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.

 

George Bush... How does he get away with it??????

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 02:41 PM
link   
What has come to the surface is that many people dislike this country and do everything in there power to make it look bad.

The idea that Saddam Hussein hid the weapons and because of that they have not been found is not an unreasonable consideration. Still we have some going around claiming because he said he did not have them so today we should accept this as fact and turn on the US.

To believe that Saddam Hussein did not have the capacity to hide those weapons in a place which is unrelated to anything the US considered a site where they could have been. Does not take into consideration he had access to intelligence which allowed him to know where we would be looking. When looking at the whole process that we have been exposed to that does seem unrealistic.

What then becomes a pertinent matter is then what would it take to determine within the boarders of Iraq all potential places such a stockpile could be placed and how long will it take to check each and every location.

How long since GW1 has the UN been insisting that Saddam Hussein had WMD?

For how long did they complain that something needed to be done about it.

When it was decided that yes we need to deal with it
what happened?

Oh no there are no weapons its all a mistake and meanwhile the US has suffered
its worst attack in its History since W.W.II by forces which support suicide bombing.

Now who were the most outspoken supporters of suicide bombing, who had the means to perpetrate this act (a very important question)?

Whoever they were, they were going down and for anyone who did not like it for whatever reason they saw fit to use as an excuse. Most Americans will be more than
happy to say "so what".

To be certain the next time someone decides to grab some planes and use them the way they were used on 9/11 we will do the same thing.

For those who seriously believe that the population of this country (taking into consideration how long the UN had been complaining about WMD in Iraq), would accept the UN's conclusions. After they had been there for several months, you have got to be kidding. It was apparent the UN had something to hide boy did they.

If someone is to blame for any of this its the UN after all they were there for many, many years. Claimed for all those years the WMD were in fact there and when the shoot hit the fan they recanted (you know what would have been in reality an impeachable offense, not attacking Iraq).

[Edited on 17-6-2003 by Toltec]



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Killuminati

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by Killuminati


Originally posted by astrocreep

"Chief inspector Hans Blix reported to Security Council members that Iraq had failed to account for 1,000 tons of chemical agent, 6,500 chemical bombs, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent and 380 rocket engines useful in the delivery of biological and chemical agents."





It is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for, espically on the basis of war and peace



It was the responsibility of Iraq to account for all these. We know they existed before and there was no proof of destruction and no account for where they are so if we assume one way or another in this, do we assume they didn't exist even though we saw them stockpiled and we saw them used and we were witness to their power merely on the word of the Iraqi information minister? I remind you of their truthfulness during the war. I say your reaching, really reaching for no more a justified reason than politics.


Iraq was going to show a report on destroyed anthrax....its a shame that we attacked before they could show this proof to us

Its not like it would of changed Bushes mind
HE WAS GOING TO ATTACK REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING



Okay then, your trusting Saddam. My words are wasted. You wouldn't acknowledge their existence if someone slipped one in your back pocket. Your purely politics.



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Iraq accounting system:

Chief inspector Hans Blix reported to Security Council members that Iraq had failed to account for 1,000 tons of chemical agent, 6,500 chemical bombs, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent and 380 rocket engines useful in the delivery of biological and chemical agents

US accounting system

One trillion US dollars (US$1,000,000,000,000) unaccounted for by Pentagon. US economy in tatters.

Incidentally, what's the value of the missing/destroyed/re-exported WMDs listed above?

Priorities?



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 08:23 PM
link   
MA what exactly are you trying to say?



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Looking at the scale and localisation of problem categories using US$ as an objective measure to determine priorities.

Where to invest in solutions?

This administration takes a cynical short term politically expedient view.



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 08:41 PM
link   
I try to avoid the political stuff here...

...But a bigger question is "Why isn't the European Media reporting all the mass graves US forces have been finding?"

WMDs were just part of the reason for the Iraq invasion... there were a couble of dozen UN mandates that went with that...

Personally, I think the WMD issue is just being drummed up by a lot of people who realize that they... lost. They're missing the larger point, which is that a brutal dictator, who has killed, and was killing, hundreds of thousands of people has been toppled, that a rogue state, potentially a home to various types of terrorists, has been defeated, and that there will be a new democratic state in the middle east.

An objective observer would see life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as having been won by the war....

..whereas most democrats will just march on towards their destruction in 2004 with their sour-grapes, on the rope naysaying loser-isms.

