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.

 

Ok, so what do we do now?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Great article, I am curious to find what the American "hawks" here at ATS have to say about it.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...


Okay, so what happens now?
This last week has started to see the façade crumble away from the wars. Gone is the comfortable fraud, leaving in its wake a very stark and harsh reality.
The Carnegie Report affirmed that there had never been a military threat from Iraq, no weapons of mass destruction were poised just 45 minutes away to strike at hearth and home. The last-second discovery of a few dozen rusted out warheads from 10 years ago only underscored that the desperate attempt to find weapons of mass destruction to retroactively justify the war in Iraq had failed, and failed miserably.

The Carnegie Report came hard on the heels of Paul Bremer’s comments that claims of underground WMDs labs having been found in Iraq were a total fiction. Paul was apparently unaware that Prime Minister Tony Blair was the author of the aforesaid claims.

This was followed by a startling admission by Colin Powell that there was no evidence that linked Iraq or Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda. This admission was startling because it was Colin Powell himself who nearly a year ago was assuring the world of the exact opposite, that Iraq was supporting and arming Al Qaeda.

A last-ditch attempt to explain the absence of WMDs in Iraq by claiming that Syria now had them was torpedoed by no less a personage than National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, who admitted for the record that there was no evidence at all that Iraq had sent WMDs to Syria, a reasonable conclusion now that it is apparent that Iraq did not have WMDs at all.


The most telling paragraph for me is:

But there can no longer be any doubt. The US Government lied to start the war in Iraq. The whole world knows that now. And more to the point, the whole world knows that Americans know that the US Government lied to start the war in Iraq. The world is now watching to see what the people of the United States will do. We must do something. No longer able to pretend we are innocent victims of government deception, the world will expect the people of the United States to do something about this horrific deception and the equally horrific war it created.

Americans have long held themselves up as the champions of justice and freedom for the rest of the world. It is our image to the world. It is our image to ourselves. It is how we define ourselves, it is our identity, and it is who we are collectively as a nation. And, if we fail to take action in the face of the lies used to start a war, we must in the process sacrifice that image, not only to the world, but to ourselves. Either one acts like a champion of truth and freedom, or one admits one is just another sheep. There is no other choice left.




Comments? Nobody likes being lied to, right? It's what I assume anyway.

So maybe all these people desperately trying to defend the reasons for war (all of which have been exposed as lies) are only defending their stance because they don't even want to entertain the notion for a second that they've been totally misled by their own elected officials.


jako




posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
nobody likes to be lie, CIA gave false imformation that made Clinton to launch tomahawks against Iraq in 1998, im not surprise Bush was persuaded by the CIA information which is mostly all satellites. we depended on it. CIA stands for to me Can't Inform Anyone.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Virtually EVERY intelligence agency worldwide "knew" Iraq had WMD. Clearly upon review, it was a blanket failure of intelligence worldwide.

But hey, go ahead and advance "your" opinion.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Partyof1:

Virtually EVERY intelligence agency worldwide "knew" Iraq had WMD. Clearly upon review, it was a blanket failure of intelligence worldwide.


That's a total lie. Back up your so-called facts. Only the US and the UK were pushing this garbage, and it's the main reason why the UN didn't go along with the war.

Because the rest of the world did NOT have solid evidence that Iraq had WMD.

But please post your links as proof.

How about you start with 3 countries other than the US and UK that claimed to know that Iraq had WMD?


jako



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Well, how many nations are in the UN?




The pre-war report of Hans Blix, given on January 27 1993, notes that 2,000 chemical rocket warheads remained unaccounted for, that documents provided by the Iraqis themselves contradict their claims never to have produced VX, and that 8,500 liters of biological weapons agent also remained unaccounted for. Thus, even ignoring the now-much criticized reports from the Central Intelligence Agency and British intelligence, we know that a large amount of WMD weaponry existed in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule.

www.independentbias.com...'s_wmd's.htm




The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

worldtribune.com...


I can't recall any country doubting that Iraq had WMDs. They may have questioned whether their programs were still active. And many didn't agree with going to war to stop their programs because of the chance that they may not be active (which apprently is the case). Also many felt any remaining wmds they did have weren't worth going to war over.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
ThatsJustWeird: None of your links assert that anybody in the world other than the US or the UK thought Saddam had WMDs for sure.


The pre-war report of Hans Blix, given on January 27 1993, notes that 2,000 chemical rocket warheads remained unaccounted for, that documents provided by the Iraqis themselves contradict their claims never to have produced VX, and that 8,500 liters of biological weapons agent also remained unaccounted for. Thus, even ignoring the now-much criticized reports from the Central Intelligence Agency and British intelligence, we know that a large amount of WMD weaponry existed in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule.


