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.

 

Official: Russia Moved Iraqi WMD !

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
SiberianTiger
Care to provide a link to this article from the "American Free Press" you talk about?

As for Oliver North, he sold weapons to Iran, and as far as I know, it wasn't chemical weapons. We sold missiles to Iran. It was the Iran-Contra affair, not Iraq-Contra.

twitchy
You know, you make this too easy:


-A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
-A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
-Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
-Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.


Source - www.factcheck.org...

Oh, as for Russian intelligence, here's something you might find interesting:


Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US.

He said Russia's secret service had information on more than one occasion that Iraq was preparing acts of terror in the US and its facilities worldwide.


Source - news.bbc.co.uk...


French intelligence services did not come up with the same alarming assessment of Iraq and WMD as did the Britain and the United States. "According to secret agents at the DGSE, Saddam's Iraq does not represent any kind of nuclear threat at this time…It [the French assessment] contradicts the CIA's analysis…"5 French spies said that the Iraqi nuclear threat claimed by the United States was a "phony threat."


I don't remember the US or the British saying Saddam was a nuclear threat at the time. That hardly takes care of all claims.

The French never determined Saddam had no WMD's, just that the threat was overstated.


And oh yeah.. Like hell we didn't sell Iraq Chemical weapons, we even sold them the crop spraying helicopters to dispense them with


It's amazing that in your vast library of sources you have none with any actual credibility. Tell me, why is that I've been unable to find any American weapons in Saddam's inventory? There certainly weren't any American helicopters. Do you know what the name of the equipment we sold him was? What company specifically made it?


On January 16, 2003 U.N. inspectors discovered 11 empty 122 mm chemical warheads ? components not previously declared by Iraq. Iraq dismissed the warheads as old weapons that had been packed away and forgotten. After performing tests on the warheads, U.N. inspectors believe that they were new. While the warheads are evidence of an Iraqi weapons program, they may not amount to a "smoking gun", according to U.S. officials, unless some sort of chemical agent is also detected. U.N. inspectors believe there to still be large quantities of weapons materials that are still unaccounted for. U.N. inspectors also searched the homes of several Iraqi scientists.

On January 27, 2003, UN inspectors reported that Iraq had cooperated on a practical level with monitors, but had not demonstrated a "genuine acceptance" of the need to disarm. Inspector Hans Blix said that after the empty chemical warheads were found on the 16th, Iraq produced papers documenting the destruction of many other similar warheads, which had not been disclosed before. This still left thousands of warheads unaccounted for however. Inspectors also reported the discovery of over 3,000 pages of weapons program documents in the home of an Iraqi citizen, suggesting an attempt to "hide" them from inspectors and apparently contradicting Iraq's earlier claim that it had no further documents to provide. In addition, by the 28th, a total of 16 Iraqi scientists had refused to be interviewed by inspectors. The United States reports that sources have told them that Saddam has ordered the death of any scientist that speaks with inspectors in private. Iraq insists that they are not putting pressure on the scientists.

On February 5, 2003, the United States Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the UN to "prove" the urgency to engage a war with Iraq. Although the presentation has failed to change the fundamental position of the UN Security Council -- mainly France, Germany, Russia and China, Powell succeeded to harden the overall tone of the United Nations towards disarmament in Iraq.


Source - en.wikipedia.org...

If that doesn't show lack of cooperation from Iraq, what does?

DevilWasp

Why would they arm a "mad man" as you so call him with WMD?
Money? No not the risk is far too high.


He's a madman who hated America, and who they armed in the past.


Yes interesting timeing, yet nothing wrong with it.
Iraq might have struck a deal, you never know.


I think this really shows the amount of credibility your post has.




posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I told you in the other post Putin is A Mason and they had him say that,didn't you read my other post, I'll find it and RE-post it.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Did they also make him oppose the war, too?



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
YES, it's all part of DIS-info to make every nation hate thire own Government so they can willingly accept a new form of Governments AKA="NEW WORLD ORDER"



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
He's a madman who hated America, and who they armed in the past.

Only after america ruined his country, before that both the US and the RF.



I think this really shows the amount of credibility your post has.

...we all have opinions of WHAT was in those trucks, the credibility of my post is the same as yours.

Also SIS or MI6 stated that the report was wrong and didnt state the actual facts and distorted them completely.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Only after america ruined his country, before that both the US and the RF.


They've been selling for the past few decades. They armed him in the 80's and 90's.


...we all have opinions of WHAT was in those trucks, the credibility of my post is the same as yours.


What you said makes no sense at all. Bottom line. No logical person thinks Iraq is striking trade deals with a rival like Syria right before being invaded.


Also SIS or MI6 stated that the report was wrong and didnt state the actual facts and distorted them completely.


What report are you talking about?



