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.

 

What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
JR,
You are a very confused person. I was asking you to back up your speculation claims against djohnsto77, not me. You are on the hook to provide information to back up YOUR claim.


My reply was in thinking that you made the original post, seeing as you so quickly jumped in to defend those claims I assumed you made the originals (next time i'll look at the names more clearly
)anyway it matters not for what you are asking which can be just as easily answered.

In the two original claims that were made by 'djohnso77' he provided no evidence to sustain his views. The only evidence I have seen on these two points in my own search are from reports out of the bush adminitration and other sources relying on CIA or British intelligence (stuff we all saw on TV). Seeing as no WMD or programs for WMD's or diagrams for creating WMD have actually been found in Iraq (unless you want to provide me with evidence to contrdict this?), would these statements not then be considered baseless personal opinions? So I ask you what evidence should I have to supply to state that these original claims are 'speculation'?

"The CIA has finally admitted that its WMD estimates were wrong,"

spec·u·la·tion: 1. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture. 2. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence;

[edit on 2-2-2005 by Johnny Redburn]




posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
In Part: Tim Pierson Lt. Col. ,Marine Corps'
Note: In charge of 700 Marines spread throughout four countries. He is frequently traveling between the different countries, and carries a satellite phone with him at all times.


Pierson: We cannot give up on the Iraqi people
BRIEN T. BOYCE, Staff Writer
02/02/2005

Pierson said the morale with his Marines is high, and he strongly believes in the mission he was called to do.
"I have seen a change in the local Iraqi people," he said. "It will take time to reach the end state, but the Iraqi people are worth our sacrifice."
When Pierson arrived in Iraq in February 2004, he befriended several local Iraqis, who shared stories of their lives.
"What we in the states take for granted, the Iraqis were killed," Pierson said, and rehashed a story of one Iraqi, "Hassan."
"One gentleman, Hassan, told me that he was glad the U.S. had taken Saddam away. Now he could finally tell his wife and children what he did for a living. You see, if you told anyone what you did and they or your children misspoke, you were taken out and shot."
Hassan explained to Pierson why it was important for the Iraqis not to incur the wrath of Hussein.
"If Saddam got angry with a village over any issue, his way of dealing with it was to send in the soldiers and kill a bunch of people.
"Or, if he got angry with you, he'd have you executed."
It is because of the tyranny the Iraqis lived under, Pierson said, that Americans need to understand why their troops are there.
"We are giving the Iraqi people something we in the U.S. so often take for granted - freedom," he said. "We cannot give up on the Iraqi people. They are good people, with good hearts. We need to stay the course."
©Daily Nonpareil 2005



Part of the article, the other half was how he got into the service. This is a home town newspaper. If I would of provide a link, it was only be good for a day since they change stories daily.
It seams the regular people do not get asked what is meant by American troops being there for them. Sad that they are ignored but they could also be very reserved not to share with journalists, or any media because of their family well being. Sorry, to those who keep calling us Losers, Evil and the likes of other comments toward our nation. I do not hold any grugges. I do remember tho.

PolarBearExpress................Love heals.....................



[edit on 2-2-2005 by PolarBearExpress]

[edit on 2-2-2005 by PolarBearExpress]



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I have to wonder if whoever gets elected in Iraq is a NWO puppet....



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phaethor
It amazes me that here the elections have occured, admist all the fighting, and there is still no recognnition given to the fact that we are liberating them from a regime of fear. This is something that is pretty damn impressive, if you ask me.


How Impressed would you feel if another country or countries Declared the Bush Regime akin to world terror, came to the US. Destroyed your towns, homes, killed your women and children by the thousands arrrested Bush and forced a re-election? Would you feel liberated then?

I have said this before. WMD, associations with terrorist groups, responsible for 9/11, removing a dictator, etc. etc. etc. are all smoke and mirrors for attacking a country for their oil. Oppressed people ALL throught out history have risen up against their oppressors, have toppeled dictators, or created their own governing bodies. Heck the US did it in our own civil war.

You wouldn't want another country to come in and attack us and tell us how to run our country (and don't respond with "let them try! We'll nuke thier butts back to the stone age.") Why is it ok for us to do it to them?