Jim

PS Someone HAD to say that around here. For all the Dems out there, you need someone to goad you on this site from time to time



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Originally posted by Byrd
My sarcastic, unkind, before-the-first-cuppa-coffee response is "because he's 'doing' the American public... not White House interns."

Actually, I did hear that same question raised on NPR this morning.


You'd better go ahead and have your cup of coffee and think back to the days when Bubba did more than just interns. You democrats are so fixated on sex that you think that's all it was about.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

actually 'dubya' is a Texas pawn [not to be confused with prawn, which is a delicacy] he is a mere insrtument. his only reason for wanting to destroy Iraq and kill Sadam was because Sadam tried to kill his daddy [big case of penis envy]
I am not a democrat, however I feel sorry for Laura, considering 'dubya' has a hard on for Saddam and not her.
the more I think about it, he has got to be the dumbest fall guy we have ever had as president. at least his father and LBJ came across well on TV

lol

tut tut



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 08:45 PM
link   
As far as deviations in military spending that is usually related to top secret technology developments and projects. An even trillion could have gone to a space shuttle program we know nothing about or a nuclear defense strategy which uses mini-nukes against ICBM's (just to name a few).

Back in the 70's they used to talk about $100 hammers and $250 toilets until it became an embarrassment to even bring it up, now they just call it a mistake
and everyone smiles about it.

Looking at the time table the conclusion that those weapons came from the Russian black market makes sense. Furthermore, I have every reason to believe that in fact that was the case.



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 08:50 PM
link   
PS: Scott Ritter was arrested for soliciting 14 year old girls.... So, should he be believed when he says Iraq had no WMDs? Should he be believed when you realize that the Iraqis probably blackmailed him (evidently, he had a habit of such indiscretions).

I wonder if Uday (you know, that brutal rapist dude the BBC wishes was still in power) gave him some girls to play with every time he was 'inspecting' Iraq?



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok


Clinton certainly was no angel...and no, I'm not talking sex. The Clintons are connected with more mysterious deaths, and dirty deeds than I care to count (I'd run out of digits).

But, as republican as I usually tend to be...I still think GW is a boob....


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

your republican GW is associated with many more deaths. more than the Clinton politicos that were silenced for money and were probably guilty anyway.
he is responsible for the death of American boys that are still dying as we 'chat' for ideals that no longer have a base in reality
would you kindly define 'evil' for me?

TUT



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Evil is when, because of what you have just said someone breaks into your home arrests you rapes
your wife, your children and you. Then tortures all concerned to death and buries them in an unmarked grave with several thousand others who made the same statements as just you did.

Afterwards they get themselves a beer and watch what they did on video while discussing the old days when it was actually a full time job.

nuff said......



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by Peace

Originally posted by astrocreep

Originally posted by Peace
they have even seen the mobile biological weapons labs used to concoct deadly virus' (which turn out to be harmless weather baloon labs).



Now I have to wonder what the hell weather baloon labs were doing buried in the desert? I don't think we're getting the full story about whats been found and I can't figure out why. Bush and Blair are both taking a hell of alot of heat over this. I reserve judgement until I see the entire picture. Saddam might have been closer than anyone thinks and we might have goofed and let those weapons get out of there. In our blind rage to get Bush out of there, I'd hate to think we'd ignore the painfully obvious...or the guy in the mall with a ticking backpack.




You don't understand, the weapons inspectors ridded Iraq of WMD, some of the inspection team even came out and said so (Scott Ritter). Iraq was stripped of all necessary components for developing weapons of mass destruction, that is why all the focus was on the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and these were clearly non existant or they would have been found, anyone who thinks Saddam Hussein is driving around the middle east with 300, 000 litres of anthrax in the back of his jeep needs a reality check. The weapons were destroyed years ago.


"Chief inspector Hans Blix reported to Security Council members that Iraq had failed to account for 1,000 tons of chemical agent, 6,500 chemical bombs, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent and 380 rocket engines useful in the delivery of biological and chemical agents."


www.worldnetdaily.com...


Oh its checked...make no mistake about that. Reality is my game, baby.



edit to add this little tidbit for those who have better things to do than chasing my links....

"While blasting Iraq today for not "genuinely" accepting disarmament and hinting that undeclared chemical warheads recently found in a bunker southwest of Baghdad may be the "tip of the submerged iceberg," the duo in charge of U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq asked for more time to do their work.