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
They've been selling for the past few decades. They armed him in the 80's and 90's.

I think you fail to relise that BOTH the super powers armed him.



What you said makes no sense at all. Bottom line. No logical person thinks Iraq is striking trade deals with a rival like Syria right before being invaded.

How does it not?
We each have an opinion of what was in the trucks, if you dont believe this then fine but it is the facts.
Any logical person would note , its suspicios but it could be anything from tech they didnt want lost (LIKE WMD) or possibly just civilian trade.



What report are you talking about?

The report they gave to the commons, you know the one with the 45 min launch claim?



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It's amazing that in your vast library of sources you have none with any actual credibility. Tell me, why is that I've been unable to find any American weapons in Saddam's inventory? There certainly weren't any American helicopters. Do you know what the name of the equipment we sold him was? What company specifically made it?

If you had bothered to read one Iota of the information I provided you would know the brand name of the helicopters we sold to Iraq in the early to mid 1980's. I fail to see how any of the links you provided proove that Sadaam was not in compliance with UN resolutions, and if you base your argument on british intelligence, that's your own shortcomming. Try actaully reading the links I provided and come back when you have something worth debating.

Edit:
Here's some more information you can ignore...
www.realcities.com...


[edit on 11-3-2005 by twitchy]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   

If you had bothered to read one Iota of the information I provided you would know the brand name of the helicopters we sold to Iraq in the early to mid 1980's.


It never gave specific names for any of the equipment. These are the only two quotes dealing with the issue:


Using its allies in the Middle East, Washington funnelled huge supplies of arms to Iraq. Classified State Department cables uncovered by Frantz and Waas described covert transfers of howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons to Baghdad in 1982-83 from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait.

...

Conventional military sales resumed in December 1982. In 1983, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters to Iraq in 1983 “for civilian use”. However, as Phythian pointed out, these aircraft could be “weaponised” within hours of delivery. Then US Secretary of State George Schultz and commerce secretary George Baldridge also lobbied for the delivery of Bell helicopters equipped for “crop spraying”. It is believed that US-supplied choppers were used in the 1988 chemical attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja, which killed 5000 people.



I fail to see how any of the links you provided proove that Sadaam was not in compliance with UN resolutions


He had missiles well out of the maximum range. They found recently produced warheads. He wasn't allowing the inspectors full access. They did seek out uranium, which I've shown to be a legitimate claim.

And why would the UN pass more resolutions on Iraq stating that they would suffer serious consequences if they were in complete compliance with past resolutions?


Try actaully reading the links I provided and come back when you have something worth debating.


The only credible source you had was CNN, and it was an outdated article. The Niger-Uranium claims have been proven to be credible. I have proven that, unless you doubt Factcheck.org. I've shown Saddam wasn't in compliance with UN resolutions, and they had to make new ones.

Devilwasp

I think you fail to relise that BOTH the super powers armed him.


We gave him little equipment of military value.


How does it not?
We each have an opinion of what was in the trucks, if you dont believe this then fine but it is the facts.
Any logical person would note , its suspicios but it could be anything from tech they didnt want lost (LIKE WMD) or possibly just civilian trade.


No logical person would assume it was civillian trade between two nations that hated each other suddenly just before an invasion. That's justed biased and laughable.


The report they gave to the commons, you know the one with the 45 min launch claim?


That's great. Some of the claims were dismissed (which could have simply been because of political reasons itself), others were not, like the Niger-Uranium claim, were not.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
60 Hughes helicopters, 45 Bell 214ST helicopters, not to mention... Again note the word export....


www.belleville.com...
A 1994 investigation by the Senate Bank Committee found that U.S. companies had been licensed by the Commerce Department to export a "witch's brew" of biological and chemical materials, including precursors of anthrax and botulism. The report also noted the exports included plans for chemical and biolgical warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment.


So your telling em that you have single handedly somehow proven that Iraq had actually attempted to purchase 500 tons of yellow cake uranium from Nigeria, you must be proud of yourself as that is quite an accomplishment considering no one else has. Wake up man, even your own president's administration has since admitted that Iraq had no offensive capability. The missiles you are refering to were conventional, intermdiate range missiles, and the only threat they posed was to Israel. And a little FYI abotu those missiles...


According to a Washington Post story, when United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, they compiled long lists of chemicals, missile components and computers from American companies that were being used for military purposes.

And to beat it all, the Iraqi nuclear programs we were so concerned about...


LINK
A State Department document asked, "Should we change policy now [to also allow sales to Iraq's nuclear program] when Iraq is publicly implicated in using poison gas?" It recommended quietly approving low-profile sales to avoid "needless adverse publicity."

