Iraq war preventable?????

TNM93

Senior member
Aug 13, 2005
965
0
0
By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer Sat Oct 29, 6:56 PM ET

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -
Saddam Hussein accepted an 11th-hour offer to flee into exile weeks ahead of the U.S.-led 2003 invasion, but Arab League officials scuttled the proposal, officials in this Gulf state claimed.

The exile initiative was spearheaded by the late president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, at an emergency Arab summit held in Egypt in February 2003, Sheik Zayed's son said in an interview aired by Al-Arabiya TV during a documentary. The U.S.-led coalition invaded on March 19 that year.

A top government official confirmed the offer on Saturday, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Saddam allegedly accepted the offer to try halt the invasion and bring elections to Iraq within six months, claimed the official and Sheik Zayed's son.

"We had the final acceptance of the various parties ... the main players in the world and the concerned person, Saddam Hussein," the son, Sheik Mohammed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, said during the program aired Thursday to mark the first anniversary of his father's death.

Sheik Zayed's initiative would have given Saddam and his family exile and guarantees against prosecution in return for letting Arab League and U.N. experts run Iraq until elections could be held in six months, the official said.

"We were coming (to the summit in Egypt's Sharm el-Sheikh resort) to place the facts on the table," said Sheik Mohammed, who is deputy chief of the Emirates armed forces and crown prince of Abu Dhabi.

"The results would have emerged if the initiative was presented and discussed. This is now history."

The anonymous Emirates official said Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa did not bring the proposal to the summit's discussion because Arab foreign ministers had not presented and accepted it as league protocol dictated.

At the time, Arab League leaders said the summit decided not to take up the idea, citing league rules barring interference in members' domestic affairs.

It was not immediately possible to verify the Emirates claims that their offer had been accepted by Saddam, who is being held in U.S. military custody in Iraq and his facing trial on charges of crimes against humanity.

Officials from the Egypt-based 22-member Arab League declined to comment.

But at the 2003 summit, the Iraqi delegation rejected the Emirates proposal, while Iraq's former U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Al-Douri, said Saddam was not going anywhere.

The Al-Arabiya documentary claimed Iraqi officials had dismissed the idea because they did not know Saddam had accepted it.

Saddam himself remained defiant ahead of the U.S.-led onslaught and hid in Iraq until being captured in December 2003.

The speculation over Saddam's acceptance of the offer comes three years after the start of the Iraqi war.

The documentary also included an interview from Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak, who said the United States was aware of the proposal.

In a January 2004 interview with British Channel 4 TV, ex-Lebanese President Amin Gemayel said Saddam had rejected calls to leave Iraq and end the 2003 standoff with the United States. Gemayel mediated between Saddam and the Bush administration.

One country that came up in the exile discussions was Belarus, but the Emirates official said some governments balked at offering sanctuary to Saddam's notorious sons, Odai and Qusai.

Almost all the Arab League's member states are Sunni Muslim-majority nations and the pan-Arab body has kept Iraq at arm's length since the U.S.-led invasion, which most of its members opposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting article I found. If this is true, it makes you wonder if the war was preventable or if there were ulterior motives for going. Al-Arabiya claimes Iraq officials didn't know.
 

IronMentality

Senior member
Sep 16, 2004
228
0
0
Go find the dozens of articles in the late 1990s the NY Times and Washington Post ran about weapons programs during the Clinton adminstration instead.
 

TNM93

Senior member
Aug 13, 2005
965
0
0
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Go find the dozens of articles in the late 1990s the NY Times and Washington Post ran about weapons programs during the Clinton adminstration instead.


Why? Seems those weapons programs didn't exist because they sure as hell haven't found any of those weapons.
 

IronMentality

Senior member
Sep 16, 2004
228
0
0
Why? The NY Times and Washington Post ran dozens of stories about these weapons programs existing, citing the intelligence from Britian, France, Germany, and Russia. Try again please.
 

TNM93

Senior member
Aug 13, 2005
965
0
0
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Why? The NY Times and Washington Post ran dozens of stories about these weapons programs existing, citing the intelligence from Britian, France, Germany, and Russia. Try again please.


