What is Digg?193 Comments
- BunnyWunny, on 10/12/2007, -27/+216Gee, you think maybe Bush et all are, you know, liars?
- PJOnori, on 10/12/2007, -12/+147If it was in fact debunked, please drop a link here if anyone finds it. The last thing I want to do is push inaccurate information.
- deesnutz, on 10/12/2007, -31/+153So innocent soldiers are really dying in Iraq over one big lie. It's time for George W. Bush to be impeached and charged with war crimes.
This is what Bush stands for in Spanish ...
http://www.democratgiftshop.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi/571511948/liberal_shop/303390 - soll, on 10/12/2007, -9/+114So this one changes everything?
I count like 5 or so this changes everything moments. Remember these stories: no WMDs found in Iraq, no terrorist connection to Iraq, disclosure of the pre-planned invasion of Iraq. Shouldn't each of those have "changed everything"?
I don't know anymore what it would take to reach that point. Maybe missiles full of kittens and orphans launched into Iraq. Maybe... - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -15/+110Because remember people, only smelly hippy liberal people critisise government!!
*NEWSFLASH* Having liberal views isn't a bad thing, and liberal isn't an insult.
*NEWSFLASH* Critisising and asking questions of government is what democracy is all about. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. Who's anti-American now? - Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -28/+78Even if this were true would anyone actually care? I mean theyre ***** wire-tapping our phones right now and no one seems to be bothered. Ive lost all hope in America, no, Humanity as a whole.
- EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -14/+52My recollection is that this was sort of true and even discussed back then.
It's entirely reasonable that Saddam offered a compromise on the eve of war, knowing he'd lose. He'd have been a fool not to. And while the excuse for war was worse than a lie, I can believe the idiots in this administration believing such an offer from Saddam was insincere. The problem is not that we didn't accept his surrender. It's that we started the war in the first place.
The whole point (for Neocons) wasn't to get Saddam, but to get our troops and bases in there "protecting" the oil. Just look at what we did in the first days. Looting, raping and pillaging? Rummy called it blowing off steam. Oil wells were protected with tanks.
And by the way, I hope you've all seen the news that the Saddam trial is over. They've held onto the verdict until two days before the US election, though we already know he'll be found guilty. I kid you not. It's a November surprise this year, but it's hardly a surprise to most of us. - phynixx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37@indiggent
Jeez, cummon man. If you're going to make an argument against it why not present a valid point? How about something like: "This guy sounds like he's just making a grasp at fame" or "RTA, this guy sounds like he's full of it."
Whining about how an ENTIRE politically aligned group of people can't think for themselves, and that they only bitch w/out actually providing solutions to the problems they complain about is pointless, inaccurate, and will yes, get your ass digged down.
It's just as easy for me to say that ALL Republicans/right-wingers believe EVERYTHING they hear on Fox News (term used lightly) w/out applying one shred of critical thinking to the slop they hear, believe EVERY PRO-Bush thing they hear, and run around digg slamming people w/ different opinions for being mindless fools. Although I could probably say that about your posting though.
Follow your own advice, un-plug yourself from the propaganda machine for a while and see the real world. People have different opinions than you, they don't all be live the same thing, and people from different ideologies don't ALL BELIEVE THE EXACT SAME DAMN THINGS, AND BEHAVE IN THE SAME WAY.
Oh, and btw, having differing opinions, and vocally declaring and debating them was, until 9/11, considered by many as the MOST American thing you can do. It's not anti-American, it's America at it's (originally) purest form. Kinda ironic that you're running around calling us Anti-American for doing just that huh?
And speaking of propaganda, it seems that calling those that don't agree with the current administration Anti-American is exactly the propaganda that the Bush Admin. is pushing. Again with the irony. Try opening your own eyes, and actually think about what you're saying, and what it actually means. - monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -17/+44Are you saying the Bush administration lied to invade Iraq ??
You must be kidding me. - fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -7/+33"This is not news, he agreed to disarm, we knew that, but at the time everyone (Us Americans, I mean) thought he still had WMDs, even though he said he didn't."
That is complete *****. The weapons inspectors said he had disarmed, and they were pretty believable, Bush and the right said otherwise. - victoitor, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30@Crass22
Please don't compare US&A to humanity. - lordthor, on 10/12/2007, -12/+33This is not news, he agreed to disarm, we knew that, but at the time everyone (Us Americans, I mean) thought he still had WMDs, even though he said he didn't.
- whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -16/+34wow... if this is true... if Saddam tried to do everything Bush asked for (publicaly) and they ignored it. well, I guess my opinion of this administration can't get lower, but maybe this will help convince the other ~40% of people out there who think Bush is a good guy.
- Ascendant, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20This is kind of weird... I thought this was a news story that was covered a little bit but went "under the radar" right before we invaded... I distinctly remember seeing this story th en. I guess people are jus tnow deciding to look into this?
- Enterprise8875, on 10/12/2007, -10/+27Ok I googled it and found this site http://www.rightsandfreedom.com/
It looks as if Rights and Freedom International is an anti-American site run by a n Egyptian politician.
