It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile' - live

page: 3
74
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Just a reminder to all of those who are saying that Iraq never had WMD's.

Ask the Kurds.

(just sayin')

Who can deny iraq had CW's..DONALD RUMSFELD SOLD IRAQ CHEMICAL WEAPONS




posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Didn't Hitler try this same scam? He tried to have his soldiers gas themselves, but all he did was gas himself up.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Hm... So, why would Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld not point this out saying, "Look, here they are! WMDs!!! SEE?!?!?"
I mean really? Why would they take the heat, including now, for "being wrong." I don't think either of them would simply go along with being called liars - where was the photo op with video and endless Media exposure for the discovery of WMDs in Iraq?? I know I wouldn't put up with that if I was right...seriously!

To think that they would, for no reason, take a hit like that... I just don't get it. So that leaves me to think that there may be more to this story? Or misreporting??? It appears any leftover chemical weapons would have degraded by now...

From Wikipedia -Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction

In January 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors reported that they had found no indication that Iraq possessed nuclear weapons or an active program. Some former UNSCOM inspectors disagree about whether the United States could know for certain whether or not Iraq had renewed production of weapons of mass destruction. Robert Gallucci said, "If Iraq had [uranium or plutonium], a fair assessment would be they could fabricate a nuclear weapon, and there's no reason for us to assume we'd find out if they had." Similarly, former inspector Jonathan Tucker said, "Nobody really knows what Iraq has. You really can't tell from a satellite image what's going on inside a factory." However, Hans Blix said in late January 2003 that Iraq had "not genuinely accepted UN resolutions demanding that it disarm."[74] He claimed there were some materials which had not been accounted for. Since sites had been found which evidenced the destruction of chemical weaponry, UNSCOM was actively working with Iraq on methods to ascertain for certain whether the amounts destroyed matched up with the amounts that Iraq had produced.[75][76] In the next quarterly report, after the war, the total amount of proscribed items destroyed by UNMOVIC in Iraq can be gathered.[77] Those include:

50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles
Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles
2 large propellant casting chambers
14 155 mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity
Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol
Some 122 mm chemical warheads
Some chemical equipment
224.6 kg of expired growth media
In an attempt to counter the allegations that some WMD arsenals (or capability) were indeed hidden from inspectors, Scott Ritter would argue later;

There's no doubt Iraq hasn't fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated ... We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat ... It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn't amount to much, but which is still prohibited ... We can't give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can't close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can't reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.[78]
Ritter also argued that the WMDs Saddam had in his possession all those years ago, if retained, would have long since turned to harmless substances. He stated that Iraqi Sarin and tabun have a shelf life of approximately five years, VX lasts a bit longer (but not much longer), and finally he said botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax last about three years.[79][80]


Also - here is the latest on the current situation, from what I've gathered...This is from The Hill


According to White House officials, the president has focused his work on the issue on three areas: how to confront the imminent threat from the Sunni extremists, how to foster Iraqi security forces over the short and long term, and how to pressure Iraqi leaders into more inclusive governance.

While the president is considering military action as a tool toward those efforts, the deployment of troops to Iraq remains off the table.

The U.S. also began flying manned F-18 surveillance flights over militant-controlled areas, according to Fox News. The use of the attack warplanes suggests the U.S. is hardening its posture against the militants, and the patrols could help identify suitable targets for eventual airstrikes

Read more: Source



peace,

AB


+2 more 
posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   
HA HA HA HA ... The reason Republicans were so sure Saddam had WMD is because they sold them to him .....I remember Rummy going to Baghdad and beg Saddam to stop killing his own people ....... I see the US has not learned anything about supplying arms to radicals ... but in my opinion The US is the worlds largest supporter of terrorists ....



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Just a reminder to all of those who are saying that Iraq never had WMD's.

Ask the Kurds.

(just sayin')


Then they can go ask the Syrians.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Accidental post..sorry

edit on PM4Thu20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
So let me get this straight. We've been in Iraq for over 10 years. and not just us, British and other UN troops. And not just troops but specialists and investigators and Chemical Weapons inspectors etc etc etc. And not once, in those 10 years did anyone find any Chemical Weapons? LOL Really?

Editing to add, that there has been a huge, like 10 year running argument whether Iraq ever had any chemical weapons in the first place, despite all kinds of evidence that they used it on their own people.

Next thought, is that in those ten years, if we did find Chemical Weapons, we would just leave them sitting around in stockpiles? That is retarded.
edit on 19-6-2014 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: andy1972

If anyone has WMD's it's the U.S.

Just look at the fluoride in the American water supply. And forced GMO's in our food.

Obama has finished his come from behind by a mile speech on tv. He said nothing about WMD's.

Des



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: beezzer
Just a reminder to all of those who are saying that Iraq never had WMD's.

Ask the Kurds.

(just sayin')


Then they can go ask the Syrians.



Then they can ask Rumsfeld for some more...



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: andy1972

Your link doesn't work?? Darn. I wanted to read it...

Hope you can get it fixed! Thanks!!

