So how much as the "war" in Iraq cost us?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by OscarTheGrouch, Sep 27, 2007.

  1. OscarTheGrouch macrumors 6502

    Feb 28, 2007
    G' Vegas South Carolina

    Saddam asked Bush for $1bn to go into exile

    Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.

    Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).

    The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.

    The White House refused to comment on the report last night.

    But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted.

    Only yesterday, the Bush administration asked Congress for another £100billion to finance the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The total war bill for British taxpayers is expected to reach £7billion by next year.

    More than 3,800 American service personnel have lost their lives in Iraq, along with 170 Britons and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

    However, according to the tapes, one month before he launched the invasion Mr Bush appeared convinced that Saddam was serious about going into exile.

    "The Eqyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein," said Mr Bush.

    "It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction."

    Asked by the Spanish premier whether Saddam - who was executed in December last year - could really leave, the President replied: "Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated."

    But he added that whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."

    Mr Bush went on to refer optimistically to the rebuilding or Iraq.

    The transcript - which was published yesterday in the Spanish newspaper El Pais - was said to have been recorded by a diplomat at the meeting in Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003.

    Mr Bush was dismissive of the then French President Jacques Chirac, saying he "thinks he's Mr Arab".

    Referring to his relationship with Downing Street, he said: "I don't mind being the bad cop if Blair is the good cop."

    The President added: "Saddam won't change and he'll keep on playing games.

    "The time has come to get rid of him. That's the way it is."

    Days before the invasion began on March 22, 2003, the United Arab Emirates proposed to a summit of Arab leaders that Saddam and his henchmen should go into exile.

    It was the first time the plan had been officially voiced but it was drowned out in the drumbeat of war.

    A spokesman for Mr Aznar's foundation had no comment on its authenticity.

    Bomb attacks killed 57 people in Iraq yesterday.

    How did we manage to not only screw up and elect this guy once, but twice?
  2. Queso Suspended

    Mar 4, 2006
    I've just read that article myself on the Evening Standard website. I have to ask whether removing Saddam and the rest of the Al-Tikritis from power that way would have prevented the sectarian violence that followed. To be honest I doubt it, but at least the Iraqi security forces would have still been structured and in place in order to deal with it.

    £500 million eh? Sounds like a bargain now doesn't it?
  3. Naimfan Suspended


    Jan 15, 2003
    Just so.....
  4. solvs macrumors 603


    Jun 25, 2002
    LaLaLand, CA
    The key part, which I'm sure our conservative friends will ignore while saying we weren't going to pay blood money (even though we do all the time), is that while they were pretending war was a last option, it was planned from the beginning. And not just as a "just in case, last ditch effort", but as the already decided on option. This isn't the first piece of evidence proving that either. Even before 9/11. WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda, which of course we now know to be false, were just excuses for an already planned invasion. Too bad they didn't plan the post invasion, but of course they would put the goals above the execution. These are the same people who decided to go to war with Iraq, then make up the reasons.

    Waiting for someone to still come in and tell us this is about terrorists or whatever (hint guys, the terrorists are in the 'stans, which we are currently neglecting, if that's where you were going).
  5. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a


    Sep 18, 2006
    We're not "neglecting" the 'stans. If anything, the press isn't covering what we're doing. Granted, we're walking a tightrope with Mushareff and it would be preferable to militarily go after Osama in the mountains there, but there's a lot going on there militarily and socially to root out the Taliban and re-establish an assemblance of stability in Afganistan.
  6. Nickygoat macrumors 6502a


    Dec 11, 2004
    Because that would be £500 million to someone else - not several hundred billion to your mates.

    A few dead squaddies can be ignored for a long time on that sort of money :rolleyes:
  7. halfprep455 macrumors regular


    Feb 17, 2007
    Maryland USA
    This country had plans to invade Iraq as far back as 1998.
  8. toontra macrumors 6502

    Feb 6, 2003
    London UK
    Certain things were almost certainly were planned. For example, the building of huge, permanent US bases all over Iraq - very handy if you want to keep an eye on the oil producing countries and launch an attack on, say, Iran.
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040


    Apr 24, 2003
    Which leads to another tragedy of this war: Bush allowed those plans to be tossed out in favor of Rummy's "light and quick" strategy in direct conflict with the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force.

    Which of course was just a sop to the defense industry who gets the dollars for techno-gear instead of paying for boots on the ground.
  10. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Jan 30, 2004
    having a drink at Milliways
    if they give 1 billion to saddam, the gov loses 1 billion.
    if they spend 500 billion on the war, the gov loses 500 billion, but a few friends MAKE around 450 billions.

    a no-brainer.
  11. Thanatoast macrumors 65816


    Dec 3, 2002
  12. solvs macrumors 603


    Jun 25, 2002
    LaLaLand, CA
    You're right, the press isn't showing what's going on there. We aren't making progress. We're losing. Everything I've read about the situation, which I have to go out of my way to find, says the same. Especially this controversial article from last year:

    (controversial because Newsweek didn't keep the same cover for the US edition, choosing instead a fluff piece on Annie Lebowitz)

    A side note - the guy who does that, Ben Stein, is an adamant Bush supporter.
  13. MACDRIVE macrumors 68000


    Feb 17, 2006
    Clovis, California
    It sure as hell does. :cool:

    You said it all right there sir. :cool:
  14. solvs macrumors 603


    Jun 25, 2002
    LaLaLand, CA
    Yeah, I know. We all know it. I don't know why so few admit to it. It's not like it's a secret or it's not obvious or anything.

Share This Page