Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

News confirms Saddam's reasons....

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Funny little tidbit....

I'm watching the news last night, and they are doing a story about one of the UN staff members that died in the hotel blast. Anyways, they talked of how he immersed himself in the Iraqi culture...not only as an inspector, but as an Intelligence officer....

HELLO! Wouldn't this be direct confirmation, that Saddam's reasons for kicking out Inspectors for being spies, is ABSOLUTELY TRUE?
Amazing little slips that happen on late night news....




posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 07:48 AM
link   
and your point? are we suppose to feel sorry for him now or apologize and put him back into power?

this is like saying that an under cover cop in a drug ring shouldnt be allowed or is somehow a bad thing.

how else do you keep REAL tabs on what goes on? expect him to be honest? lol

i dont care if they were all spies to be honest, with the way he acted, who could blame anyone for wanting to keeps tabs on him? spies are all over the world and in msot countries, its standard practice for petes sake.


BTW if you think this is some big deal you'd probably sh!t a gold brick if you ever found out about the stuff you NEVER hear about. this is paltry in comparison.

[Edited on 21-8-2003 by ThePrankMonkey]



posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:01 AM
link   

and your point? are we suppose to feel sorry for him now or apologize and put him back into power?


Not at all.... I am in perfect agreement with taking out Saddam. However, I do feel it was botched, and handled poorly (and continues to be handled poorly).

My point, was to show an example of the media doing a complete 180, in actually stating that one of the inspectors was an intelligence officer.... I just thought it was an interesting tidbit...



posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Ermmm, Saddam never kicked the inspectors out of the country, the UN pulled the inspectors out of Iraq, to support a bombing campaign from the US and UK. And that was because Saddam was not cooperating with the inspectors. But the point is that Saddam didn't throw them out.



posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:03 AM
link   
The point would be: Saddam has told the truht all the time about the WMD and UN, UK and US lied.. and spyied..

Or is it a good thing to lie? Here where i live it is a bad, bad thing to lie.. if you lie nobody likes you..



posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:05 AM
link   
thats a very good point. Saddam never did throw them out. The UN had to pull out the inspectors for safety reasons.



posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uninen
The point would be: Saddam has told the truht all the time about the WMD and UN, UK and US lied.. and spyied..

Or is it a good thing to lie? Here where i live it is a bad, bad thing to lie.. if you lie nobody likes you..



woah!

finding out ONE inspector was an intelligence officer all of a sudden makes saddam nothing but a teller of truth about everything??????


jeez louise! you sure are going out on a limb here.....

did anyone really think the world would just ignore him and let him do whatever he wanted???

get real people!

never threw them out? but did:harass them daily, block them from areas they were suppose to have access to, made their jobs as hard as possible.

yes a man with nothing to hide does these things doesnt he?

a man with no WMD doesnt openly declare his stockpiles to the UN, which he did 12 years ago per resolution.

good grief! some of you really think he's a wonderful person who has done no wrong. simply astounding!



posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:26 AM
link   

But the point is that Saddam didn't throw them out.


See Prank Monkey's post for my definition of "throwing them out", hehe....
Same thing....

My point wasn't to say, aww...Saddam's a great guy. My point was to show the faux pas of the news caster last night, in not realizing the gravity of her little statement....



posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Well I think the point is that people were accusing Saddam of stone-walling the inspectors by saying they were spys, and thus confirming that he had WMD. What this proves is that Saddam was right to be suspicious, regardless of what you think of him. So he was in fact stone-walling under true-pretences and was not stalling for time.



posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada
Well I think the point is that people were accusing Saddam of stone-walling the inspectors by saying they were spys, and thus confirming that he had WMD. What this proves is that Saddam was right to be suspicious, regardless of what you think of him. So he was in fact stone-walling under true-pretences and was not stalling for time.


i'll say i PARTIALLY agree with this but lets think here.

if he really had nothing to hide why even stonewall at all? if there is nothing to see then there is nothing for Mr. Spy to report on. right? right!

