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: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   

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

seekerof



Well dont you know? Bush want Lebanons oil too!




posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
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.

Yes you did, dont deny it.
What?
Are cluster bombs now for civilian use?
You gave him aid in getting chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
Giveing him outdated and bad tanks is actual a GOOD move since it means they dont buy better tanks.



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.

Actually buissnesses gain from war and this trade could be anything from civilian transports or even a military exchange.



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

Not realy, all my conclusions have been logical.
You just wont accept any other view.



Honestly, why do people bring up outdated articles?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.

...They also said It was credible since it , and I quote, "The forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it," The fact is you were baseing it on a fake intelgence! Thats what we're angry at!



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
NO you are angry that the United States and the UK government didn't listen to the geniuses at the UN and the other EU countries.


You hate the Iraq war and therefore will do anything to support your decisions.


As for weaponry, the stuff that counts I have clearly already pointed out was not American in design but French and Russian only, now funds to buy them might be a different thing.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

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

Nope. We sold Iran weapons during the Iran Iraq war as well. Do none of you guys appreciate the magnitude of the Iran Contra affair and it's obvious reprocussions on US foriegn policy in that reigon? We were literally supplying both sides of the Iran Iraq war, playing them against each other. While we publicly advocated Iraq, we clandestinely supported Iranian campaigns and intelligence to Iran. All the while, knee deep in supporting Bin Laden's terrorist groups in Afghanistan against the soviet occupation. The anti-tank rifle Bin Laden was carrying in so many of his early photos was literally a personal gift to him from the US military. It was purported that Osama Bin laden carried that rifle intentionally in his videos and photos to remind the West of their previous support to his ideals. None of you obviously realize the implications of all this meddling in the middle east. They don't just hate baseball and western countries for their way of life. We have been involved in this area, and manipulating them since the days of Theodore Rosevelt. If we had simply wrote them a check for oil like everybody else does, and stayed out the zionist movements of the early 1900's, we wouldn't be over the killing and dying today. By the accounts of many very credible organizations, 100,000 Iraqi deaths as a result of our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, vague questions as to to what was in the back of some trucks, fake documents concenring non-exsistant uranium, and other complete failures to provide a single scrap of evidence, is hardly a reason to justify the deaths of 100,000 people. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, even our own questionable investigations afterwards lead to anything remotely resembling an Iraqi involvement, and yet the media and the Bush administration ran with it, presenting a package to congress that was based on information which was at best contrived, to invade and liberate Iraq. A false premise, which was later restated as a rehash of Iraq's UN Violations in regards to Weapons of Mass Destruction. WMD became the battle cry of the Bush administration overnight when they failed to demonstrate a reliable connection between Bin Laden and the Iraqi government. When both UN inspectors and US inspectors failed to find evidence of these weapons, of course the Bush administration once again changed it's story, even in many cases, to the bamboozlement of the public, sompletely reversing and even denying they had claimed Iraq had any weapons at all, instead claiming that it was the deposition of an evil regime was it's primary focus. How long are we going to continue to perpetuate the faulty intelligence that Bush quite literally mandated to implicate Iraq in 9-11, he has changed his story, and maybe it's time you guys did too. Most folks don't care to remeber that UNOCAL was already working on a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan prior to the war, and when the deal fell through, UNOCAL was pushing for congress to approve bombings in Afghanistan. Sad but true. People don't remember things like all those coutnries offering to extradite Bin Laden to the US, we turned down those offers of extradition and invaded Afghanistan despite even their offer to extradite him if we could provide them with the evidence that he was involved in 9-11. Evidence we assured Aghanistan and the rest of the world that we had. We aren't there on some grandoise crusade the rid the world of terrorism, that's a joke. Our manipulations in that reigon and our unilatteral, often militant support for Zionism has created the very thing we are supposedly fighting in a perpetual war against an idealology, a war, literally against a noun.



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Well well well, and the New York Times even....


N.Y. Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003

In a stunning about-face, the New York Times reported Sunday that when the U.S. attacked Iraq in March 2003, Saddam Hussein possessed "stockpiles of monitored chemicals and materials," as well as sophisticated equipment to manufacture nuclear and biological weapons, which was removed to "a neighboring state" before the U.S. could secure the weapons sites.

The U.N.'s Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission [UNMOVIC] "has filed regular reports to the Security Council since last May," the paper said, "about the dismantlement of important weapons installations and the export of dangerous materials to foreign states."




