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.

 

NEWS: Another Part Of US Justification For Invading Iraq Admitted False

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

You should read his entire report, as it shows Saddam did, indeed, make connections in his search for yellowcake.


Link please!

Then explain why Saddam would look elsewhere for what he already had at home, and why he would want yellowcake when Iraq had no way to enrich it?


"Despite Qaddafi’s apparent willingness to abide by international law regarding the Pan Am case, he is still vigorously pursuing a WMD and missile capability, which has included reports of chemical and biological weapons links between Tripoli and Baghdad.

Libya is constructing what could ultimately be a vast WMD arsenal, including a reported joint development program with Iraq, which — until UNSCOM recently left — may have used Libya as a safe haven to avoid inspection of its own WMD program."
From: www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

"Though most reporters continue to insist that Iraq had abandoned its nuclear weapons program after the first Gulf War, chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer told Congress earlier this year that the Iraqi scientists were "preserving and expanding [their] knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons."
From: www.freerepublic.com...
Hmmmm.Libya, North Korea and Saddam? Exactly.




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

"Though most reporters continue to insist that Iraq had abandoned its nuclear weapons program after the first Gulf War, chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer told Congress earlier this year that the Iraqi scientists were "preserving and expanding [their] knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons."


Take yellow cake, add knowledge, and what do you get?

A pile of yellow cake.

You need much more than that.

If Iraq had yellow cake mines of its own why would they try to buy any from other nations?

If Iraq had no means to enrich it why would they seek it out knowing the sanctions forbid it?

Enriching Uranium is not a science fair project.

It takes a huge amount of equipment Iraq did not possess, nor was able to build, or even to buy on the market.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
I think its good that omissions of false intelligence are being presented now, I think it wouldve held more light had it been disclosed of earlier in the Iraq War.

Lets also get something straight, just because no WMD's were'nt found, it does not mean they were not "applying" themselves to learn more about them and gather as much information on how to build them, how to keep them in strict confidence and how to explore production as fast as humanly possible. Spores dont need to be found, buckets of Mustard Gas dont need to be found, alot of this wrong intelligence could've actually been more of a information campaign that ended up confusing World Intelligence officials. I hope that makes sense to you as it does to me.

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Dreamz]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

You can't strictly use dictionary definitions when speaking of tyrants and dictators.




You know-- you could've saved some shred of integrity by admitting that your use of the phrase "sovereign nation" was in error-- hell, you could've at least avoided making a fool of yourself by simply not addressing the issue at all. But to make the patently ridiculous claim that words somehow don't mean what they have always meant simply because one is speaking of a "tyrant" does nothing more than to completely and utterly destroy any credibility you might have otherwise claimed.

Seriously-- I've never understood why anyone would post something obviously ludicrous in a transparent attempt to avoid admitting an error. It never fools anyone-- all it does is make the poster look foolish or dishonest or insane or some combination of the three.

Sorry-- your credibility here just hit zero. Anyone who would claim a right to change the definition of a word to suit him rather than simply admitting that his use of the word was incorrect in the first place obviously has entirely too much attachment to the illusion of being right and no understanding at all of the value of actually being right. Trying to debate with a person who'd make such a ridiculous statement is like trying to play tennis with someone who catches the ball, then claims a point because you failed to hit it back.




posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
You really are not that bright are you.


Again; An indication of a man who has run out of ideas to such a degree that he can only spew forth belittleing/condescending attacks.

Next three related quotes all deserve the same response:


Originally posted by ArchAngel
'Saddam never abandoned intentions' is not the same as 'WMD were found'.

The Iraqi STATE was not in possession of any WMD.

The Dulfer report did draw the conclusion that no WMD were found.


The Dulfer report is very non-commital in describing either way whether Iraq had WMDs when the US attacked. Statements like '...there's no evidence that Iraq had WMD' is NOT the same as "The Iraqi state was not in possession of any WMD" which you insist on asserting. Just because the report says "...no WMD were found" doesn't mean Saddam didn't have them. It could mean Saddam was very good at hiding them. The point is that that the report cannot draw ANY conclusions becasue of the difficulties described in the "Scope Notes;" which makes this report virtually useless.

As Zappafan pointed out in a previous post, there is recent compelling evidence that suggests Iraq had WMD at the start of the war.

