U.S. declined opportunity to avoid war

[DaveB]

Interesting. They appear to have offered almost everything we publically said we wanted.

From http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/hage031105-1.html

...Imad Hage, the president of the American Underwriters Group insurance company and known in the region as having contacts at the Pentagon, told ABCNEWS he was first approached by an Iraqi intelligence official who arrived unannounced at his office in Beirut.

A week later, according to Hage, he and an associate were asked to come to Baghdad, when Hage says he met with Saddam Hussein's chief of intelligence, Gen. Tahir Habbush, later labeled the Jack of Diamonds in the deck of cards depicting the most-wanted members of Saddam Hussein's regime. Habbush is still at large.

"He was conveying a message," said Hage. "He was conveying an offer." Hage said Habbush laid out terms of a negotiated peace during a four-hour session beginning at midnight at a compound in Baghdad.

Hage said Habbush repeated public denials by the regime that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but offered to allow several thousand U.S. agents or scientists free rein in the country to carry out inspections. "Based on my meeting with his man," said Hage, "I think an effort was there to avert war. They were prepared to meet with high-ranking U.S. officials."

Hage said Habbush also offered U.N.-supervised free elections, oil concessions to U.S. companies and was prepared to turn over a top al Qaeda terrorist, Abdul Rahman Yasin, who Haboush said had been in Iraqi custody since 1994...

db

 

[Langenator]

Uh huh. And we had what reasons to believe anything that lying sack of excrement said? He'd been lying, obfuscating, and giving the world the run-around for 12 years, and suddenly he's believable?

Are you interested, perhaps, in purchasing a slightly used bridge?

 

[DaveB]

He'd been lying, obfuscating, and giving the world the run-around for 12 years, and suddenly he's believable?

Maybe so. It seems to me that our admin had an obligation to at least hear them out - they might have saved some lives.

db

 

[FPrice]

Langenator has summed it up very well. Hussein had a knack for seeming to offer a compromise at the right time to forestall any serious action. And it always worked. And he always went back on any agreement.

Up until Bush 43.

 

[Gary H]

and President Bush..while we are at it..we want you to negotiate another fine agreement with North Korea.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Saddam lied for years.

The idea he suddenly became sincere and honest is very very very very very stupid.

 

[hops]

Big Deal. In WWII the U.S. declined oppertunities to end that war early, but if your terms are 'unconditional surrender' the other guy will fight to the very bitter end and spill as much of your blood as he can - and did.

Sadam Insane and Co. were just playing games as usual. But then, what ever it takes to win and take the WH in 2004 for the demos... Just win baby, right???

 

[Mute]

You mean we didn't believe them when they offered us the same thing they had offered the UN all those years and then reneged on? Shame on us.

 

[DaveB]

Y'know something LoneGunman? I'm not stupid.

This is not some fraternity initiation prank, and it's not a football game, and it's not the movies.

War is the most serious thing a government can do, because it gets people dead - ours and theirs.

Anything a government can do to avoid sending its people to be killed should be done. It's government's primary obligation - defense - I read it here daily. The best defense is to keep your soldiers in their barracks until there's no other option. Fighting is the last resort.

If the Iraqis agreed to terms, it means that they surrendered.

If they surrendered, there was no reason to invade.

db

 

[cordex]

If Iraq was truly willing to concede to all of these terms, all they had to do was make a general, public announcement stating that they were ready to do so.

It is very hard to support a war against someone who has truly surrendered.

But they didn't. They fought, and they continued a misinformation campaign so obviously false it was laughable.

All it would have taken is Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf standing in front of the cameras and saying: "Look folks, we give up. Sorry for the misunderstanding. We're willing to stand down now and let you do as you will." And then follow through.

Wait a second ... we should believe al-Sahaf about anything? Hmm ... maybe they should have put someone else up there instead.

 

[DaveB]

If Iraq was truly willing to concede to all of these terms, all they had to do was make a general, public announcement stating that they were ready to do so.

Why?

db

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Anything a government can do to avoid sending its people to be killed should be done. It's government's primary obligation - defense - I read it here daily. The best defense is to keep your soldiers in their barracks until there's no other option. Fighting is the last resort."


Funny...

That's how World War II was ASSURRED of occurring. By desparate attempts to avoid, at all costs, going to war.

 

[cordex]

Why?

To garner international support.

To survive.

 

[DaveB]

Cordex, the point of my question was: why is a public statement necessary?

Is it not enough to have a formal agreement between governments - if you get what you want?

If Iraq subsequently refuses to do what was agreed to, then you attack.

