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.

 

Theoretical question here....

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I want people to think about this, and not just say "that won't happen" or whatever...but here's the question:

What if we were to find absolute evidence that Sadam DID have WMD's. Say if we found some buried in the desert, or found a paper trail showing they were shipped to Syria, or something similar?

What would your reaction be? Would your perception of our current administration change at all?

Again, this is just theoretical, and purely out of my own curiosity.




posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
What would your reaction be? Would your perception of our current administration change at all?


It might but then again you have to look at everything this Administration has done since the beginning. One thing might not change people's minds.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   
I personally dont think anyones views would change, In all honesty the next step people would start to take would be to say the American goverment planted WMD to find. The expectations were so high to rush into this war to obtain these weapons that when none were found it took a completely diffrent spin and people lost faith in what the actually intention of the war was. Regardless to finding them now or later would probably make no diffrence within the minds of people who have already placed blame on an action that turned out empty handed.

just my thoughts....



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   
thanks for the replies. keep 'em comin'.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
This is a very good question.

The funny thing is, I used to support Bush. It was the "lack" of WMD that got me on the path to not liking him. But at this point, my eye's have been opened up so widely to all the other things and failures I dont think finding the coveted WMD could change me back. Isnt that ironic? The very "lie" that led me astray turns out to be the only thing that was truthfull!!

Yeah, I would feel a little better about being there at all, but my overall opinion of the admin. wouldnt change too much.

Very very good question

I think another question that stems from this would be: What would the world think, non US? If it was proved beyond any doubt that they werent planted? Thats something that would be interesting.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by skippytjc]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I'd have to go with no. While the war in Iraq is probable the thing that the Bush Admin will be remembered for the most, it is by no means the only thing the administration has done. Some have been good (c'mon I'm a lib and even I say there has to be at least one good thing that's been done, I just can't think of it off the top of my head), some have been mediocre, some have been (at least in my opinion) downright bad.

If the general public's perception of the amdministration is going to be based off one decision then the world had better look out, nobody will be able to make the correct decisions all the time.

[edit on 2-12-2004 by dragn]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 02:59 PM
link   
If your theoretical scenerio were to include indisputable evidence of not only the ownership of such WMD's, but the means and plans to use them against the US, then, yes...I'd have to say that if we were to find out that the invasion of Iraq kept a nuclear attack from being launched, I'd have a much less harsh view of this administration.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I'd just like to point out that Bush did not lie about WMD's, he was mis-informed, not only by our own CIA, but by incorrect information from allies as well.

Also, perhaps I should have rephrased my questions a bit better...I guess I'm looking more at how your view of the war on Iraq would be viewed, not so much how the administration as a whole is viewed. My bad, but again, thanks everyone for the responses!



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Jaruseleh,

We dont dont that he didnt lie. Thats an opinion that he didnt lie, just like its my opinion he did lie.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Well He did have Chemical weapons, as we know from history with him and the Kurds. So no it would not change my mind of my perception of this admin. We know for an absolute fact that North Korea has, and Iran is closer to having Nuclear weapons, yet we are not there. Something has to give.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Jaruseleh,

We dont dont that he didnt lie. Thats an opinion that he didnt lie, just like its my opinion he did lie.


I just don't understand how people can say Bush lied. When you're told "they definately have WMD's" by the head of your CIA, you listen. That's what they're there for. Even John Kerry (among many many other democrats) believed he had them. I just can't see pinning it all on Bush saying HE lied. He's human, he made a mistake...albeit a very costly one. But I don't think it was intentional...I don't think he lied to us. He just made the wrong decision based on falty information given to him.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Even if they find something by chance, the administration lied in order to start a war, which is jeopardizing national and world security, and amounts to treason. The claims about the mushroom clouds, the WMD, the aluminuim tubes, the yellowcake, the mobile biological weapons labs, and the 45 minutes claims were all either outright inventions, based on forgeries, or based on photocopies from magazines. BTW, does anyone know what happened to the FBI investigation about the forgeries ?

[edit on 2-12-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
I'd just like to point out that Bush did not lie about WMD's, he was mis-informed, not only by our own CIA, but by incorrect information from allies as well.


That's a matter of interpretation. What appears to me to have happened is a combination of the administration pressuring the intelligence community to come up with the evidence they wanted, and a systematic reading of that evidence in the strongest possible way.




Also, perhaps I should have rephrased my questions a bit better...I guess I'm looking more at how your view of the war on Iraq would be viewed, not so much how the administration as a whole is viewed. My bad, but again, thanks everyone for the responses!


If we were to find a substantial stockpile of viable, deliverable biological or chemical agents (and no, a of jar of potassium cyanide and instructions on how to make cyanic blood agents doesn't qualify) or evidence of a far advanced nuclear weapons program, then I would change my opinion on the validity of the decision to invade Iraq. It would not change my opinion about the terrible mishandling of the post-invasion period.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:26 PM
link   
unfortunately, it doesn't matter anymore...the Iraq war has been so politicized - even if they found an underground missile silo with a nuke aimed at DC - it wouldn't change a thing

damn shame



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
No it wouldn't change my perceptions.

As far as I am concerned the war is justified because it removed Sadaam Hussein from power.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
No it wouldn't change my perceptions.

As far as I am concerned the war is justified because it removed Sadaam Hussein from power.


So why don't we remove Kim Il-Sung? He has the capability of doing more damage than Saddam did?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK

Originally posted by BlackJackal
No it wouldn't change my perceptions.

As far as I am concerned the war is justified because it removed Sadaam Hussein from power.


So why don't we remove Kim Il-Sung? He has the capability of doing more damage than Saddam did?


We're getting to that. Patience young grasshopper.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I think alot of people would just think it was planted there by the US since we been in that country for so long. Even though if they wanted to do that they could have done it months ago.

Or if we found they went to say Syria people would just say we are making it up to invade another country.

We should all know buy now the US can never do anything right in the eyes of most of the world



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
We're getting to that. Patience young grasshopper.


Could it be too late already? He has devolped and produced weapons already. Why did we allow this to happen. If we were to invade, most forces would be wiped out from the get go.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I would say: " Yup thats what I figured"

I mean he DID have them, he just got rd of them quicker than we thought he could or else he hid them very well. I dont have a solid answer as to why none have surfaced, but we do know he had um in GW1, and I cant see that he just dropped everything and got rid of them because the UN asked nicely.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join