Just curious, but how does weapons programs have anything to do with Saddam accepting exile? Hijack someone else's thread. MMMkay.
 

IronMentality

Senior member
Sep 16, 2004
228
0
0
Irregardless we'd still have to enter the country whether Saddam got into coalition custody in Dubai or Baghdad.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,830
33,861
136
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Irregardless we'd still have to enter the country whether Saddam got into coalition custody in Dubai or Baghdad.

Nonsense. WMD or not, we had no business invading Iraq.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: IronMentality
LOL! WMD or not. :)

Step one: the answer seems very much to have been 'not'

Step two: does the world have the right to invade America because they have WMDs?

Step three: why not troll somewhere else?
 

IronMentality

Senior member
Sep 16, 2004
228
0
0
Troll? The title of the thread is "Iraq War Preventable?" and without addressing the simple fact the NY Times and Washington Post commented on U.S., British, French, German, and Russian intelligence ALL acknowledging (including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is an oxymoron to the title of a thread. It's not trolling, its simply common sense - something liberals would know nothing about.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Irregardless[sic] we'd still have to enter the country whether Saddam got into coalition custody in Dubai or Baghdad.

Why? Without Saddam, the next in charge might have let in inspectors with full cooperation. However, that is a bit of speculation, since it could have been one of his sons or it could have been a General who just wanted to be left alone.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Troll? The title of the thread is "Iraq War Preventable?" and without addressing the simple fact the NY Times and Washington Post commented on U.S., British, French, German, and Russian intelligence ALL acknowledging (including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is an oxymoron to the title of a thread. It's not trolling, its simply common sense - something liberals would know nothing about.

There is a bit of a difference in having and supposedly having something.
 

IronMentality

Senior member
Sep 16, 2004
228
0
0
Thank you clarifying there is a difference of having and supposedly having something. And when Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin in accordance with U.S. Intelligence include over a decade conclude Saddam had weapons on top of a decade of not accounting for WMDs, that I think in clarifying that that occurred, is NOT trolling and is a perfect answer in to whether the war was preventable or not.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Troll? The title of the thread is "Iraq War Preventable?" and without addressing the simple fact the NY Times and Washington Post commented on U.S., British, French, German, and Russian intelligence ALL acknowledging (including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is an oxymoron to the title of a thread. It's not trolling, its simply common sense - something liberals would know nothing about.

Sorry, I missed the part of your little rant that explains:

1. Why there is no evidence of these widely 'acknowledged' WMDs.

2. Why one nation has the right to invade another over WMDs, when the invading nation in fact has far more destructive weapons.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Who cares if it was preventable.

Who wants to prevent billions of profits for Halliburton, or billions in oil contracts, or billions in defense contracts, or billions added to our military budget?

Those are all good things.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,197
4
76
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Thank you clarifying there is a difference of having and supposedly having something. And when Tony Blair, and Vladmir[sic] Putin in accordance with U.S. Intelligence include over a decade conclude Saddam had weapons on top of a decade of not accounting for WMDs, that I think in clarifying that that occurred, is NOT trolling and is a perfect answer in to whether the war was preventable or not.

Apparently I didn't clarify it enough, because the last time I checked, we still haven't found anything.

The intelligence was wrong, it's as simple as that.
 

mOeeOm

Platinum Member
Dec 27, 2004
2,588
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who cares if it was preventable.

Who wants to prevent billions of profits for Halliburton, or billions in oil contracts, or billions in defense contracts, or billions added to our military budget?

Those are all good things.

:thumbsup: this guy gets it.
 

IronMentality

Senior member
Sep 16, 2004
228
0
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Troll? The title of the thread is "Iraq War Preventable?" and without addressing the simple fact the NY Times and Washington Post commented on U.S., British, French, German, and Russian intelligence ALL acknowledging (including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is an oxymoron to the title of a thread. It's not trolling, its simply common sense - something liberals would know nothing about.

Sorry, I missed the part of your little rant that explains:

1. Why there is no evidence of these widely 'acknowledged' WMDs.

2. Why one nation has the right to invade another over WMDs, when the invading nation in fact has far more destructive weapons.