So I am calling this total BS unless we see some real evidence by a real news source. - giantAppleCore, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22I'd believe this, except, Rights and Freedom International doesn't seem to be a source I'd trust unquestioningly. Not that I know of specific infringements they've made before, just they don't have a page on Wikipedia, the link is just a press release, and they don't have many links online...
- Enterprise8875, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Well nixon then you are insane, why dont we think before we type.
- omnithought, on 10/12/2007, -11/+27Don't forget too add the /sarcasm at the end. People don't understand it here unless it's pointed out.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18You mean the same guy who told us the tanks in the background were not American tanks inside Baghdad?
- Tijmen, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18...a former political adviser to Saddam Hussein's son...
...Canadian aerospace engineer...
...former American pilot...
...founder of the peace organization Rights and Freedom International"...
and from his website:
..."Hossam Shaltout Announces Bid for Presidency of Egypt"...
Errrrrr. - uttles, on 10/12/2007, -15/+26LOL, this changes everything?
Are you guys really this dense? I Mean, come on, be real here. Do you have no common sense at all?
Saddam Hussein threw up a great big middle finger to the UN and especially the USA for the entire 13 year duration post Gulf War where he was supposedly under sanctions. The UN never enforced them of course, and in fact many members of the UN were making large profits off Saddam's circumventing of international law.
So, the day before the war he says "oh wait! just kidding! I will play nice now!" and you idiots really think that is genuine?
My goodness, our education system really has failed us. - thomasprebble, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21And please tell me why you are not all out on the street right now demanding this monster be impeached and charged with war crimes? Only in America.
- JimNorton, on 10/12/2007, -13/+24Ummm has this claim been substantiated? Following the links in the article led my to Hossam Shaltout's contact page with his toll free number 1 888 800 6107.
I suppose I'll give this guy a call and see what I can dig up...
Of course so many people here are acting like sheep and jumping to conclusions before even determining if the claims are credible. - carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"Put your weapons down! Ok thanks. BOOM! See ya."
i've still yet to see the "see ya" part. - BedlamX, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15This community is the best. You would take the word of a former political advisor to Saddam's son, rehashed 8 days before an election. Your hatred toward Bush will make you believe anything.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12
OK I'm no Bush lover and didn't support the Iraq war but we are talking about the testimony of someone that was under Saddam Hussein. How credible could his testimony actually be?
Think about this.... how hard could it be for Saddam to call CNN, FOX, ABC, BBC or any number of Muslim news agencies and tell them first hand "uncle"?
Personally I'm not buying his story. - quellish, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Yes, the WHOLE WAR hinged on ONE MAN from this organization getting to Baghdad to broadcast the news. But a worldwide conspiracy involving not only CNN, the White House, but Al-Jazeera as well stopped him, and allowed the war to go on.
You seriously believe this?
You don't think that if Saddam really wanted to meet the conditions set for the deadline that he would have WOKEN UP the CNN crews in Baghdad? - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14Well he was also claiming that Iraqi forces were driving back the Americans when there were tanks parked at the republican palace.
"A former political adviser to Saddam Hussein's son said today that Saddam was willing to yield to all American demands before the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- but that the Bush administration refused his offers."
Look at what this guy has to gain if its true, and ask yourself why does this come out now, and not during the invasion when Saddam could of still saved his country as he did with the Gulf War, and if this was the case I am shure the UN would of been contacted to help keep US forces where they were. I realize some of you will automatically take this for fact as you want to believe it, but seriously, take a look at the facts first. - fightingirish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Whether or not a story is favorable towards the current administration, random press releases from organizations with little history or established credibility should be taken with a grain of a salt.
This story posted on yahoo apparently released by "Rights and Freedom International" is just an organization/website run by a 58 year old Egyptian businessman (with Egyptian Presidential ambitions) by the name of Hossam Shaltout. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12So if he was to yield to US pressures for the US inspectors to have full reign to weapons sites he would not of informed the UN? Do you honestly think that the UN would keep an announcement from Saddam that he would bow to demands from the world community? I honestly think that this article is unrealistic and is just propaganda to further destroy public opinion in Iraq. The bad thing is, some people, no matter how unsubstantial the evidence, will take this for absolute fact.
"But, this goes against the strategy of having permanent bases smack dab in oil country. Even if we pull out of Iraq, we will have military bases there until the end of days."
I don't think the oil matters with military bases. Look at Korea, Japan, Germany etc. It pretty much goes like this, if you are invaded by America you get a military base. - sploozo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Yes, I definitely remember this being covered right before the actual invasion, and Bush said something to the effect of "They've had their chances - diplomacy is now off the table."
Stupid. - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18This was obvious when Saddam started dismantling the al-Samoud II missiles that weren't even weapons of mass destruction. Basically, they yielded to US demands that the weapons be taken apart--even though they barely even violated any UN resolutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Samoud_2
So they disarmed and then we invaded. Good strategy on our part.
"Put your weapons down! Ok thanks. BOOM! See ya."
And remember the pages of documents that they brought to the UN that were supposed to show that they no longer had a nuclear weapons program? The US said they didn't prove anything. Who needs proof when you're discussing WMDs anyway? We didn't.