Reporting on the progress of the inspection process over the past 60 days, U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix told members of the U.N. Security Council today that he was encouraged by Iraq's cooperation in providing access to inspectors.

But his praise was muted by a blistering summation of Iraq's overall cooperation.

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it," Blix declared.




[Edited on 17-6-2003 by astrocreep]



"La Monde: You don't think you should have said more forcefully that Iraq perhaps didn't have any weapons of mass destruction?

Blix: But we never stopped saying it! We said that we had no proof of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but that we did have numerous proofs of the existence of unresolved questions."



Because they existed in the past doesn't mean they haven't alrteady been destroyed does it? clearly not, as the US special teams haven't been able to find any of them either, reality is my game too baby and if you think the reason for invading Iraq was Anthrax/VX/nukes, you need to check that against reality, black gold was the reason for the WAR, Saddam is a wan*er and i am glad he is no longer in Baghdad, but i don't like the way my government (Blair) used the intelligence at their disposal, they were selective with what they presented.


"General Hussein Kumal, Saddam's son in law, defected to the west in 1995. He formaly ran Iraq's WMD programme and exposed these programmes to the weapons inspectors. He was later tempted back to Iraq and assassinated.
In an extaordinary scoop, John Barry in Newsweek got hold of a copy of the transcript of Kamal's interview with the weapons inspectors this january - including the revelation that Kamal claimed the chemical and biological agents had in fact been destroyed. As Kamal's revelations about Iraq's past wmd programme are central to all claims about Saddam's arsenal - his evidence informs every dossier, his name is still cited by Jack Straw - this was a major story. The Guardian, Independent and Mirror slowly gave space to the story (long after newsweek published it in the UK). But the more credulous Times, Telegraph, Mail and Express have yet to let their readers know that Iraq's top defector actually told the west there were no remaining stocks of WMD."

^This is copied out of the latest Private Eye, as is this:

"More on the canvas-sided Iraqi military trailers George W Bush and Tony Blair insist were mobile germ labs, but which expert opinion believes were more likely to have carried equipment to generate hydrogen for the inflation of weather balloons.
The balloons were used by the Iraqi artillery to help with targeting and even the CIA has now admitted that the balloons explanation is a "plausable cover story".
Coalition forces know the Iraqi army used hydrogen weather balloons because Britain sold Saddam Hussein artillery weather balloon kit in 1987 - the �10m "AMETS" system from Marconi - and the sale was covered by the UK's export credit guarantee department (ECGD).
AMETS - aka the Artillery Meteorological System - comprises weather balloons and radar devices and is housed in trucks and a trailer. Funnily enough the British government had to use it's own "plausable cover story" to ensure the sale went ahead.
When the deal was proposed, the ECGD had used up it's military budget; so the ministry of defence reclassified the contract as civilian, pretending that AMETS was to be used by harmless Iraqi weather forecasters.
PS: When Saddam defaulted on the deal, British taxpayers wrote marconi a check for �8.2m"

You see, we know they aren't germ labs because not only did we sell them to Saddam but we (the UK taxpayers) paid for them once Saddam turned into a bad guy and told us we wouldn't get any of the payment.

Isn't reality wonderful




posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 06:54 AM
link   
yeah, Saddam really was an angel to deal with wasn't he. Sorry you all got shafted on the baloons and thanks for finding the info. I really wondered about what he really wanted baloons for anyway. I'm shocked beyond belief that it was a military program.


Still, this guy who can't be trusted to pay his depts and is guilty of so many atrocities, is the guy of whom you believe when he says he wasn't making WMDs. I know you really are just wnating a political tool against the US and thats fine. My point is, we can't all look the other way and really believe there are no WMDs and never were. Fine, drag Bush through the mud over it but we can't justify this dangerous premise for political gains. We've all been witness to Saddam's actions. Do you really believe he had no weapons? Aren't you the least bit concerned that the UK might be a target as well as the US?



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
yeah, Saddam really was an angel to deal with wasn't he. Sorry you all got shafted on the baloons and thanks for finding the info. I really wondered about what he really wanted baloons for anyway. I'm shocked beyond belief that it was a military program.


