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. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=484162&in_page_id=1811 Considering the lives lost and expense in HUNDREDS of billions of dollars spent pursuing the war in Iraq, one wonders, if true, why we didn't take Saddam up on his offer?
It wouldn't have been so simple. Saddam liked playing games with us. He would have popped up out of exile in a month and retained his role as leader. It was just another of his delay tactics. I never did favor the war, but paying him off would not have been a good alternative.
Here's something to think about as well: Instead of sending HUMANS to Mars 11 times, the USA sent them on a Mission to Iraq .. Way back in the day (2004), President Bush promised to send people to Mars. NewScientist reported that the cost of the mission was "expected to cost $40 billion to $80 billion". That really seemed like a lot of money. A year earlier, in 2003, Bush sent his country's soldiers into Iraq. It is believed that as of September 27, 2007, the war in Iraq has cost the USA a whopping 454 Billion dollars! (and here's even a more pessimistic estimate reported at The Boston Globe in 2006) If the original Mars estimate was accurate, that means that instead of going to Iraq, the USA could have funded somewhere between 5 and 11 independent human missions to Mars! By "independent", I mean Mars mission programs that start from the ground up, and do not leverage each other's technology, research, or manufacturing. In reality, it would be much more likely that technology advances would be shared, as well as NRE costs, lowering the mission costs for all involved. That is, many many more than 11 missions could have been sent. http://burtonmackenzie.blogspot.com/2007/09/instead-of-sending-humans-to-mars-11.html Meanwhile, there are Americans sitting here without food, medical insurance, public transportation, etc. all in the name of bringing "democracy" to a country that never asked for it in the first place. Maybe we should bring some of that democracy back home where it belongs, eh?
I love the cognitive dissonance expressed here. First; that the money could have been spent on missions to mars. Then; that the money could have been spent on things here. Weird. Do you not realize that just because the government does one thing, it doesn't mean it can't do another as well. It's a stupid complaint to say "we are in iraq and public transportation sucks" - yeah it would have sucked either way. what's your point?
These arguments are like whining that with $500 you can only afford 1 loaf of bread. Different problems have different price tags. Most problems with money are not because of a lack of funds but because people waste money on $500 loaves of bread instead of paying $0.50 cents in bulk for the cheap stuff. Public transportation doesn't work in most places because it's cheaper and/or more convienent to just drive yourself. Here in Phoenix I can't imagine waiting in the heat for a bus.