The Iraqis are thrilled with what we've done for them!

Some are, some aren't. Thats why there are Iraqi Freedom fighters fighting UN and US trrops.

we don't seek a permission slip to kill the enemy

This sounds familiar... hmmmm. Oh yeah! Didn't Hitler say something like this?


Phae


Didn't Hitler also believe in gun control and was dead set against democracy? The enemy is terrorism and the vast majority of Iraqis aren't "Freedom Fighters". The election proved that most of the Iraqi people are on our side.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phaethor
I have said this before. WMD, associations with terrorist groups, responsible for 9/11, removing a dictator, etc. etc. etc. are all smoke and mirrors for attacking a country for their oil. Oppressed people ALL throught out history have risen up against their oppressors, have toppeled dictators, or created their own governing bodies. Heck the US did it in our own civil war.



We truely do not need to depend on oil supplies from overseas. The reason why is, we have many, many capped oil in the United States that not too many people know or care if they knew we had. So war on oil has been wore out idea. Sorry. Don't take what I said wrong.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   


Well CoolHand, are you gonna tell me that all that isn't speculation? Has it been proven to you? Help me open my eyes with your wisdom. Johnny Redburn is absolutely right. None of that crap would stand up in a court of law and you know it. It's easy for you and others to so blindly ride Dubya's bandwagon because you won't be called out by the majority. Unfortunately this behavior runs rampant here at ATS.

Peace


In the "court of law" public opinion and the wealthy are what matters most. Guilty people go free. Saddam had a chance to lay his cards out on the table and let inspectors have free reign. After 9/11 Bush was not going to risk the possibility of Saddam giving terrorists WMD technology or resources. Saddam had used the technology in the past and was a serious liability...far more than N. Korea or Iran. Evidence has been released connecting Saddam with Al Q....evidence that you conveniently choosen to ignore. What would happen if Saddam gave terrorists WMD technology to use in the U.S.? Afterall, we had him trapped in his own country. This was a serious risk liability that the Bush administration could not ignore...and rightfully so.

Mindless liberals can continue to act tough on messageboards and in the media but when a WMD is released in their hometown...they would be the first to cast blame on the administration for not doing anything to prevent it. Morons.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by fawlty
In the "court of law" public opinion and the wealthy are what matters most. Guilty people go free. Saddam had a chance to lay his cards out on
Mindless liberals can continue to act tough on messageboards and in the media but when a WMD is released in their hometown...they would be the first to cast blame on the administration for not doing anything to prevent it. Morons.


Fawlty, I salute you and may the seas be gently as you sail across her. I wish I said it.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Fair and balanced at last!

There is nothing wrong with political dissent. Unless of course it's against other members of your own ideology. That seems to be message these days. The idea that Bush can do anything right is completely off limits as far as many liberals are concerned. Apparently this guy is the exception.

Bottom line, Iraq is better off. Liberals can get a lot farther if they'd call it as they see it instead of wriggling around any idea that Bush could have succeeded. Just say it, "Bush has made more mistakes than we can count, but has succeeded inspite of himself". I for one would have no problem with that. Dissent is great- especially when it's a two-way street and a result of honesty at the expense of partisanship.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kosmo Yagkoto
The election proved that most of the Iraqi people are on our side.

No, it just proves that we're capable of fooling them into voting for puppets too. What choice do they really have? They know, if they don't vote, we'll just put whomever we want there anyway. At least this way, we're letting them choose between puppets, kind of like we do here in the US. Does it matter? Not really. Our system doesn't work very well either. What difference does it make if your choices are limited to people you wouldn't have chosen for the position in the first place?



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
The only thing I can say is one and only one good thing shines through in the Iraq fiasco and that is despite the methods that allowed it , Bush has either by coincidence or luck been able to pave the way for a somewhat by not overwhelming success in the issue of free voting, the remaining hickups and hold outs will join when they know the Iraqi people are working towards self interest and not to appease Bush and when that day comes when all Iraqi people vote without boycotts or threats then Bush will have one good total sucess which is mearly providing by incident free elections, and thats all I really like about the cituation and Mr Bush if asks me I will say I want nothing to do with you or your policies, however you did one good thing so maybe there is hope for more , thanks for giving those people the ability to vote, and thats all I have to say to the man.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It is well documented that he created WMD in the past, no one denies that. If he was able to do so in the past, it is only logical that they still had the knowledge to do so again with the proper materials.

Since he was never given the opportunity to try to make them again, nobody will ever know whether or not he would have actually done it, but it is educated speculation based on past behavior and testimony of defectors.


VIDEO LINKS:
• Colin Powell and Rice announces Iraq is no threat:
rds.yahoo.com...=96781308/K=colin+powell/v=2/SID=e/l=VDP/SIG=128ih2r1t/EXP=1107053312/*-http%3A//www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

• Colin Powell speech at the UN about the threat of Iraq:
rds.yahoo.com...=96781308/K=colin+powell/v=2/SID=e/l=VDP/SIG=12qsgc475/EXP=1107053437/*-http%3A//cspanrm.fplive.net:554/ramgen/cspan/idrive/iraq 020503_powell.rm

They are only months apart...

"How fortunate for leaders that the public does not think"
-- German chancellor (know to hate the Jews)



Sincerely

Cade



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Bush is NOT right all along. I clearly remeber his reasoning for going into Iraq was WMD. Well.................Im still waiting.................

And the Administration itself said they no longer planned on finding them. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Show me the WMD, and then Ill say, yeah. He was right then. Id like to be wrong on this.

Its so amusing how the conservatives I hear tap dance around this basic issue. They dodge the topic and start yapping about "freedom" and stopping Saddams "torture" and all that crap. They simply cannot face the core issue Bush sold everyone on Iraq: that it was a clear and immediate danger to our security.

So stop your yapping about the fraudulent elections as some sort of victory. Or that some how, Iraq is better than when Saddam was there.

Put your money where your mouths are and show me the WMD, or kindly shut up.

Thank you.




posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by PolarBearExpress
We truely do not need to depend on oil supplies from overseas. The reason why is, we have many, many capped oil in the United States that not too many people know or care if they knew we had. So war on oil has been wore out idea. Sorry. Don't take what I said wrong.


You obviously don't know too much about commodities. Reserve wise (oil available) we are not in the top ten. Saudi Arabia is first Iraq is second. We currently consume roughly 10 million barrels a day having less than 5% of the worlds population, we are of course the largest consumer who should of course control the largest conglomerate of oil - which we are attempting to do.

The peak of oil discovery came to fruition in the 60's now it's just a matter of dominating those who have the oil, politically or militarily. It's very economically simple and a matter of reality as who controls price indexing - the biggest oil holder. Our oil reserves (those we continue to buy) are the largest on the planet and who do you think we get the reserves from? We buy them of course. As of Feb 3 2005 strategic petro inventory is:

679.8 million bbls

And thats just strategic petro. You are thinking in terms of oil from American soil like texas or something? Think again this is no longer the beverly hillbillies. When you think of U.S. oil production - think global operations, not U.S. soil. You have to think of reserve capacity and next year indexing. The way our market works in commodity trading is price fluctuation is based on statistical data. In other words OPEC cuts production those in the trading pit sell, sell, sell. It's not based on actual reserves which we buy not produce. So he who holds the largest OIL CONTRACTS wins. If OPEC is not a factor in price indexing if we no longer need them then our commodity market is more regulated by our OWN power rather than a foreign soverign. It's simple politics and simple economics but as an average drone you're not supposed to think of such things go back to work.

Here is the interesting part. The U.S. is at a 50 year low of oil output - this is blamed on hurricane Ivan and is why department of energy sources say oil prices are so high - not true. The Gulf and Alaskan operations account for about 4 million barrels a day of oil. OPEC accounts for 30 million barrels a day. Need I say more? Also they have been cutting production to squeeze our cajolies to keep the prices high. They are getting all they can before we drop consumption from them and eat up Iraqi output. Capisce?