That's how World War II was ASSURRED of occurring. By desparate attempts to avoid, at all costs, going to war.

No. WWII was assured by the invasion of Poland and by the invasion of China. Agressive war with Germany and Japan as the agressors.

Hmmm. Who's the agressor now?

db

 

[FPrice]

DaveB...

"Y'know something LoneGunman? I'm not stupid."

Lone_Gunman did NOT call anyone stupid. He correctly identified an idea as stupid. A completely different situation.

"The best defense is to keep your soldiers in their barracks until there's no other option."

History has proven this idea to be stupid also. Soldiers in their barracks can do nothing to provide a defense. Soldiers deployed can provide a defense, and be utilized as soon as necessary.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"No. WWII was assured by the invasion of Poland and by the invasion of China. Agressive war with Germany and Japan as the agressors.

Hmmm. Who's the agressor now?"

Nice try, but incorrect.

Had Britain and France showed spine with Germany, instead of showing that they were unwilling to do anything to resist Hitler's demands, war in Europe could have very likely been avoided.

Germany's invasion of Poland wasn't an isolated, spur of the moment decision, with no lead up.

Hitler himself wrote that he was so surprised by France and Britain's lack of assistance to Czechoslovakia that it gave him the assurances he needed to simply skip diplomatic demands and simply invade Poland.

The point is that at some point military action must always be reserved as a viable option.

 

[DaveB]

Soldiers deployed can provide a defense, and be utilized as soon as necessary

They provide a defense, sure, but they are much more persuasive as a hammer - poised and ready.

I completely agree with you: that's what we were doing up until the point at which we moved into Iraq. The question is: was the invasion necessary.

Too many responses...

The point is that at some point military action must always be reserved as a viable option.

Of course.

db

 

[Lone_Gunman]

DaveB

Why do you believe this report?

Why do you believe that Saddam was serious, this time, despite the fact that he has lied every other time?

At some point, the lies have to end, and this was as good a time as any as far as I am concerned. I have no doubt that this was a delay tactic on Saddam's part.

Anything a government can do to avoid sending its people to be killed should be done.

Do you really believe that? Should appeasement be granted at the cost of everything else?

We certainly could have avoided fighting Nazi Germany, until they invaded us too I guess, but I don't think that would have been the right thing to do. I dont think going to war is the worst thing a government could do.

 

[Obiwan]

All the Iraquis had to do to surrender was wave American flags.

Instead of shooting.

Sorry...but this sounds too much like some Bozo trying to be famous by saying "I could have stopped the war"

 

[DaveB]

I didn't say the war was the worst thing - I said it was the most serious.

Use of WWII as a model for BushII doesn't fly. The axis was well on the way to controling much of europe and asia, and was an obvious threat to the US. Our allies were under attack. Our economic security was threatened.

I do not believe that Iraq was a threat to us, or to its neighbors, especially after BushI and years of sanctions . Saddam's "Wanting" WMDs is not cause for war.

The bottom line is this: if this report is true, and they were trying to surrender prior to the invasion, we should have at least met with them and explained very patiently, using only small words, that if they were again stalling, or jerking us around, we would invade their country, kill their armed forces, and hang their government.

I'm willing to listen to any facts out there - suppositions and whatIfs don't qualify.

db

 

[cordex]

I'm willing to listen to any facts out there - suppositions and whatIfs don't qualify.

Unless they back your position, right?
"What if Saddam was really and truly serious this time?"
"Just supposing that this insurance salesman could have arranged a meeting between Bush and Saddam ... might they not have been able to arrange a happy puppy kitten truce?"

 

[DaveB]

I wonder if the families of the soldiers that have died there would think your post was funny.

db

 

[Master Blaster]

The Democrats are desparate, any lie will do.

There is of course no way to verify this story. Would this pass FACT checking muster at any real news agency? I doubt it very much.

Sadaam had a phone and knew the UN phone number right?

He also had our number as well.

He was offered exile.

The part about them agreeing to free elections makes me want to laugh.

This is nonsense pure and simple.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

DaveB,

Ok, lets say we had met with Saddam, and he agreed to some terms that would have prevented the war.

But then 6 months later, he broke his word, as he has done so many times before.

Would you go to war at that point?

 

[DaveB]

Already replied to that:

(Quoting myself): "The bottom line is this: if this report is true, and they were trying to surrender prior to the invasion, we should have at least met with them and explained very patiently, using only small words, that if they were again stalling, or jerking us around, we would invade their country, kill their armed forces, and hang their government."

Clear enough?

db