- AB



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: fnpmitchreturns
HA HA HA HA ... The reason Republicans were so sure Saddam had WMD is because they sold them to him .....I remember Rummy going to Baghdad and beg Saddam to stop killing his own people ....... I see the US has not learned anything about supplying arms to radicals ... but in my opinion The US is the worlds largest supporter of terrorists ....


Leaving quite a bit of historical facts out of that comment like :



Wikipedia's article on Iraq's WMDs gives a good rundown of the international contributions:

All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin.
Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French.
About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil.
The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales.
Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.
The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq.
Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions.
India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses.
Luxemburg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors.
Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales.
China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare
.


jarrarsupariver.blogspot.com...

Back to worshiping at the alter of demagoguery.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Washington—Sunni extremists in Iraq have occupied what was once Saddam Hussein's premier chemical-weapons production facility, a complex that still contains a stockpile of old weapons, State Department and other U.S. government officials said.
WSJ

Too damn funny.

On the bright side:

U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.


I'm a little curious as to why dealing with leftover chemical weapon components wasn't on the list of things to deal with in all the years the US wasted over there. Was the plan to just forget about them?


The group, multiple officials said, would find the weapons militarily useless even if they were to get access to the sealed bunkers where they are stored. Officials said the group hasn't yet gained access to those bunkers.

"The only people who would likely be harmed by these chemical materials would be the people who tried to use or move them," said a military official.


Sounds an awful lot like the talking points in countries with gun bans regarding homemade guns. They're junky and old and they'll just hurt the user. Meanwhile sub-machinegun factories in basements pump out commercial grade Mac11's and drivebys and shootings become more and more frequent. But don't worry, they're junky and will just hurt the user. Or a parent trying to convince their kid they wont like chocolate. I swear it's nasty, you don't want any.



Officers in Hussein's army have also taken leadership roles in the rebellion. Some of those men may have some working knowledge of the use of chemical weapons from the Iran-Iraq war.
Oooops.
edit on 19-6-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy1972

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: beezzer
Just a reminder to all of those who are saying that Iraq never had WMD's.

Ask the Kurds.

(just sayin')


Then they can go ask the Syrians.



Then they can ask Rumsfeld for some more...


Then they can go ask the people listed in this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

We know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction at one time, the US supplied them to him and then condemned him for using them. Even more ironic considering the fact that the US is the only nation in the world to have ever used nuclear weapons as well as chemical weapons (Agent Orange and Napalm in Vietnam) and those against civilian populations: men, women and children.

And yes most Democrats did support Bush prior to the 2003 invasion (not defending Democrats) but clearly all of America was lied to.
  • The "intelligence Dossier" was actually plagiarized from a term paper written by Ibrahim al-Marashi, a student at the time.
  • The claim about Iraq trying to obtain "yellow cake" from Niger was a lie.
  • The "mobile weapons lab" information presented in the speech given by Powell at the UN was a lie.
  • The Downing Street memos revealed the US was intentionally lying about Iraq in order to justify the attack.
  • Using a propaganda technique attributed to Joseph Goebbels, the Bush Cartel simply brain washed the American people by repeating their lies over and over and over.
And we being somewhat easily programmable, believed it:

Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link.


The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.

So yes, most representatives (not Ron Paul) voted for the attack trusting that our government could never be evil enough to lie the United States into a pre-emptive attack/invasion resulting in the deaths of countless people.


edit on 19-6-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: andy1972

Your link doesn't work?? Darn. I wanted to read it...

Hope you can get it fixed! Thanks!!

- AB



Try this .. Rumsfeld sold chemical weapons to Iraq..



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
never mind that the first Gulf war was caused by Kuwait drilling into Iraqi oil fields ... Saddam spoke the truth and Kuwait didn't stop so he invaded them ..... The US knew Kuwait was drilling into Iraq... and who sold the technology to Kuwait? Halliburton of course ......

the first Gulf War was illegitimate and so was all the crap to follow ...

but never mind reality and the fact the entire war was based on a lie that the US claimed that Kuwait was NOT slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields .......

reply to: AboveBoard



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Destinyone

Hey Des!

I really don't think the current situation (or the original 2002 war) has anything to do with Chemical Weapons...I doubt they would go there. I think it has to do with whether or not the oil refinery is going to be in Iraqi or in Militant hands... Ah... Sweet sweet oil...

peace,

AB



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy1972

originally posted by: beezzer
Just a reminder to all of those who are saying that Iraq never had WMD's.

Ask the Kurds.

(just sayin')

Who can deny iraq had CW's..DONALD RUMSFELD SOLD IRAQ CHEMICAL WEAPONS


A lot of people sold IRaq chemical weapons see the sourced material.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Now the question is why did Bush and his cronies not destroy these chemical plants before he signed the paperwork that made us cut and run from Iraq?


Because they were never there, as declared by every Progressive............after they agreed that there was WMDs.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I don't see why it is so hard to believe Saddam had WMDs.

I don't get it.



new topics

top topics



 
74
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join