And as far as my sources, where would you like me to get my information from? GeorgeBush.com? Fox News? BBC? What's good enough for you? How many would you need to start realizing that Iraq wasn't a threat to any one but American Coporate interests? Jesus dude, even Bush himself said he was mistaken, but you probably know more about biological and nuclear proliferation than they do.


Edit:
How about George Bush, would that be a reputable enough source for you?
Also,note the word Bush uses ehre, which is 'negligible'...


www.guardian.co.uk...
George Bush finally conceded last night that there may be a problem over Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction when he said he wanted to know why there were discrepancies between pre-war intelligence and the negligible material investigators had found on the ground.
Now even Bush admits WMD doubts

How about the NY Times, they said...


"White House officials are no longer asserting that stockpiles of banned weapons would eventually be found"

Or how about Secretary of State Colin Powell who said to the UN...


"our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent, it could actually be "zero tons."

Those sources good enough for you? If you know of any WMD's in iraq, you probably should contact the CIA or the White House as they would most certainly for finding them when they could not. You're a gas.


[edit on 12-3-2005 by twitchy]

Mod edit - long link

[edit on 3-13-2005 by ProudAmerican]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Twitchy-

Believe what you wish, what the official position is is one thing but what is not admitted or even known is quite another.

Politically it was better to admit there were no WMD than to expose whatever is going on.


So your argument is that right before the US invaded, at certain sites known or thought at least to contain WMD, large trucks loaded up stereo's and VCR's and DVD players and made a run for the Syrian border right?

Is that why the Lebanese are damn near in revolt now? They want to get access to these stashes of consumer electronics right?



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Believe what you wish, what the official position is is one thing but what is not admitted or even known is quite another.

What is not admitted or not known is not justifcation for an invasion and occupation costing the lives of thousands and thousands of people.
Are you trying to say that Lebanon is revolting becuase there are Iraqi Weapons there? There are thousands of Lebanese protesting the withdrawal of the Syrian forces, how's that for a shocker. Syria and Lebanon have very little if anything to do with Iraq. The bottom line is that Iraq's military capability was reduced to near nothingless, the first gulf war, frequent inspections, and cripling economic sanctions... Iraq was not a threat to any one. How many excuses did the Bush administration offer us, first it was their links to Alqeda, then it was stock piles of illegal weapons that nobody could find or even verify the exsistance of, and when all their excuses feel through, they finally settled on simply removing a dictator for the good of all the world. Pretty morose considering we put the man in power to begin with. Ah, but their media propoganda was so effective, we still have ignorant folk running around claiming that Iraq had some massive threatening offensive military capability, hell we even still have some really ignorant people still running around trying to claim that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 disaster. There were no massive stock piles of weapons in Iraq. Bush mandated his own faulty intelligence. Maybe the trucks were full of military personel getting their equipment and getting the hell out of Iraq before the US military got there. How many people have to tell it, how many publications do you need to read, before you guys start to realize that maybe WMD's had nothign to do with the invasion? Like I said before, that is some wildy effective propoganda if you people are still arguing about it, even when Bush, the man himself, said he was mistaken. Fact of the matter is, we didn't any good reason to invade Iraq, other than perhaps Rumallah. If we really wanted to rid the world of evil dictators, we would simply quit equipping, supplying, funding, training, and proliferating them, wouldn't we?



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Well I guess twitchy says it so it must be true,

has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong? That there could have been some WMD moved to the Bekka Valley, and that the unrest that the US is pushing behind the scenes in Syria and Lebanon is somehow related?



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

60 Hughes helicopters, 45 Bell 214ST helicopters, not to mention... Again note the word export....


You should take not that those aren't even for military use, and America isn't responsible if they get used for a military use. If our intention had been to give Saddam an ineffective way to use checmial weapons, then we could given him things a lot more valuable.


So your telling em that you have single handedly somehow proven that Iraq had actually attempted to purchase 500 tons of yellow cake uranium from Nigeria, you must be proud of yourself as that is quite an accomplishment considering no one else has. Wake up man, even your own president's administration has since admitted that Iraq had no offensive capability. The missiles you are refering to were conventional, intermdiate range missiles, and the only threat they posed was to Israel. And a little FYI abotu those missiles...


I didn't prove Iraq tried to get yellowcake, I proved the claim was valid (in this topic, at least...Factcheck.org and others really proved that), and had credible intelligence behind it.

And the warheads and missiles I'm refering served little conventional use. Unless armed with chemical weapons, they wouldn't have done much to Israel, or any other enemy. And it doesn't matter if they were conventional or not. He wasn't allowed to have any missiles of those ranges. He was also buying a missile system from North Korea.


And as far as my sources, where would you like me to get my information from? GeorgeBush.com? Fox News? BBC? What's good enough for you? How many would you need to start realizing that Iraq wasn't a threat to any one but American Coporate interests? Jesus dude, even Bush himself said he was mistaken, but you probably know more about biological and nuclear proliferation than they do.