Still, this guy who can't be trusted to pay his depts and is guilty of so many atrocities, is the guy of whom you believe when he says he wasn't making WMDs. I know you really are just wnating a political tool against the US and thats fine. My point is, we can't all look the other way and really believe there are no WMDs and never were. Fine, drag Bush through the mud over it but we can't justify this dangerous premise for political gains. We've all been witness to Saddam's actions. Do you really believe he had no weapons? Aren't you the least bit concerned that the UK might be a target as well as the US?


Sorry matey but those trucks are all the evidence your boys have uncovered so far, and it turns out to be bullsh*t, may seem trivial, but in serious matters like these evidence needs to be accurate.

Saddam Hussein was a creation of the CIA, the CIA has made a mess of almost every part of the world that they have stuck their dirty little noses. I would have welcomed getting rid of Saddam, perhaps the time to get rid of him would have been 1991, thats what i think, if you wanted to take him out, 1991 was the best time, it would have saved 100,000's of lives, Madeline Albright admitted that she thought the price of 500,000 deaths was a worthy price.
Instead of taking Baghdad in 1991, the International community decided to starve the state into submission, that didn't work completely, but it made Saddam weak enough to remove easily.
I know Saddam wasn't a threat to this country, to the best of my knowledge, his weapons of mass destruction are ficticious, the weapons inspectors destroyed his arsenal. Of course i worry that we will be attacked, but i don't think Saddam Hussein was a threat, he wishes he was.
My point is, you don't start a war on the basis of lies, if the case had been made solely on the basis of facts i would have probably supported the war. I don't like being lied to, and i believe our government and the US government will try and trick us into war again and i don't intend to allow myself to be fooled.



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 07:30 AM
link   
What atrocities is Saddam guilty of that the US/Israel also hasn't done?



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by onlyinmydreams
I try to avoid the political stuff here...

...But a bigger question is "Why isn't the European Media reporting all the mass graves US forces have been finding?"

WMDs were just part of the reason for the Iraq invasion... there were a couble of dozen UN mandates that went with that...

Personally, I think the WMD issue is just being drummed up by a lot of people who realize that they... lost. They're missing the larger point, which is that a brutal dictator, who has killed, and was killing, hundreds of thousands of people has been toppled, that a rogue state, potentially a home to various types of terrorists, has been defeated, and that there will be a new democratic state in the middle east.

An objective observer would see life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as having been won by the war....

..whereas most democrats will just march on towards their destruction in 2004 with their sour-grapes, on the rope naysaying loser-isms.

Jim

PS Someone HAD to say that around here. For all the Dems out there, you need someone to goad you on this site from time to time


With regards to point number one, here are some links of the British media reporting mass graves. Hope there's enough of the for u...

LINK ONE

LINK TWO

LINK THREE

LINK FOUR

LINK FIVE

LINK SIX

I could carry on but I can't be assed...

And with regards to point number two - about people like me missing the bigger picture - let me tell you something.

Do you think I have been sitting in a cave with my fingers in my ears and my eyes closed for the last ten years?

EVERYONE KNOWS that Saddam was an evil dictator and no one is challenging that, no one is saying he was not, EVERYONE knows what he did, EVERYONE! GET IT!?

So I therefore have to sit down and weigh up Saddam's evilness, with American Imperial aggression, support for Israel and general need for a perpetual war...

and I think to myself...

maybe they are BOTH WRONG...

But I shouldn't have to mention Saddam's regime BECAUSE EVERYONE #ING KNOWS ALREADY!

So I might concentrate on highlighting the finer points of America's slow but perpetual quest to form a New World Order instead... seeing as this is a conspiracy website.



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 09:52 AM
link   
The idea of impeaching the guy is absolutely moronic, about as moronic as Hussein having mobile weather balloon (I'm sorry- baloon
) labs.

Sure, the weapons labs are designed to have duel purpose so that they can always claim to be doing something else.

And we all know how important it is to keep those "baloon" labs mobile and away from the prying eyes of the West!


Build the ability to create your concoctions and whenever the sanctions are lifted and you have the means, build them until your heart is quite content.
That is the least of Hussein's violation.

Still, Bush had better cough up more evidence that coincides with the rallying cry before the war! I don't care if I do tend to like him, right is right.



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 11:25 AM
link   


But I shouldn't have to mention Saddam's regime BECAUSE EVERYONE f-ing KNOWS ALREADY!




EVERYONE KNOWS that Saddam was an evil dictator and no one is challenging that, no one is saying he was not, EVERYONE knows what he did, EVERYONE! GET IT!?