As a person of politically centrist views, I find it extremely easy to counter-point extreme left libs simply because they never seem to base their arguments of FACTS. They base their arguments on emotion and conveniently skewed wordsmithing; which, admittedly, is difficult to overcome. But at the end of the day, FACTS will always prevail!!! Just ask Michael Moore who has been strangely silent since his rediculous movie "Farehnhiet 911"; whose title is insulting to one of this nations greatest authors.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
You did not address my post directly. But I will yours:
"...... fiscal imbalance caused by US defense (there's an S in defense)spending"
REPLY: There is no fiscal imbalance in America related to defense spending.


No, there isn't. There is no s in defence.

There is also no z in organise, there is a u in colour, and gaol is spelt with a g.

But that is all beside the point.

The point is that just because the Dulfer report, as quoted here, says that Saddam never dropped his desire or intentions for Chemical Weapons, it does not say he had them.

I desire a garage that contains a 1948 Jaguar XK 120 and a Bolwell Nagari. I have never lost that desire, I doubt I ever will, but that does not mean I own said item, or even one of its two contents. Nor do I own the pieces to make said motor vehicles and I have, so far, been unable to find a source for the parts...

Just because I have a fuel can doesn't mean I own a car.

George dismissed Saddam's dossier given to the UN when demanded and what do you know, it turned out to be true, sanctions and bombing campaigns and inspections had destroyed Saddam's stocks of weapons and his capacity to produce them.

But the US army allowed someone to walk away with tonnes of high explosives because they couldn't secure a bunker. So much for making Iraq and the middle east more secure.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• Found: Roadside bombs loaded with sarin gas

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

And you were saying..........?

A good read, for those with an open mind, is entitled "Disinformation."



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• Found: Roadside bombs loaded with sarin gas

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

And you were saying..........?

A good read, for those with an open mind, is entitled "Disinformation."



PLEASE provide a link for your claims.

This is not in the dulfer report other than the single Sarin shell, and the non-weapons grade radioactive material under UN seal.

You have been duped by a propagandist if you believe this.

If these things existed please explain why they are not in the Dulfer Final Report?



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
"....Take yellow cake, add knowledge, and what do you get?
A pile of yellow cake.
You need much more than that".

REPLY: Please see my previous post.

"If Iraq had yellow cake mines of its own why would they try to buy any from other nations?"

REPLY: Better quality.

"If Iraq had no means to enrich it why would they seek it out knowing the sanctions forbid it?
It takes a huge amount of equipment Iraq did not possess, nor was able to build, or even to buy on the market."

REPLY: Saddams ties with N. Korea would have been a big plus here. And I don't doubt they would have processed it for him. Oh, and don't forget the 400+ Iraqi nuclear scientists, in Libya, working in conjunction with N.Korea.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
PLEASE provide a link for your claims.
This is not in the dulfer report other than the single Sarin shell, and the non-weapons grade radioactive material under UN seal.
You have been duped by a propagandist if you believe this.
If these things existed please explain why they are not in the Dulfer Final Report?"

The "link" is there, but, no, I'm not going to buy the book for you..... which contains more information than you want to read or hear.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
"No, there isn't. There is no s in defence." Or do you mean "da fence."

REPLY:What dictionary are you looking at?

"There is also no z in organise, there is a u in colour, and gaol is spelt with a g."

REPLY: Again, you must be using a British dictionary. There are three dictionaries in my spellchecker; none show my spellings to be incorrect.
"gaul" is spelled "goal." Isn't it? A "u" in color....?


"The point is that just because the Dulfer report, as quoted here, says that Saddam never dropped his desire or intentions for Chemical Weapons, it does not say he had them."

REPLY: Links were given in other posts/threads. However, chemical analysis would indicate that 90% of the WMD's given up by Libya came from Iraq, and there are dozens of satellite imagery showing convoys of Iraqi military trucks going from Iraq to Syria, right up the day before the beginning of Iraqs liberation.


George dismissed Saddam's dossier given to the UN when demanded and what do you know, it turned out to be true, sanctions and bombing campaigns and inspections had destroyed Saddam's stocks of weapons and his capacity to produce them.

REPLY: Of the tons (or do you spell that "tonnes"?) of documents that has been found in Iraq, and Saddams bunkers, and translated, none have been found that describe the loss or disposal of much of what WMD's Saddam had.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
PLEASE provide a link for your claims.
This is not in the dulfer report other than the single Sarin shell, and the non-weapons grade radioactive material under UN seal.
You have been duped by a propagandist if you believe this.
If these things existed please explain why they are not in the Dulfer Final Report?"

