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.

 

The CIA Just Declassified the Document That Supposedly Justified the Iraq Invasion

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Brotherman

Okay, so he talks a good game, so what? That justified war with Iraq? That justifies the hell hole Iraq has become and the new monster that is ISIS?

You supported and still support the decision to go to war? Are you a Bush fan and or Republican?




posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Brotherman

Okay, so he talks a good game, so what? That justified war with Iraq? That justifies the hell hole Iraq has become and the new monster that is ISIS?

You supported and still support the decision to go to war? Are you a Bush fan and or Republican?


I never said that, not once, I am only purveying what I read and what I think about it, I also never mentioned politics in an American partisanship context.




I do not justify war there but I will say that this whole mess is alot more then just throwing around cynical and ridiculous things like "war for oil" and it was about this or that

Page 3 of this thread




My opinion is I don't think Iraq was a threat but him selling those weapons off would be one, perhaps not enough for me to want a war


Page 2 of this thread

those are but 2 examples in this thread alone, I don't know how many other ones I put my opinion in but I am sure there is many. I feel as though I am entitled to them as a USMC veteran and as a free American citizen. You do not have to agree but please don't tell me what kind of politics I adhere to much less who or what I support.


edit on 20-3-2015 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2015 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Hang everyone in government is not on topic as to who perpetrated these crimes.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I again linked more current reports then what the inspectors had to say prior to 9-11 and those report heavily suggest and out right say yeah they have chemical weapons, thats all I am saying. I am also saying that you or I have no Idea the intentions of them weapons or Saddam post 9-11 except things he said. I am discussing tangible information, in this regard I think you are missing out completely because you have not looked through it. The information is there, if you give me a few minutes I will take the report in the op and I will post the reports sourced in the recently declassified report or at least the ones I have been able to locate so far. I will also add I am not 100% sure that the information is directly sourced but I am fairly certain and either way the info is 100% relevant.

from the op in the PDF page C01030196 they site UNSCOM
Link

Actually I sourced 3 links in an earlier post all were derived from section C. If you read them it gives you an Idea of the weapons they had or were creating. The point I am making is they had weapons. I am having problems opening so many tabs on my mobile at the moment.
edit on 20-3-2015 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: MrWendal




No, chemical weapons were used which also were supplied by the US and US companies back in the 80's when the US fully supported Iraq during the Iraqi- Iran war


He had the capability to create his own chemical weapons by 2000 and probably earlier as well those supplied in the 80s would have been inert by 2003.


Any country with any sort or credible industry could create chemical weapons.

The "ability to create chemical weapons" could be used as a excuse to take out any country that is not kept Pre Industrial.


I wouldn't disagree with you and this is a very insightful post, I didn't look at it like that bro.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Brotherman

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: MrWendal




No, chemical weapons were used which also were supplied by the US and US companies back in the 80's when the US fully supported Iraq during the Iraqi- Iran war


He had the capability to create his own chemical weapons by 2000 and probably earlier as well those supplied in the 80s would have been inert by 2003.


Any country with any sort or credible industry could create chemical weapons.

The "ability to create chemical weapons" could be used as a excuse to take out any country that is not kept Pre Industrial.


I wouldn't disagree with you and this is a very insightful post, I didn't look at it like that bro.


No worries.

Because I work with hazards chemicals and bio agents it give some insights.

If you strip back all the red tape and health safety its not too hard, which lets be honest a dictator would and you could produce a lot.

I believe Sarin is called the poor mans nukes.

A domestic terrorist group managed to make Sarin in Japan.

If they can do it a Dictator of a country with much more resources could even in a embargo as even though many precursors are banned you can circumnavigate them if you know how.

Something like Mustard gas? Any High school chemistry student could make that.

Really the issue is the delivery systems.

Our respective country although we have abandoned chemical weapons we could pump them out in large quantity in a week if we so wished.

Chemical weapons are nasty little SOB that can come out of nowhere.

edit on 20-3-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Hang everyone in government is not on topic as to who perpetrated these crimes.

No, but if you are going to get some criminals, why not be fair and get them all? Unless there is a reason to target only a segment of the people who are destroying this country. And I'd hate to think you were just choosing those whose crimes you dislike over the crimes of the entire group.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok


He effectively delivered them on the Kurds.

BTW: When a dictator has shown his willingness in the past to commit these kind of acts they will more than likely keep their word in the future.They have to be dealt with.

