, makes you wonder why the US dealt with him back in the late 80's
Or why he sold arms to IRAN..... the IRAN Contra affair.

We have been feeding the sharks way too long.

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
I did NOT like Saddam, however it was not the place of Bush to order him to leave.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I did NOT like Saddam, however it was not the place of Bush to order him to leave.
I agree, that is why all the world's dictators are trying to get their hands on wmds to be safe
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I did NOT like Saddam, however it was not the place of Bush to order him to leave.
I agree, that is why all the world's dictators are trying to get their hands on wmds to be safe
Why would you think obtaining WMD would make you SAFE? I think you have it totally backwards, pursuing that end draws the attention, not the opposite......
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I did NOT like Saddam, however it was not the place of Bush to order him to leave.
I agree, that is why all the world's dictators are trying to get their hands on wmds to be safe
Why would you think obtaining WMD would make you SAFE? I think you have it totally backwards, pursuing that end draws the attention, not the opposite......
North Korea, see how the US is dealing with that problem
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I did NOT like Saddam, however it was not the place of Bush to order him to leave.
I agree, that is why all the world's dictators are trying to get their hands on wmds to be safe
Why would you think obtaining WMD would make you SAFE? I think you have it totally backwards, pursuing that end draws the attention, not the opposite......
North Korea, see how the US is dealing with that problem
I think we are just waiting for the collapse of NK.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,182
3,865
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I did NOT like Saddam, however it was not the place of Bush to order him to leave.
I agree, that is why all the world's dictators are trying to get their hands on wmds to be safe
Why would you think obtaining WMD would make you SAFE? I think you have it totally backwards, pursuing that end draws the attention, not the opposite......
North Korea, see how the US is dealing with that problem
I think we are just waiting for the collapse of NK.
But we couldn't wait for the collapse of Saddam? Do you think about what you say?

 

prometheusxls

Senior member
Apr 27, 2003
830
0
0
Originally posted by: VioletAura
They made that demand knowing very well that it was the one thing Saddam would not comply with, and why should he, since he is the legitimate ruler of Iraq.
Even if he did comply they would have added other demands such as standing on his head and whistling dixie. The US did not want peace.
I am inclined to agree.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,182
3,865
126
Originally posted by: privatebreyer
Originally posted by: prometheusxls
Originally posted by: privatebreyer
We had one reason and one reason only to supprt Saddam in the 80's: Iran.
reason #2 = Oil
Just like everyone else on the planet.
Everybody in your unit's killing babies so you do too?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I did NOT like Saddam, however it was not the place of Bush to order him to leave.
I agree, that is why all the world's dictators are trying to get their hands on wmds to be safe
Why would you think obtaining WMD would make you SAFE? I think you have it totally backwards, pursuing that end draws the attention, not the opposite......
North Korea, see how the US is dealing with that problem
I think we are just waiting for the collapse of NK.
But we couldn't wait for the collapse of Saddam? Do you think about what you say?
I think you mistake him for the man in the mirror;)

NK is a bigger more complex situation - Iraq was not going to be allowed the chance to become such.

CkG
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
So we were reasonably certain that there were no WMD. One could deduce this from Saddam's invite. We went to war to topple Saddam. The French and Germans must have also know this. Perhaps the reason they would not support our efforts.
Would the Congress have backed Bush if they knew th e "Full Story"? So all the looking and statements of 'we'll find the WMD' etc is perhaps, lies.?

What right do we have to invade a sovereign nation to rid the place of its recognized leader?

I don't see any legality in this at all, now.
 

prometheusxls

Senior member
Apr 27, 2003
830
0
0
Well basicly rather than accept surrender we just went to war simply for regieme change, no other reason. Seems pretty wantonly destructive to me.
 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
Tell that to the three hundred thousand civilians in mass graves, as reported by Fox and CNN news this morning.

As far as the North Korean situation, China would not look kindly on westerners on it's back door, and it might also make Russia rather nervous, if the United States and friends, paid a visit to North Korea. It's a very different game than was Iraq. Not many supported Saddam in his bid to monopolize the oil fields.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: VioletAura
They made that demand knowing very well that it was the one thing Saddam would not comply with, and why should he, since he is the legitimate ruler of Iraq.
Even if he did comply they would have added other demands such as standing on his head and whistling dixie. The US did not want peace.
Really? You think so? How do you know this? Can you even remotely prove any of that?
 

VioletAura

Banned
Aug 28, 2003
302
0
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: VioletAura
They made that demand knowing very well that it was the one thing Saddam would not comply with, and why should he, since he is the legitimate ruler of Iraq.
Even if he did comply they would have added other demands such as standing on his head and whistling dixie. The US did not want peace.
Really? You think so? How do you know this? Can you even remotely prove any of that?
Can you prove it wrong?

The months leading up to the war the US made bs demands, and when Iraq complied, they made more, and more and more and claimed non-compliance when there was. They played on foolish fears of terrorist attacks, had people duct taping themselves inside their homes, to gain support for this invasion. They gambled that there were really were stockpiles WMDs to justify their aggression and lost. The military was already assembled in the region, and bush wasn't going to call them home because he would lose face.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
We invaded Iraq using their purported WMD and the exigent circumstance of their use against us as the reason. This is clearly no longer defensible by the Administration as the 'real' reason. So, it, therefore, follows that invasion to eliminate our exbuddy was our objective and we'd have invaded regardless of concessions made by the Iraqi government. We needed to secure the area and if Saddam was gone the march to Baghdad would have been easy... guess it couldn't have been too much easier but, there it is.
The US violated international law and its own to prosecute an agenda whose details are starting to become apparent. Not clear enough yet to see the big picture but, just a hint at the need to control the resources of the area and maybe even keep European influence from taking over (the euro denominated oil).
IMO
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY