It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Kosmo Yagkoto
There is truely no way to know the motives since we don't even live in Russia though, eh? I was only speculating.
Originally posted by devilwasp
Uhh wait we're basing this on a deputy undersecretary's word that he got info about spetnaz movement, although all 4 sources say the EXACT same thing as in word for word. Where's the comment from the GRU?
Wheres the actual document?
Theres lots of questions and frankly i smell BS.
Originally posted by edsinger
Well you smell bs because you see the world through 'turdblossom' eyes, not meant as an insult but you do.
What I can't figure out is why the US Government is silent on it other than they don't want to admit that they got had........
Originally posted by Rasputin13
You are perpetuating the same lie that Bush fed us laced with sugar.
Now assuming what you say was true and not nonsense... if Bush knew there were no WMD, and lied and said there was, what did he think would happen once we got there and didn't find any? Was British intelligence lying too? French intelligence? Russian intelligence? Egyptian? Saudi? etc? etc?
If Bush really wanted to invade Iraq at all costs, he wouldn't use a story about WMD if he knew it was false. Instead he would have invaded based on Saddam's human rights violations, the fact that he shot at our planes in the no-fly zone on a daily basis, the fact he supported terrorism in Israel and most likely other places, the fact he tried to have the first President Bush assassinated. All that is MORE than enough to have toppled the regime. Bush and his advisers are not stupid enough to use something that they know would eventually be found to be not true as a main reason for invasion.
It's sad how liberals will believe anything just out of their hatred for Bush. It's pathetic too, because as a conservative, after Clinton was elected I supported him because he was our Commander-In-Chief at the time and there was nothing that could be done about it. I'm not a self-hating American like most of you left wing radicals are, so I support our leader even when I disagree with them. Especially when we have men and women on the battlefield right now who are counting on our support of their mission.
Someday Bush will be vindicated, as Reagan was. Democracy is already beginning to spread in the Middle East. It's extremely sad when people like you, deep down inside, are rooting for us to be defeated. You're rooting for Bush's policies to fail. The very success of the Democratic party and your liberal ideals hinge on the failure of our policies, and that means the loss of American lives. You know it and I know it. It's pathetic.
Ed can you send me those sources?
I mean come one what possible purpose would russia have for moveing them?
It would be ridiculed by the world, too much risk for the country to do it, I'm sorry but this just isnt probible.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Right...These guys had their troops fighting secretly all over the world throughout the Cold War, and yet this is somehow beyond them?
It was the Russians, I believe, who even gave Saddam the advice years earlier to dismantle their weapons if invaded.
The fact is they'll never be called on this, or many other things they do because of lack of proof. The American government gains nothing by saying it because it'll get attacked by the liberal media in its own country, as well as by its "allies" overseas. Unless we have hard, physical proof, there's no point in even bringing the issue up.
What Russia stood to gain from this is obvious. They were against the war for various reasons. The reason given were WMD's. What better way to discredit America then to have them go in, and not find WMD's?
It sure makes a lot more sense then the idea America lied about WMD's, or our, as well as everyone elses intelligence on Iraq was all wrong. If we were going to lie, why would Bush it in his first term? He could have easily coasted his way into a second term, riding on 9/11 all the way. Why make a controversial move like invading Iraq? If he wanted to make money for his corporate pals, he could have waited a few more years and done it with no political risk.
I don't see the CIA being so wrong on Iraq, especially when most of the world agrees with them. Everyone thought Iraq had WMD's.
There are really only two logical conclusions here. Saddam did everything he could to make it seem like he actually had WMD's, to keep his neighbors, the west, and his own military in check. There's evidence for this. He would tell one general another guy had the weapons, and the other guy the exact opposite. This would explain how the intelligence agencies were wrong.
The other is simply that Saddam had weapons, and got rid of them.
Originally posted by edsinger
That isn't how this man works and you should see that by now, Bush could give a hoot less what the turdblossoms want or the EU for that matter,
I am telling you there is something else we don't know.......has to be...
Is this the same regime?
No, so therefore the rules change, they could do it but i doubt they would.
Probably EVERY country because the UN would go nuts over them.
The fact is there is no proof they did it or not.
...So they want to discredit america and so get involved in "wmd" even though there was none and wouldnt be ready because.....
To you but not to every one.
The intelegence on iraq was poor much poorer than made out.
He couldnt be sure of takeing iraq and the second election so he had to act at that time.
Most of the world had POOR intelegence as admitted by every intel agency.
Dont try and make us pick between the two there are more.
If he did he woukd need chemical weapon transporters since he had no nukes...
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
To Putin and Russia, the Cold War is still going on. His goal is to make Russia a world power, and to compete directly with America. It doesn't matter if he's communist or not. The Russians stood to gain here, and at the expense of America. By your logic, Russia wouldn't be selling weapons to Iraq throughout the 90's, along with a whole list of other third world nations who have tense relations with America.
The UN wouldn't go nuts over anything. The UN Security Council was mostly paid off by Saddam. And you clearly don't get the point. Russians who gave Saddam these weapons, told him what to do in this exact scenario.
Right, there's just a whole lot of strange activity which can't be explained any other way...
You proved my point perfectly. Unless we have complete, 100% proof, bringing this up will have no purpose. Liberal minded fools will always ignore it.
Actually It can be explained in a lot of ways, your just unwilling to accept them.
Yes unless there is actual proof not just someones opinion then there is no justification to accuse them of anything.
This is the most faulty logic I've ever seen. There weren't WMD's in Iraq. That's the point of this topic. They were moved out. And why the hell are you bringing up nukes? WMD does not translate to nuke. We're talking about chemical weapons, and Saddam had factories capable of producing it now that have been found.
Oh the small stockpile of left over bioagents from the gulf war?
the JIC re ﬂected these reports fairly in its assessments of the status of
Iraq ’s chemical weapons programme,especially those on the production and
weaponisation of the nerve agent VX.The intelligence applied mainly to historical (as
opposed to current)activity and,even so,was by no means conclusive.
The intelligence on Iraq was the same all around the world. Once again, everyone is not going to be wrong. I'll give way more then the benefit of the doubt to intelligence agencies, rather then believe Saddam. There was suspicious behavior from Saddam, as well as other nations that would make any logical person question the No WMD claim.
Yes suspicios activicty reported by who?
And if you don't know about American politics, you shouldn't talk about them. Bush had nothing to worry about before Iraq. His approval ratings were high. He would have easily ridden in to a second term. Iraq took too much to sell. It was obvious what kind of political disaster Iraq could be.
He went in why then?
Because some man told him there was checmical weapon facilities...cough baby millk factory cough..
I never heard anyone admit anything besides political scapegoats, and whiny politicians.
"David Kay, the man who led the CIA's postwar effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has called on the Bush administration to "come clean with the American people" and admit it was wrong about the existence of the weapons. "
There are more. They're just far too unlikely to even bother considering here. Those two make the most sense by a longshot.
By whose professional opinion , yours?
It's not hard to transport any of this stuff. We know for fact large shipments were going over that border. It's been widely reported, although burried. Not to mention he could just bury things in the middle of the desert, and they'd be almost impossible to find.
That may be so, but hideing ALL of these weapons takes man power and reasources, yet we have heard of no forces yet being captured or admiting they were part of it.