Its not just about Saddam Hussein's Regime which something you can't seem to get through your thick scull.

If it had been, then there would have been no way he could have gotten away with it. How did he get away with it is the issue.

He had to have help from some aspect of the world community that was actually responsible for making sure he could not.

And to be certain it had nothing to do with the US as for the last 10 years we were not in Iraq.

My advice is that you wake up


[Edited on 18-6-2003 by Toltec]



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peace

Originally posted by astrocreep
yeah, Saddam really was an angel to deal with wasn't he. Sorry you all got shafted on the baloons and thanks for finding the info. I really wondered about what he really wanted baloons for anyway. I'm shocked beyond belief that it was a military program.


Still, this guy who can't be trusted to pay his depts and is guilty of so many atrocities, is the guy of whom you believe when he says he wasn't making WMDs. I know you really are just wnating a political tool against the US and thats fine. My point is, we can't all look the other way and really believe there are no WMDs and never were. Fine, drag Bush through the mud over it but we can't justify this dangerous premise for political gains. We've all been witness to Saddam's actions. Do you really believe he had no weapons? Aren't you the least bit concerned that the UK might be a target as well as the US?


Sorry matey but those trucks are all the evidence your boys have uncovered so far, and it turns out to be bullsh*t, may seem trivial, but in serious matters like these evidence needs to be accurate.

Saddam Hussein was a creation of the CIA, the CIA has made a mess of almost every part of the world that they have stuck their dirty little noses. I would have welcomed getting rid of Saddam, perhaps the time to get rid of him would have been 1991, thats what i think, if you wanted to take him out, 1991 was the best time, it would have saved 100,000's of lives, Madeline Albright admitted that she thought the price of 500,000 deaths was a worthy price.
Instead of taking Baghdad in 1991, the International community decided to starve the state into submission, that didn't work completely, but it made Saddam weak enough to remove easily.
I know Saddam wasn't a threat to this country, to the best of my knowledge, his weapons of mass destruction are ficticious, the weapons inspectors destroyed his arsenal. Of course i worry that we will be attacked, but i don't think Saddam Hussein was a threat, he wishes he was.
My point is, you don't start a war on the basis of lies, if the case had been made solely on the basis of facts i would have probably supported the war. I don't like being lied to, and i believe our government and the US government will try and trick us into war again and i don't intend to allow myself to be fooled.





Okay then , you're right 100% and I'm wrong 100%. It seems thats the only outcome you will accept. It seems to me I've delt with such mentality before. Hmmm. Wonder if you might be a reincarnate?


I will admit that there is a chance that there might not be WMDs but when asked if you would admit there is a chance there might be...all I get is "sorry matey" Well, okay then. I'm glad you aren't in charge of my security...and thats really what it boils down to isn't it? For all our sakes, I'm hoping you're right because if there is the least chance you're wrong, we're all in danger from a thousand different directions. "It can't happen" you say. I remember a time when people told me terrorist couldn't touch the US. They had the same resolve and faith in their appeasment ideas then as you do now. I'm not buying that anymore. the real fact that burns you is this the fact that regardless of your narrow minded opinion, business was taken care of. you can't turn back the clock and put Saddam back in power and you have about as much a chance of removing Bush as I do of dating Heidi Klum. Yeah, you got it all figured out for yourself but nobody cares. We're tired of being passive...and it shows.



posted on Jun, 18 2003 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toltec

Its not just about Saddam Hussein's Regime which something you can't seem to get through your thick scull.

If it had been, then there would have been no way he could have gotten away with it. How did he get away with it is the issue.

He had to have help from some aspect of the world community that was actually responsible for making sure he could not.

And to be certain it had nothing to do with the US as for the last 10 years we were not in Iraq.

My advice is that you wake up


[Edited on 18-6-2003 by Toltec]


Hey # you man, that was way out of order. And I'd say that sanctions had far more to do with his success than some mysterious foreign power, but I guess that's your view, I have mine...

SADDAM TRIED TO INVADE A COUNTRY! HIS BRUTALITY WAS WELL KNOWN BEFORE THE WAR AND THE US DID NOTHING UNTIL IT HAD THE 9/11 EXCUSE TO GALAVANT ACROSS THE MIDDLE EAST "LIBERATING" COUNTRIES.

Don't try to impose what you think upon me, and don't say I have a thick skull, cuz I just might intellectually head butt you with it.







 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join