I hope this at least makes it MORE clear. I felt like the only one who was saying "WTF!" back in 2003. - appetite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11I was saying "WTF" because no one in the media was asking questions when the following was happening:
1. No clear evidence of WMD.
2. Scott Ritter, conservative weapons inspector, was crying foul in the run-up to the war--asserting that Iraq had no WMDs. Coincidentally, a sealed file was leaked to the media about a dismissed molestation charge against him in Florida years earlier.
3. We invaded Iraq while they were in the process of disarming Weapons of Minimal Destruction, and at least putting effort into meeting our demands.
4. It had nothing to do with 9/11.
5. The whole debunked "yellow cake" uranium bit.
I WAS the only person I knew who didn't think Saddam had WMDs. Most people I talked to either didn't care or thought he had some.
This is just one of a number of things that conservatives are pretending isn't true. There's gotta be a maximum threshold of evidence and anecdotes that you can deny before you change your mind or at least admit you're mindless party follower. We should have hit that threshold years ago. - mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"They offered a surrender and we nuked them"
False until you present a reputable source. The military commanders who in essence ruled the nation were ready to fight to the death in a bloody war for the island itself. Men, women, and teens were indoctrinated with horrible images of American troops and taught to use anything and everything as a weapon to resist the invaders. The first nuclear bomb was like nothing the world had seemed before and Japans commanders thought that it could not, or would not be reproduced, until Nagasaki. After this the emperor insisted that the war end which it shortly did aboard an American battleship where the surrender was signed. Also, the allies would only accept an unconditional surrender as anything else would of been seen as appeasement and would not of brought an decisive end to the war. - tastycheese, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7holy crap did anyone else click on this guys website??? talk about lack of credibility.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8When exactly did the UN present this as evidence against going to war?
- SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Anyone who knows anything about Saddam's character and the things he did to stay in power would expect a little more proof that just some random webpage that he accepted the ultimatum.
- nikko11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Are you serious? This is a link to a PRESS RELEASE, issued by this guy and he can't even make himself seem credible in his own propaganda piece?
Are you seriously just believing this PRESS RELEASE just because it says something you want to believe?
Read this PRESS RELEASE, and if you trust/believe the source, you've got about the lowest standards there are. - foofightrs777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is a PRESS RELEASE. Thus, I'll choose to ignore the cleverly disguised release as a news report for now and wait until actual news about this comes out. Could still be true...but I'd rather believe something a bit more reputable.
The fact that this was in the Yahoo finance section should have been a dead give away. - PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If, and that's a mighty big if IMO, Saddam was willing to surrender, then wouldn't he have waved the white flag the minute we hit Iraq?
Just wondering... - Slybri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6sounds kinda fishy to me. You mean this whole war could have been averted if this one guy had made his plane on time? And the Bush administration was playing "planes, trains, and automobiles" trying to stiop him?
Seems like someone that important should have a cell phone or something on him. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Press Release Source: Rights and Freedom International"
This isn't news, its a press release. - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Jeebus, people. For one thing, this is a dupe.
And second, a simple Google search does the trick.
~ Saddam rejects Bush ultimatum ~
The Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, has flatly rejected a US ultimatum to leave the country or face war.
A statement from a cabinet meeting chaired by the Iraqi president said Iraq and all its people were "fully ready to confront the invading aggressors and repel them".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2861029.stm - Koosebane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I thought Baghdad Bob taught us all how reliable reports from the Saddam camp are.
I guess hatred for certain politicians makes it easy to feign ignorance. - benggg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Its funny you had to google for a website that was given in the article.
- jakeblue, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7All you need to know about the bias in this article can be summed up in the headline and first paragraph.
Item #1: PRNewswire - That's right, this isn't news, it's a press release.
Item #2: The organization publishing the press release is a peace organization, and would obviously have no possible reason to make an anti-war message up, however specious, and publish it. - PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Well yes, them, the BBC, Al Jez, and every other news organization in the world I'd say. It would have been news.
- Mr.RX99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The only way we will know whether or not this guy is lying is if he produces the documents he says he has and provides proof that they are credible. Yes, we do know that Saddam agreed to disarm, etc., and if you want to do something about those facts, go ahead, but as for this guy's specific story, we need the proof before we do anything specifically about his claims.
- painkillr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8this story highlights liberal idiocy and gullibility.
FTA:
The disclosure was made by Hossam Shaltout, a Canadian aerospace engineer, former American pilot, and founder of the peace organization Rights and Freedom International (http://www.rightsandfreedom.com), who said that war could have been averted, but Bush aides blocked his efforts to announce Saddam's decision.
-----------------------------------------------------
Do you take this man's credentials seriously. If so, you are stupid. - Ascendant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The only reason he's not overly "courageous" just for saying this is because he's not running for political office, and thus isn't obligated to cover his ass and spout *****.
EDIT - I agree with what eadint said in is second paragraph, but I don't agree with what he said in the first paragraph about Japan et. al.
It's no secret that Japan did not intend to unconditionally surrender before the bombs were dropped. The WW2 comparison is not appropriate here. -
Show 51 - 100 of 193 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is