N.Y. Times: Iraq Had WMD 'Stockpiles' in 2003



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
NO you are angry that the United States and the UK government didn't listen to the geniuses at the UN and the other EU countries.

I am angry that they lied to to us!
I believed the government and supported the war during it; seeing our marines kicking ass, our soldiers opening a can of whoop ass, seeing our airmen and women going forth and riseing above the rest by bombing the "dictator" and seeing our sailors unleashing the right hand of god from offshore with thier tomahawks and 4.5/5 inch guns or larger (Did america send its battleships again?)



You hate the Iraq war and therefore will do anything to support your decisions.

I hate the war and how we were lied to, if they said ; "we're going in to save the iraqi people and throw this guy out of power because look what he does to his people then I would be right behind them!



As for weaponry, the stuff that counts I have clearly already pointed out was not American in design but French and Russian only, now funds to buy them might be a different thing.

No they just gave them cluter bombs which are made in taiwan or china!
They gave them funds to help with buying weapons!
Tell me thats not wrong!

Ed you do knnow the IAEA down right said , "UNSCOM and the IAEA have succeeded in destroying or controlling the vast
majority of Saddam ’s 1991 weapons of mass destruction (WMD)capability."

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwaspEd you do knnow the IAEA down right said , "UNSCOM and the IAEA have succeeded in destroying or controlling the vast majority of Saddam ’s 1991 weapons of mass destruction (WMD)capability."


Did you see the link to the New York Times of all things right above?



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well well well, and the New York Times even....



www.washingtonpost.com...
N.Y. Times Cites Defects in Its Reports on Iraq
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 26, 2004; Page C01
The New York Times acknowledged today that its coverage of whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction "was not as rigorous as it should have been" and that "we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge."

Even the NY Times has said...


Covering the war in Iraq was not The New York Times at its best.

The New york Times has said Bush was 'misleading' them...


www.commondreams.org...
The New York Times offered a sharp editorial Tuesday critiquing the indisputable role of the White House in distorting the intelligence on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, and in stampeding Congressional and public opinion by spinning worst-case scenarios -- "inflating them drastically" -- to justify an immediate invasion last March to repel an alleged imminent threat to the United States.



www.commondreams.org...
No story has appeared in The New York Times under Judith Miller's byline since June 7, but she still works at the paper, according to Catherine Mathis, vice president for corporate communications. But, based on other comments by Mathis, it is obvious that the wagons are still circling the embattled star reporter.
From postwar Iraq, Miller, the Times' expert on chemical and biological weapons, wrote a series of exaggerated stories that led readers to believe that unconventional weapons programs were being uncovered or weapons of mass destruction were about to be found -- and that this supported the Bush administration's claims about Saddam Hussein's development of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

Reality Versus Myth. layed out in side by side comparisons...
www.americanprogress.org...


www.nonviolence.org...
According to Slate magazine, the New York Times is about to issue an “editor’s Note” apologizing for its coverage leading up to the Iraq War. It will focus on star reporter Judith Miller’s enthusiastic coverage of every unsubstantiated story about Iraq weapons of mass destruction:

Miller’s work on WMD in the Times deserves special scrutiny because so many of her sensational stories never panned out—from a December 2001 piece about now-discredited Iraqi defector Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, who claimed inside knowledge about a score of Iraq WMD programs and storage facilities, to a December 2002 scoop about a possible Russia-Iraq smallpox collaboration, to a January 2003 eve-of-war piece reiterating the defectors’ stories of Iraqi WMD.

NY Times... lol Get Real Ed, they lead the charge, got busted, then passed the buck.

[edit on 14-3-2005 by twitchy]



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
NY Times... lol Get Real Ed, they lead the charge, got busted, then passed the buck.


Well its not like they are even close to pro-Bush.

Its odd that this story is coming out when Newsmax (the one you all hate so much) broke a story last week.


I still think he had them and either buried them or they were moved just as many have said all along.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Did you see the link to the New York Times of all things right above?

Is the new york times an orginisation designed to look for and investigate nuclear activity world wide?..........When they become one call me..



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by edsinger
Did you see the link to the New York Times of all things right above?

Is the new york times an orginisation designed to look for and investigate nuclear activity world wide?..........When they become one call me..



Ah Ha! Excuses........did or did not the New York Times, one of the most left leaning papers in all of the United States, print this article...?



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Even if they did so what?

WMD is a White House PR invention.

Militarily they're classed as NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical). In the West they were seen as acceptable 'force multipliers' and if the war on the German Front had kicked off we would have deployed them when we were losing to superior forces. We saw them as an escalation from conventional and lumped them all together purely as the counter measures required are similar.