A credible source is one that doesn't have an obvious agenda.


How about George Bush, would that be a reputable enough source for you?
Also,note the word Bush uses ehre, which is 'negligible'...


If you can invent conspiracies as to why they'd lie in the first place, why not invent conspiracies as to why they'd stop saying them? It was politically impossible to keep up the WMD claim.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
If you can invent conspiracies as to why they'd lie in the first place, why not invent conspiracies as to why they'd stop saying them? It was politically impossible to keep up the WMD claim.


I ahve also tried to stress this point but to no avail.........

There were weapons, how many and where they are is the unknown, but they were known unknowns, its the unknown knowns that are known unknown that scare me.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
If you can invent conspiracies as to why they'd lie in the first place, why not invent conspiracies as to why they'd stop saying them? It was politically impossible to keep up the WMD claim.


I have also tried to stress this point but to no avail.........

There were weapons, how many and where they are is the unknown, but they were known unknowns, its the unknown knowns that are known unknown that scare me.


Well that was kind of confusing...lol

As for you twitchy, I think Bush was pressured from his advisors to make a statement about the WMD's not being found considering the fact that Tony Blair made statements and apologies about it. It's a fact that WMD's weren't found in Iraq, we all know that now, but to say that they were not there months before the war is still in question. Neither Edsinger nor disturbed deliverer are saying that WMD's were found in Iraq, they are saying that the WMD's were in Iraq but were secretly moved out before the US went in. Stories with evidence have popped up many times before and during the war that WMD's might have been moved out prior to the Invasion. Whats so hard to understand about that? Is it possible that Saddam wanted to get the WMD's out of Iraq to make the US look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world which we are now seeing that the US is very unpopular now throughout the world? Many countries said they would join the US led coalition if war does break out and WMDs were found in Iraq. Saddam was always playing games with the UN and the US which is not new news to anybody. Is it possible that if weapons weren't found that Insurgents, terrorists, or foreign fighters would cross the border and fight a guerilla war with the US causing more problems and more casualities. The US crushed the Iraqi military with very little casualties but now that were fighting an insurgency the casualties are much larger. It's amazing that all these possibilities have come true...good day sir



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
We gave him little equipment of military value.

"large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors "
www.washingtonpost.com...

Is assisting in getting WMD and cluster bombs not military value?



No logical person would assume it was civillian trade between two nations that hated each other suddenly just before an invasion.

Buisness is buisness, money makes friends easily.
Its equally logical to assume it wasnt WMD as it might be WMD, we dont know.
All we have are a bunch of trucks crossing a border, NOTHING ELSE!
Are you seriosly trying to justify another war on pictures of a convoy of iraqi trucks?


That's justed biased and laughable.

Nope just logical.
Your trying to create a negative image of me to prove your self and your point of view.



That's great. Some of the claims were dismissed (which could have simply been because of political reasons itself), others were not, like the Niger-Uranium claim, were not.

The FAKE claim?
observer.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Look there is no doubt that the US sold military equipment to Saddam in the 80's war, but remember that Iraq was a client state of the USSR. Most of it top of the line weapon systems were either Russian (MiG's and T-72's) or French (F-1's and Choppers).

Iran was our main enemy in the middle east and the global struggle with the USSR was in full swing...


Of this there is no doubt.....



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Is assisting in getting WMD and cluster bombs not military value?


We never directly gave him any cluster bombs. We never gave him anything purely for military use. I have already said numerous times we gave Saddam financial aid and military intelligence. That still isn't the same as giving out massive numbers of tanks and missiles.


Buisness is buisness, money makes friends easily.
Its equally logical to assume it wasnt WMD as it might be WMD, we dont know.
All we have are a bunch of trucks crossing a border, NOTHING ELSE!
Are you seriosly trying to justify another war on pictures of a convoy of iraqi trucks?


I would never use this to justify a war. There's far more important reasons to attack Iran and Syria.

And no, business is not business when it's your nations survival. Iraq stood nothing to gain by trading with Syria before being toppled.


Nope just logical.
Your trying to create a negative image of me to prove your self and your point of view.


I think you give yourself your own negative image by typing incoherent, illogical trash.


The FAKE claim?
observer.guardian.co.uk...


Honestly, why do people bring up outdated articles? If you followed current events normally, you would have seen the Butler Report, as well as the 9/11 Report, both said that claim was credible.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   
An article released by the New York Times (liberal Democrat paper) on the 13th says:
Looting at Weapons Plants Was Systematic, Iraqi Says

A little digging revealed this article from 2003:
US satellites 'spot Iraqis hiding suspected arms

Question: why are the Syrians only withdrawing as far as the Bekaa Valley? A search of ATS will reveal a possible reason why?





seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join