War always includes economics. Always has always will.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I'd also like to point out for those who only think in U.S. interests that Japan the third largest consumer in the world of oil (China is #2) at about 5 million bbl a day purchases about 80% of it's oil from OPEC - grudgingly. With Iraq's oil fields online who do you think Japan and China will be buying oil from? Halliburton distributors LOL.

Yes Halliburtoin Subsidiaries, I mean Iraqi corporations, are going to be very wealthy indeed. As soon as Iraqi Directors are driving bentley's our boys can come home. They need a trained army to protect those wells as the oil IS the economic platform of the entire nation. Construction for the civilian populous is a secondary objective. As soon as they are equipped to put down any rebellion that would effect oil production you will see our boys coming home. Thats the security talk you hear about. Does this mean the war wasn't fought to make Iraqi's free and that our boys and girls died in vain? Absolutely not. The Iraqi's got their freedom, the baker boys got their oil contracts, and the soldiers get their honor. The losers are the parents, the widowed mothers, and fathers, and children. It's a dirty world we live in and may God exact vengeance on those who toy with our citizens lives and the lives of others for their own personal or national agendas.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Bush is NOT right all along. I clearly remeber his reasoning for going into Iraq was WMD. Well.................Im still waiting.................

And the Administration itself said they no longer planned on finding them. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Show me the WMD, and then Ill say, yeah. He was right then. Id like to be wrong on this.




You are not going to see them as I have said in many threads this is never going to change. He is reelected and on his last terms so now that the final investigation report has been made that no WMD where or are going to be found an that report is official and public the Bush admin has concieded they where wrong and they dont care if we know it. You will never hear anymore on this from them other than quotes of the official report there are or will not be found WMD's and what ever excuse they are offering as the flavor of the day . They are admitting the lie , and basically saying so but , we still fixed the Saddam problem either way , what is sad is there are four more years and three more countries in the direct line of this type of policy making and we are going to loose more people to fight for lies or half truths.

[edit on 6/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
They are admitting the lie , and basically saying so but , we still fixed the Saddam problem either way , what is sad is there are four more years and three more countries in the direct line of this type of policy making and we are going to loose more people to fight for lies or half truths.
[edit on 6/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]


Three more countries in the direct line of what policy? The policy of your mind? It has already been established what the war in Iraq was about. In order to invade another country there would have to be a purpose to do so. Freedom is not a purpose, liberation is not a purpose, and certainly nuclear production is not a purpose. You have failed to realize reality that lies and half truths are only part of an embraced theology of foreign policy which the CIA brought to the administration back in the 60's to counter Russian immoral activity under the "can't beat em join em philosophy." Don't you know just to work for the NSA you are required to lie. This came about during the cold war when those in the misinformation business realized we had to operate under the same rules as the Soviets - no rules. The whole system has been corrupted by accepting soviet technique.

The memos and briefs the president receives are the lies and half truths when a policy of action is required (by those able to move the players). The President merely makes a decision on those choices he has to choose from whether true or false. The MASTERS are those providing that information who are being fueled by NSA, CIA and the JCOS. So you have to ask the question what more is there to gain? Currently the only thing the administration has to gain is building the Bush legacy so he can be remembered as a savior not a destroyer in the history books as the 43rd president. Further warfare on the part of any country in this administration will only occur from defense not offense.

Why don't you get it? 911 was an excuse to enact a policy that had been a decade old. If it wasn't 911 it could've been anything that had occurred. The WTC was an undeniable course for action and yet our government still played patsy with the WMD's when there was no reason to and why you may ask? Because we still have a congress and loads of red tape to traverse. The president still has to say may I, can I, please, and with thorough paperwork. I do not support the notion of our Government attacking it's own citizens as many purport that occurred on 911 to enact the commodity seizure on the part of Iraq. This is a conspiracy that fits only in novels and B rated movies.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The only way for Bush to have been right the whole time is if they find 10 nukes on rockets pointed at American cities. Find nukes? Nope, Bush still isn't right. He said they had nukes and were pointing them at American cities. But the only way Iraq could get a nuke here is if they swam, they don't have ICBMs. So, even if you found nukes on rockets, if not pointed at American citeis but European ones, Bush is still wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join