The Soviet Bloc always saw chemical as conventional (Checzs trained in live nerve gas - UK used tear gas). As a Soviet client state Iraq would have had chemical too to fit with that military doctrine.

WMD is a PR construct so that you don't know if they're talking about chlorine gas (inconvenient), mustard gas (nasty), anthrax (v. nasty), or nuclear (sunshine bomb). Napalm is a WMD, a machine gun is a WMD if you can get the crowd to stand still.

Apart from the stuff Iraq bought off Rumsfeld they probably had some chemical - why shouldn't they? The world has tried to ban land mines yet the US has kept their's.

It was always a smoke screen to justify a crusade for oil: - whether they existed, were burnt or moved it isn't justification for invasion.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
Even if they did so what?

WMD is a White House PR invention.


better stick your beloved GODLIKE UN, Russia, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, the UK, and just about everyone else in there ok.......

The Chemical weapons are not the threat, of this I agree.


Nerve Gas is much different and Nukes in Saddam's hand was just UNACCEPTABLE to the West...PERIOD., Add most of the Middle East in that last bunch also...



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by CTID56092
Even if they did so what?

WMD is a White House PR invention.


better stick your beloved GODLIKE UN, Russia, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, the UK, and just about everyone else in there ok.......



Sorry don't understand your argument. I'm sure it's me, but what does that mean (or what is it meant to mean)?

If you could kindly illuminate I may be able to respond

R



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   
WMD was not a United States creation!



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Yes it was.

No-one used the phrase until some White House PR guy invented it to fulfill a purpose.

I trained to fight the Cold War and it was a REAL threat then - Day 4 was the estimate - WMD was never used as a phrase by the military, the press or the politicians.

There used to be another emotive / designed to blur the edges phrase the White House used from mid-80's until about early 90's - when it comes to me I'll post it on here.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092I trained to fight the Cold War and it was a REAL threat then - Day 4 was the estimate - WMD was never used as a phrase by the military, the press or the politicians.


Day 4? Crap I remember it was 48 hours, once the lines on the Fulda Gap broke.....but ok point taken.


You may be right, the term "WMD" may have been a recent creation, but that is not to what I refer, I refer to NBC weapons that now have come into hands that openly intend to USE them.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
That was my point - the term was designed (and is used) to confuse. Mustard gas mortar shells become ICBM 15KT MIRV's just via wordplay.

If it's now OK to bomb / invade any country that has any NBC capability (and I'm still not sure why other countries can't have them) then it's going to be a very bloody World and your military (with a few token Brits, the odd Frenchman etc along) will be very, very busy.

Sure I remember Day 4 - maybe we were planning to be late!



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
That was my point - the term was designed (and is used) to confuse. Mustard gas mortar shells become ICBM 15KT MIRV's just via wordplay.

If it's now OK to bomb / invade any country that has any NBC capability (and I'm still not sure why other countries can't have them) then it's going to be a very bloody World and your military (with a few token Brits, the odd Frenchman etc along) will be very, very busy.

Sure I remember Day 4 - maybe we were planning to be late!


Well the difference is those that had them that many years ago were not selling to the highest bidder and there was not a COUNTRY that was willing to sell them to someone who would be actually stupid enough to use them. Times change.

As for day 4, if I remember right the 1st Armored(3rd) would have had to hold the line for at least 2 days until the Germans and Brits could close the whole, if they couldn't, the Lance's would follow.........Oh yeah by that time the French might have started to think it might be time to suck up.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Well the difference is those that had them that many years ago were not selling to the highest bidder and there was not a COUNTRY that was willing to sell them to someone who would be actually stupid enough to use them. Times change.

As for day 4, if I remember right the 1st Armored(3rd) would have had to hold the line for at least 2 days until the Germans and Brits could close the whole, if they couldn't, the Lance's would follow.........Oh yeah by that time the French might have started to think it might be time to suck up.


Err a few years ago Rumsfeld sold them to Iraq who then used them.

Seems to me they're OK as long as the US can decide the targets.

Why it's OK for Iraqis to kill Iranians with them but not OK for Iraqis to kill Americans with them is beyond me - surely both situations are deplorable. Can't see how that can be touted as a reason for invasion by the former salesman.

Thinking back sure it was Day 4 - we were Reserve (not reserve enough for my liking) and there was a debate whether we we'd be in France or get the chance to die on our own soil.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join