Nice. A link from 1993, so over 10 years ago, stating Saddam had WMD.

Chemical weapons degrade over time. 4 months to be exact. Try again.

We KNOW that Saddam had WMDs in 1993, that doesn't mean he has them 10 years later after years of sanctions.


As for your World Tribune link, World Tribune is famous for churning out Goebbels-grade propaganda. Who is the author? Why no tagline?


?



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

as posted by Jakomo
How about you start with 3 countries other than the US and UK that claimed to know that Iraq had WMD?


France
Germany
Iraq

Few more?

Saudi Arabia
Israel
Russia
Spain
Italy
Iran
All those nations that agreed and signed onto Resolution 1441.

Amazing that before the war, there was NO dispute over whether Saddam/Iraq had them, and yet, your asking who believed he did?





seekerof

[edit on 18-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Jakomo is so hard to believe that what many were screaming all along it was true.

We were led into a war that instead of bringing us some benefits it has left our nation deep into a dept that only will be pass to our children and grandchildren in the years to come.

Sometimes greed can overpower the logical mind.

The countries that agree with the US though that US was right, and they trusted US on that.

It's a shame that they were mislead as many of us in the US including me.

[edit on 18-3-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Chemical weapons degrade over four months?
Damn then I guess our huge chemical weapons stores and the multi million dollar warning systems in case of an accidental leak are totally wasted. Seriously we have VX and the like sitting in bunkers from the cold war, so unless John Titor was really a military contractor that specialized in dialited time bio weapon storage all of our chemmies would be useless according to your statement that chems degrade after 4 months.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
So what do we do now?

I'm afraid nothing. When the gov doesnt get what they want from the people, or they come up against resistance, there will be another attack of some kind, either here at home or to a US interest overseas. THEN Americans will rally around and approve. The government knows us better than we know ourselves.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Well the damage is done Dg and we have to reap the consequences of the mistakes of the people that we trust to lead us and our country.

While some has make money from this war (defense budget spending and investors firm)

We are stuck with the debt, and is nothing we can do about it.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Short memories.

It is without a doubt that not all of the UN nations were convinced of the weapons. It is also convenient to lay the blame on The UN when it comes to looking for a scapegoat to say “it” believed the weapons were there, obviously even those with their intelligence on Iraq found no basis of support for the weapons.

To suggest “The UN” knew about them is not only false, it is looking to shed the blame to others and away from Bush and Blair, the two men responsible for the intelligence used to convince UN members Iraq was a threat. To wit:

Dr. Hans Blix; selections from his oral reports.


March 7, 2003-American U-2 and French Mirage surveillance aircraft already give us valuable imagery,

As I noted on 14 February, intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks and, in particular, that there are mobile production units for biological weapons…No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.

Nevertheless, intelligence agencies have expressed the view that proscribed programmes have continued or restarted in this period. It is further contended that proscribed programmes and items are located in underground facilities,

February 14, 2003-We are fully aware that many governmental intelligence organizations are convinced and assert that proscribed weapons, items and programmes continue to exist. The US Secretary of State presented material in support of this conclusion. Governments have many sources of information that are not available to inspectors. Inspectors, for their part, must base their reports only on evidence, which they can, themselves, examine and present publicly. Without evidence, confidence cannot arise.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I find it interesting how we base our intelegence on the WMD in iraq on a group of paraniod inspectors, telling the worst case scenario EVERY time.
But hey....you want to believe the convoy for syria was WMD fine, but the sats just show a convoy, anything from a prisnor exchange to WMD could have been transported.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
How to start a war, steal a country

Those countries 'convinced' Iraq had NBC (WMD if you must) were and are members of the ECHELON intelligence gathering / sharing network. SIGINT is gathered, sent to centres for processing (including GCHQ in UK), it then goes back to US NSA for collation, co-ordination with HUMINT etc gathered by US military and then it's 'all' passed back to all members.

Wolfowitz etc set up the special plans group within the Pentagon which twisted the HUMINT, which slanted the interpretation of the SIGINT & reports passed back to ECHELON members.

www.antiwar.com...

The members of ECHELON are:

USA - 'Mobile WMD Labs'
UK - '45 minutes'
Australia - 'Thousands of wmd's'
Canada - ???
New Zealand -???

Not all partners are equal

echelononline.free.fr...

Seems clear to me neo-cons hijacked ECHELON, countries believed the reports they got as it was based on their own SIGINT sources. Obviously they had their own HUMINT sources but it suited their purposes to ignore them if they weren't 'on message'.