It might have taken 20 yrs,but saddam finally lost his head.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: crazyewok


He effectively delivered them on the Kurds.

BTW: When a dictator has shown his willingness in the past to commit these kind of acts they will more than likely keep their word in the future.They have to be dealt with.

It might have taken 20 yrs,but saddam finally lost his head.


Yes but that was in the 1990's.

The first gulf war effectively disarmed him.


By 2003 he had no WMD's. The ones he had used on the kurds were either destroyed or so far decayed they were useless.
He had not replaced them.

Sorry but the 2003 invasion was in my opinion was NOT justified.

By that point he had no viable WMD's and so the main selling point of the war was a lie.

Also lets take in to account delivery system.

Kurd Territory was in Iraq at the time. So delivery was easy.

The lie was that Saddam could deliver them outside Iraq,
edit on 20-3-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: crazyewok


He effectively delivered them on the Kurds.

BTW: When a dictator has shown his willingness in the past to commit these kind of acts they will more than likely keep their word in the future.They have to be dealt with.

It might have taken 20 yrs,but saddam finally lost his head.


Yes but that was in the 1990's.

The first gulf war effectively disarmed him.


By 2003 he had no WMD's. The ones he had used on the kurds were either destroyed or so far decayed they were useless.
He had not replaced them.

Sorry but the 2003 invasion was in my opinion was NOT justified.

By that point he had no viable WMD's and so the main selling point of the war was a lie.

Also lets take in to account delivery system.

Kurd Territory was in Iraq at the time. So delivery was easy.

The lie was that Saddam could deliver them outside Iraq,

When and where did Bush and party say that Saddam may use WMDs outside the general area? If I remember correctly, whatever the words were, I took it as he could turn over weapons to someone else that could take them to and use them elsewhere...and/or...via supporting terrorism, he could harm those of us outside Iraq.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Brotherman

Well that's good but it really looks like you're trying to make a case for the war In Iraq.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Hang everyone in government is not on topic as to who perpetrated these crimes.

No, but if you are going to get some criminals, why not be fair and get them all? Unless there is a reason to target only a segment of the people who are destroying this country. And I'd hate to think you were just choosing those whose crimes you dislike over the crimes of the entire group.


Your assumptions are incorrect. And once again, the discussion here is the declassified document that a particular set of criminals used as an excuse to get people killed as they filled their pockets with money. If they're heroes of yours, or if you fell for their fearmongering, warmongering lies, I'm sorry.

In addition, I would not, as you seem to want to do, paint the entire government with one broad brush.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: crazyewok


He effectively delivered them on the Kurds.

BTW: When a dictator has shown his willingness in the past to commit these kind of acts they will more than likely keep their word in the future.They have to be dealt with.

It might have taken 20 yrs,but saddam finally lost his head.


Yes but that was in the 1990's.

The first gulf war effectively disarmed him.


By 2003 he had no WMD's. The ones he had used on the kurds were either destroyed or so far decayed they were useless.
He had not replaced them.

Sorry but the 2003 invasion was in my opinion was NOT justified.

By that point he had no viable WMD's and so the main selling point of the war was a lie.

Also lets take in to account delivery system.

Kurd Territory was in Iraq at the time. So delivery was easy.

The lie was that Saddam could deliver them outside Iraq,

When and where did Bush and party say that Saddam may use WMDs outside the general area? If I remember correctly, whatever the words were, I took it as he could turn over weapons to someone else that could take them to and use them elsewhere...and/or...via supporting terrorism, he could harm those of us outside Iraq.


Blair made a pretty big point in 2003 on Iraq bring able to deploy WMD that could hit europe in 45 minutes.

Anyway that was irrelevent as he had not replaced his chemical stockpile from the 90s and so had no viable chemical weapons by 2003.

The war was sold to us in 2003 that he had viable weapons of WMD's that was a lie.

Iraq has not be improved either but we have made it a worse place.


End of the day if we were to have removed Saddam for the kurd attack we should have done it in 1991.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Brotherman

Well that's good but it really looks like you're trying to make a case for the war In Iraq.


This is not my intention, to play a bit of the Devils advocate, since this information is out there and they did have weapons and the intel was there back then why did they not produce it?



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Saddam didn't support terrorism, well at least not the terrorists that were a threat to national security. The only terrorism he supported was the terror he inflicted on his people and the nations he invaded. The lying politicians, see Bush, were the ones shouting that he supported terrorism.

www2.gwu.edu...


Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda.


www.intelligence.senate.gov...



Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support.



edit on 20-3-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Brotherman

Saddam had weapons that were given to him when he was allied with the west and even Russia. But because of his arrogance and violence he lost those ties. He was enemies with many Middle Eastern nations so I suppose the only weapons he could get his hands on were from the black market. His military was pathetic, as seen in the 2003 invasion. What he had was basically old weapons his former allies sold him or flat out gave him.

Iraq was never a threat to US national security.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: Aazadan

I again linked more current reports then what the inspectors had to say prior to 9-11 and those report heavily suggest and out right say yeah they have chemical weapons, thats all I am saying.


Yes, he did have chemical weapons, this is 100% fact. We found them in Iraq, we sold them to him in the past. It is an absolute certainty he had weapons. This is a very open ended description though. His weapons were aging, they had lost a lot of potency, and most importantly the weapon inspectors concluded that he wasn't producing NEW weapons. Every nation on earth has chemical weapons and Iraq is/was no different. What we didn't account for in our case, because it weakened the narrative is that he had no effective delivery systems, and his weapons weren't really all that potent. The weapon inspectors who tried to speak up about this were murdered by their governments (and then their deaths blamed on Iraq and used to further the war drums), and papers like what the CIA just declassified show that it was already a foregone conclusion we were going to go into Iraq. We were just cherry picking the information to make it look more damning than it was.


originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
When and where did Bush and party say that Saddam may use WMDs outside the general area? If I remember correctly, whatever the words were, I took it as he could turn over weapons to someone else that could take them to and use them elsewhere...and/or...via supporting terrorism, he could harm those of us outside Iraq.


How about the 2003 State of the Union?
articles.latimes.com...

Bush claimed Iraq had WMD's and were going to commit several 9/11 scale attacks against the US in an extremely short time frame. He said we needed to take preemptive action to invade Iraq in order to stop these attacks from happening.

Those were Bush's words. Here's some more from his administration
www.americanprogress.org...

Here's a few highlights
“Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

“Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It’s a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It’s a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

“Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness.”
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
edit on 20-3-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Don't forget Netanyahoo's nuclear bomb war mongering, what else is new?

Jon Stewart Blasts Benjamin Netanyahu Speech





posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 03:42 AM
link   
The Agency finally disclassified the assessment after 12 years.We already knew it was flimsy to begin with.A whole lotta maybes in this report of course we knew Saddam had these weapons we and our allies sold them to him.Trying to tie Iraq into the anthrax attacks is interesting trying to bolster the case?



posted on Mar, 21 2015 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapusta





Thirteen years ago, the intelligence community concluded in a 93-page classified document used to justify the invasion of Iraq that it lacked "specific information" on "many key aspects" of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.

But that's not what top Bush administration officials said during their campaign to sell the war to the American public. Those officials, citing the same classified document, asserted with no uncertainty that Iraq was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, concealing a vast chemical and biological weapons arsenal, and posing an immediate and grave threat to US national security.

Congress eventually concluded that the Bush administration had "overstated" its dire warnings about

The CIA Just Declassified the Document That Supposedly Justified the Iraq Invasion

Ill keep my Opinion short and simple .

They have had 13 years to make up a good story and bridge connections to Al-Qaeda ,Not to mention redacting any good info that could prove the story wrong .

I have not had a chance to read the PDF but i will,

you can Find it on the page linked for the Article .

Your thoughts ?




Great post! I followed the lead up to the Iraq war and beyond very closely. The CIA was publicly adamant prior to the Iraq invasion, that they had no corroborating evidence or reasonable assumptions that would illustrate the presence of WMDs there. All of the intelligence alleging the existence of WMDs and mobile chemical labs were fabricated by contractors hired through the White House. Much of the information came through an Iraqi business man, Ahmad Chalabi, who passed erroneous information about Iraqi WMDs from non-existent insiders. This information was then cooked and embellished by White House analysts to justify the invasion. The presidential cover story was that US intelligence failed in national security, which became the narrative that ultimately allowed the White House to use private analysts in the fabrication of false WMD intelligence.

The extent of the damages to US soldiers and their families, and as well millions of innocent war victims in Iraq, constitutes inexcusable deception and treason at the highest level of government. Pres. Bush was never been properly charged with treason or imprisoned for his war crimes against the American people and the Iraqi people.

This political failure ultimately shines a revealing light on the false narrative of terrorism and leadership which now grips the entire western world and the public heresy that America is a free nation embracing democratic principles and rule of law.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join