"The title of the thread is "Iraq War Preventable?" and without addressing the simple fact the NY Times and Washington Post commented on U.S., British, French, German, and Russian intelligence ALL acknowledging (including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is an oxymoron to the title of a thread. It's not trolling, its simply common sense - something liberals would know nothing about."
 

IronMentality

Senior member
Sep 16, 2004
228
0
0
Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who cares if it was preventable.

Who wants to prevent billions of profits for Halliburton, or billions in oil contracts, or billions in defense contracts, or billions added to our military budget?

Those are all good things.

:thumbsup: this guy gets it.

Yes, our military budget that is the smallest in terms of our GDP that it has ever been...
 

mOeeOm

Platinum Member
Dec 27, 2004
2,588
0
0
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who cares if it was preventable.

Who wants to prevent billions of profits for Halliburton, or billions in oil contracts, or billions in defense contracts, or billions added to our military budget?

Those are all good things.

:thumbsup: this guy gets it.

Yes, our military budget that is the smallest in terms of our GDP that it has ever been...

Which is more of a reason to stay in Iraq :thumbsup:
 

TNM93

Senior member
Aug 13, 2005
965
0
0
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Thank you clarifying there is a difference of having and supposedly having something. And when Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin in accordance with U.S. Intelligence include over a decade conclude Saddam had weapons on top of a decade of not accounting for WMDs, that I think in clarifying that that occurred, is NOT trolling and is a perfect answer in to whether the war was preventable or not.

The dossier Tony Blair came up with has been criticized numerous times as being fabricated. BBC article:

Here

Vladimar Putin opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Why do you think Colin Powell had to settle for a less harsh ultimatum at the UN? Because France, Russia, and China would have vetoed if the declaration had called for war. BTW, Joe Wilson and Hans Blix even argued that there was contradictory evidence for going.

The plans for the war were drawn in the early 90's, with PNAC at the helm. If Clinton had thought that the situation were so dire, he would have done something following the letter on behalf of PNAC, but he ignored it. Only after 9-11 occured, did the administration see an opportunity to widen the war beyond Afghanistan and the Taleban.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who cares if it was preventable.

Who wants to prevent billions of profits for Halliburton, or billions in oil contracts, or billions in defense contracts, or billions added to our military budget?

Those are all good things.

:thumbsup: this guy gets it.

Yes, our military budget that is the smallest in terms of our GDP that it has ever been...

What is that supposed to mean? Are we required to spend XX% of our budget or else France invades? :roll:
 

TNM93

Senior member
Aug 13, 2005
965
0
0
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Who cares if it was preventable.

Who wants to prevent billions of profits for Halliburton, or billions in oil contracts, or billions in defense contracts, or billions added to our military budget?

Those are all good things.

:thumbsup: this guy gets it.

Yes, our military budget that is the smallest in terms of our GDP that it has ever been...


lol, right wingers. The military budget is too small in comparison to GDP. Wah. You realize our GDP is around 10 trillion right?
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: IronMentality
Yes, our military budget that is the smallest in terms of our GDP that it has ever been...
That would be the budget that doesn't include costs related to Iraq? Or have they finally fixed that little oversight...

Originally posted by: IronMentality
"The title of the thread is "Iraq War Preventable?" and without addressing the simple fact the NY Times and Washington Post commented on U.S., British, French, German, and Russian intelligence ALL acknowledging (including Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Vladmir Putin) that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, is an oxymoron to the title of a thread. It's not trolling, its simply common sense - something liberals would know nothing about."

You haven't explained anything - You can't acknowledge something that isn't there.

But more importantly, if Saddam was willing to leave, why was it necessary to invade?
 

IronMentality

Senior member
Sep 16, 2004
228
0
0
[YAWN]

TNM93, U.S. intelligence, UK intelligence, Russian intelligence, French intelligence, and German intelligence - were quoted constantly in the Times and Post in the 1990s during the Clinton adminstration as saying Iraq is posing a grave and serious threat to our security, due to unaccounted for WMDs. If any fabrication was done, it didn't start in 2002.