so while technically you might be right i think he also gave the UN inspectors a hard time for other reasons. considering he did what he wanted to his own people and then a group of outsiders comes into your country to inspect your stockpiles of weapons are you going to be a happy camper? heck no! you're going to give them a hard time, you dont want them to see what you have, what you're doing. you're going to come up with every excuse you can to distract everyone from the real issue. and he did this VERY well. now poof! no more WMD, all gone! where'd they go? no proof of destruction, no witnesses, just his word. they had to go somewhere, its not like they evaporate like boiling water! right? right!

are you going to take him at his word? i wouldnt, he has more to gain through lying than he does by telling the truth and coming clean. because we all know as soon as any admittance of having, hiding or playing three card monte with WMD would automatically make him a loser in this game. he has everything to lose and little to gain, even now.



posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Well, it's hard to believe we STILL have to post a refutation of the "Saddam kicked out.." canard.
that said -nothing ill of the dead and so forth, but the late departed Brazilian was no pillar of virtue -what a career: Kosovo, East Timor..... and he was -one presumes -given his involvement in Iraq -not uninstrumental in maintaining the embargoes for almost a decade.
However, they could have got him then. little Israeli accident as the Israelis killed Iain Hook a British UNWRA worker in Jenin last year (you'll recall the Israelis denied it then blamed it on Palestinians then admitted it),
Which country holds the record for breach of UN resolutions? Who would most not want the UN there?



posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 11:33 AM
link   
hey prank monkeyt why do "we have to keeps tabs on them somehow"? lol thats the silliest idea i've heard in moments



posted on Aug, 21 2003 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Actually Saddam did throw them out first he secured the American inspectors out of Iraq a few years after Desert Storm (accused of being spies), then later the whole team.

He allowed them to return under the pressure that the US/UK was prepared to go to war over this matter as well as a report from Hans Blix stating that Iraq did have WMD.



posted on Aug, 22 2003 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by banjoechef
hey prank monkeyt why do "we have to keeps tabs on them somehow"? lol thats the silliest idea i've heard in moments



hmmm the same reason why convicted felons are given parole officers. to make sure they stay in line.

or do you simply trust people blindly and expect them to follow the rules without question?

or is this concept so simple that you completely missed it?







Actually Saddam did throw them out first he secured the American inspectors out of Iraq a few years after Desert Storm (accused of being spies), then later the whole team.

He allowed them to return under the pressure that the US/UK was prepared to go to war over this matter as well as a report from Hans Blix stating that Iraq did have WMD.


but didnt he say later he didnt have any? guess thats a conflicting statement then isnt it???

well actually he never gave a specific answer later....but anyway....

you could put a gun to hans's head and ask him if he wanted you to pull the trigger or not and he still wouldnt give a direct answer.

funny how he says one thing then changes it later. me thinks someone had their hand and money up his rearend using him like a puppet.....just my wild crazy nonsensical thoughts on this!

dont mind me. i'm just a monkey!



posted on Aug, 25 2003 @ 04:39 PM
link   


hmmm the same reason why convicted felons are given parole officers. to make sure they stay in line. ........


Ah yes .... ufortunatley wrong answer. While we DO have control over our OWN felon's, it's not OUR place to LIE about another country that we have NO power over as it is NOT our country. We DON'T have to keep "tabs" nor goto war under the banner of lie's. Saddam has no WMD's and I'm VERY surprised some people think he does ... Correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole war started because we HAD PROOF OF WMD'S ... where the hell are they then? Oh ... right, very well hidden. So well hidden that we KNOW he has them, just not where .... give me a friggan break


This whole BS is nothing more then bush showing daddy how strong he is or some other BS like that



posted on Aug, 25 2003 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Is it just me or does not an "inspector" pretty much equal an "intelligence officer"? Where is the difference?



posted on Aug, 25 2003 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by e-nonymous



hmmm the same reason why convicted felons are given parole officers. to make sure they stay in line. ........


Ah yes .... ufortunatley wrong answer. While we DO have control over our OWN felon's, it's not OUR place to LIE about another country that we have NO power over as it is NOT our country. We DON'T have to keep "tabs" nor goto war under the banner of lie's. Saddam has no WMD's and I'm VERY surprised some people think he does ... Correct me if I'm wrong, but this whole war started because we HAD PROOF OF WMD'S ... where the hell are they then? Oh ... right, very well hidden. So well hidden that we KNOW he has them, just not where .... give me a friggan break


This whole BS is nothing more then bush showing daddy how strong he is or some other BS like that


well all i'm going to say is this...

there is ZERO proof that the WMD he openly declared to the UN 12 years ago was destroyed therefore we must conclude they still exist SOMEWHERE. they dont just disappear. and you dont take a known liars word for it that he got rid of them as ordered as he had not fully complied with anything asked of him before. while you want to assume that there are none i know things do not disappear into thin air. strange how he openly declared them, they were even documented by weapons inspectors and yet you just KNOW they arent there. all gone! do you believe he actually destroyed them? remember, containers cant just disappear into thin air so they had to go somewhere and since noone in the iraqi regime offered proof and basically said they werent going to either how can you prove this "fact" that you know they dont exist if there is no proof to back this up? i have documentation from the UN itself showing he had stockpiles of all kinds of chemical weapons, they existed, they were there. and until there is proof they were destroyed they must still exist.

but like i have been saying all along he had so much time to play three card monte while inspectors werent looking that they could be anywhere at this point.

i find it strange that if he did get rid of them he didnt offer any proof. while you demand proof they were there (which is already documented by the UN itself) i dont see you demanding proof they ewre actually destroyed, you just "know" they arent there. well if they arent there and there is no proof yet that they were destroyed where did it all go? did he give them to jordan and and palestinians as xmas presents??? probably but highly unlikely.

if he did get rid of them fine but i at least want proof of that but there is still more documentation proving he had them than there is proof he got rid of them.

[Edited on 25-8-2003 by ThePrankMonkey]



posted on Aug, 25 2003 @ 07:53 PM
link   
The reason we have spys over there is because Saddam never took back his declaration of war. Most people forget this. He was still at war with us so obviously we are going to keep track of what happens in a country that has a ongoing declaration of war against us and also has a past with WMDs and chem. weapons. And yes in a UN report in the first Gulf war it stated that Saddam had several thousand chemical weapons and agents and was at that time researching nuclear weapons. O wait you actually believe that he destroyed them? Im sorry i find him harder to believe than Bush. The inspectors were pulled back because they were being stonewalled. Even if they had continued searching for 5 years they would have never found anything. Why? Because they were being lead around by the same people that were moving the weapons before they got there.



posted on Aug, 25 2003 @ 11:17 PM
link   
We really had no business messing with Iraq in the first place, IMO. There's more to the story than just Saddam gassing a bunch of people for no reason. Just as there's more to the story than Saddam just marching into Kuwait for no apparent reason. Some of these things are illustrated rather vaguely. Iraq and Kuwait shared some of the same oil. Their wells are positioned over an ocean of oil. They were supposedly allowed to pump only so much oil from the wells, per agreement with Iraq. Well, they'd supposedly been overstepping their agreement, and then demanded money(which they claimed was owed to them) from Saddam, who then got pissed off. It was their own war, and both sides had their reasons for doing what they did. Similarly, Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized a town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. These details are often left out, in attempt to further criminalize Saddam, and further justify an agenda. People don't do any research because they don't care, or they just have no idea where to look. They'd rather just believe whatever they're told. Unfortunately, the "official truth" often lacks many details.



posted on Aug, 25 2003 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
We really had no business messing with Iraq in the first place, IMO. There's more to the story than just Saddam gassing a bunch of people for no reason.


Read:

"Supposedly Hussein gassed Iraqi Kurds at Halabja in March 1988 during the closing days of the Iran-Iraq war. But it isn't true. In 1990, the U.S. government found that the Kurds died by cyanide gas. It was the Iranians who used cyanide, while the Iraqis used mustard gas. This means it was the Iranians who accidentally killed the Kurds during battle. Hussein had nothing to do with it. (Source: Army War College, Stephen Pelletier & colleague)"

www.truthaboutwar.org






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join