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 warthog911
I smell a civil war.John titor could still be right and i dont want him to be right.Why cant the congress impeach bush as no wmd were found.
The Cost of War calculator is set to reach $207.5 billion at the end of fiscal year 2005 (September 30, 2005)
Originally posted by Indy
Well we got Saddam and killed his kids. Was that worth $300 billion? We don't have Omar (head of the Taliban). We don't have bin Laden and his right hand man. We didn't get the WMD. The people of Iraq aren't safe. We have lost over a thousand men. Was it worth it? What do you think?
Survey: Saddam killed 61,000 in Baghdad
( 2003-12-09 08:49) (Agencies)
Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed, according to a survey obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
The bloodiest massacres of Saddam's 23-year presidency occurred in Iraq's Kurdish north and Shiite Muslim south, but the Gallup Baghdad Survey data indicates the brutality extended strongly into the capital as well.
The survey, which the polling firm planned to release on Tuesday, asked 1,178 Baghdad residents in August and September whether a member of their household had been executed by Saddam's regime. According to Gallup, 6.6 percent said yes.
Originally posted by Muaddib
What "new" enemies?.......
Every intelligence agency believed that Saddam had WMD, former president Clinton also believed there were wmd....we also have evidence that seems to point that the Russians helped the Iraqis hide these weapons because it was not in their best interest for the coalition to find who gave Saddam these wmd....
There were truckloads of documents dealing with wmd programs which we found. Saddam kept them for a reason and not to look good in some bunkers....
We also found traces of some of that weaponry that Saddam was not supposed to have...first they fired 4-6 missiles which were banned and they were not supposed to have upon the coalition at the beginning of the war....(whether it was 6 or 600 doesn't matter, they were not supposed to have them according to the UN sanctions...) and also several missile parts and rockets were found in scrap yards around the world which were banned and Saddam got rid up before the war started.... The list of evidence is long and we have discussed it and presented this evidence in these forums...
Even if Kerry would have been choosen as a president or anyone else would have been choosen as president the only solution that we had at the time was exactly what was done.
I just don't understand why people are so blind after all the evidence that has been presented and which even comes from other countries.....
Even authorities in Spain found evidence of a link between Al Qaeda and the iraqi embassy among some other evidence they found.....
Saddam was aidding and abetting terrorist against the US and Israelis.... so, he was a threat towards the US and US interests....
Even the Russian put in the last luring trap telling us after 9/11 and up until the war started that their intelligence agencies, and by the word of Putin himself, Saddam was seeking terrorists to make attacks on US soil and US interests..... of course the Russians knew this information and it was true...they helped to set this up.
We toppled a regime that was using and would have continued using and funding terrorists against the US and our allies. Even if Saddam/Iraq was a scapegoat thrown in by the Kremlin to lure us into this war, it would have happened sooner or later.
Originally posted by Simulacra
I think what's notable in the article is that most democrats are less likely to support the war as opposed to republicans which is bizarre in the least.
If our president was a Democrat and used the same methods as George Bush would democrats still oppose the war?