Now if the neo-cons are this clever & prepared to go so far why aren't they more likely suspects for 11-9 than Osama & Co

(I reckon that's 6+ keywords - waiting for the knock on the door!!)



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

The US Government lied to start the war in Iraq. The whole world knows that now. And more to the point, the whole world knows that Americans know that the US Government lied to start the war in Iraq. The world is now watching to see what the people of the United States will do.



When all is said and done, there is more said than done. What's being said by people who have overcome cognitive dissonance is not enough. What's being said by people in the thick of it is sad. What's being said by people justifying the government's lies is perverse.

What is to be "done"?

Anyway, that's all history, and there are more countries posing "imminent threats" to invade so that Iraq can be forgotten.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Its my opinion that the people have no effect on world affairs. Politicians aren't listening and won't listen unless the public becomes outraged enough to revolt. Anything less can be swept under the rug. So I wouldn't expect change in our situation for a while to come.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
If the government lied about WMDs, why didn't they plant some or simply lie that they'd found them. We knew he had chemical weapons, because he used them. Additionally, some were found - the rest are sitting in Syria atm. At any rate, we were not lied to if you believe the case for WMDs was mistaken, it was simply because the world's governments were wrong, not lying. Anyway, Saddam was a threat to the free world and region regardless if he had WMDs. This guy loved war, violence. Not just used it, he loved it. It doesn't take brilliance to see the trend of recent developments in the middle east spurred by US action in Afghanistan and Iraq. Elections in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (to an extent.), Syria is withdrawing from Lebanon, there is unrest inside Syria itself. Libya has given up its nuclear ambition, and Egypt is reforming its election procedure, and Jordan is making more and more steps towards open democracy. People see their neighbors prospering outside of repressive regimes and they think 'hey, that looks like a pretty sweet deal."

We went to war in Iraq for many different reasons, and the world is beginning to reap the rewards of our efforts. Iraq was a threat, WMDs or not.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
We went to war in Iraq for many different reasons, and the world is beginning to reap the rewards of our efforts.


Nope. The US and UK went to Iraq to sit on the oil. Greg Palast reporting for BBC's Newsnight and Harper's magazine has exposed the Secret US plans for Iraq's oil.



The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
If the government lied about WMDs, why didn't they plant some or simply lie that they'd found them.

Because journalists ,FBI and IAEA agents would be all over them like flies to a pile of excriment...


We knew he had chemical weapons, because he used them.

On who?
The one shell in falluja?


Additionally, some were found - the rest are sitting in Syria atm.

Why?
Syria would be safer sideing WITH america than sideing with iraq...
Also if your reffering to the convoy...there is no real evidence they are anything illegal..



At any rate, we were not lied to if you believe the case for WMDs was mistaken, it was simply because the world's governments were wrong, not lying.

Uhh no they deliberately lied to us and still do...if they said they were wrong after words then I would be happy...



Anyway, Saddam was a threat to the free world and region regardless if he had WMDs. This guy loved war, violence. Not just used it, he loved it.

The region?
Yes, mabye.
The free world?
Yes, mabye but no more than any country...hell britain alone is one of the single most dangerous threats to the world as it is...
What with us exporting most of our stuff by sea how difficult would it be to hide a nuke on a ship and guard it with our SF teams?



It doesn't take brilliance to see the trend of recent developments in the middle east spurred by US action in Afghanistan and Iraq. Elections in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (to an extent.), Syria is withdrawing from Lebanon, there is unrest inside Syria itself. Libya has given up its nuclear ambition, and Egypt is reforming its election procedure, and Jordan is making more and more steps towards open democracy. People see their neighbors prospering outside of repressive regimes and they think 'hey, that looks like a pretty sweet deal."

Actually I bet thier thinking ," hey that guy just got his ass bombed by the U S of A for no reason....we better just hide incase we anger them..."


We went to war in Iraq for many different reasons, and the world is beginning to reap the rewards of our efforts. Iraq was a threat, WMDs or not.

Threat to who?
The USA?
The UK?
The free world?
Russia is a bigger threat than iraq....



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by uknumpty

Originally posted by AlphaHumana
We went to war in Iraq for many different reasons, and the world is beginning to reap the rewards of our efforts.


Nope. The US and UK went to Iraq to sit on the oil. Greg Palast reporting for BBC's Newsnight and Harper's magazine has exposed the Secret US plans for Iraq's oil.



The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.


ummm, if you read the whole article, by the end, it basically says that people in a position within these companies disagree with what the reason for these supposed "secret" meetings were for. in other words, the article says "is this the case?" and then proceeds to say "no, as we found out..."




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join