The "link" is there, but, no, I'm not going to buy the book for you..... which contains more information than you want to read or hear.


Why don't you tell us all what book it is in, and then explain why its not in the Dulfer report.

If more than a ton of enriched Uranium had been found everyone would have known about it.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Let's assume for a moment Bush decided not to invade Iraq and that Iraq subsequently provided radioactive or chemical material to Al Qaeida who in turn used them against Europe or the US.


How silly.

Didn't you read the Dulfer report?


I'd also like to add that given the context of the question I posed, the Dulfer report is moot as it wasn't available as a source of information prior to invading Iraq.

Intelligence sources, even from other countries, indicated that Saddam Hussein likely had WMD.

So I am asking, again; and even rephrasing: What would you think of GB as a leader if he decided NOT to invade Iraq and the US was subsequently attacked by terrorists using radiological/chemical weapons obtained from Iraq?

[edit on 15-12-2005 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

What would you think of GB as a leader if he decided NOT to invade Iraq and the US was subsequently attacked by terrorists using radiological/chemical weapons obtained from Iraq?


What if Saddam gave something he did not have to some of his worst enemies?

Nothing would have happened.

You still don't get it.

IRAQ did not have WMD.

And even if he did have some he would not have given any to AQ.

They want an Islamic Empire that has no room for people like Saddam.

....And if caught it would likely have meant the end of Iraq.

What they risked would not be worth what they gained.

Saddam knew the fingers would be pointed at him first.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
"No, there isn't. There is no s in defence." Or do you mean "da fence."

REPLY:What dictionary are you looking at?

"There is also no z in organise, there is a u in colour, and gaol is spelt with a g."

REPLY: Again, you must be using a British dictionary. There are three dictionaries in my spellchecker; none show my spellings to be incorrect.
"gaul" is spelled "goal." Isn't it? A "u" in color....?


Gaul is an ancient province of the Roman Empire in what is now France. You'll note that as a proper noun it is always capitalised. Read again what I wrote.

The name of the language is English. Therefore the dictionary is the Oxford English Dictionary. Webster's, and anything derived from it, is unacceptable. To quote a certain "e-mail to America", there is no such thing as US English.

And learn the difference between tonnes and tons. Both are spelled correctly and have nothing to do with Br vs US spelling.

Have a nice day.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
*BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP*

This is a message from the emergency take-a-breath network. Please stop the following:

* belittling some one who has misspoken. If you can't correct a wrong statement without using the word fool, or bringing the entire character and/or IQ level of the other person into question, just leave the errant statement hanging. Some one will eventually come along and make the correction with a measure of civility for you.

* no one at Microsoft died and left any of you the official spell-checker - so stop wasting space with how some one mis-spelled a word

* this topic is not, nor does it need to turn into, our language is better than yours, our country is better than yours, my wee-wee is better than yours...so let's stop the pee-pee contests.

*YOU MAY NOW RETURN TO THE TOPIC THE ORIGINAL POSTER PRESENTED*



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Just reported on Fox News that Saddam Hussein moved Chemical weapons to Syria 6 months before the war. I tried to find the story on the web site but was unable. I guess this takes the wind outta the dems sails since there clearly was a danger.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Just reported on Fox News that Saddam Hussein moved Chemical weapons to Syria 6 months before the war. I tried to find the story on the web site but was unable. I guess this takes the wind outta the dems sails since there clearly was a danger.


Okay, my turn to respond.

Why did you have to attach the classification "dems" to those of us who take issue with the false statements surrounding the U.S. invasion of Iraq? You need to stop making assumptions.

And, we've been sitting through the intimations that all the invisible WMDs were scurried off in the middle of the night to Syria since about 45 days after U.S. troops started toward Baghdad. This is nothing new...and I might also pointed out - it doesn't even have any new information either. Same "rumor", same lack of evidence, same

*sigh shmack shmack shmack*

I'm sorry, where was I?



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Playing The Fool


Originally posted by ArchAngel
Saddam knew the fingers would be pointed at him first.

I guess that's why he went out of his way to comply with UNSCOM.



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
I guess that's why he went out of his way to comply with UNSCOM.


They were replaced by UNMOVIC years before the American invasion.

Iraq was in full compliance with all UN resolutions at the time America invaded.

The suppostion that Iraq was in possession of WMD was false no matter if Bush knew, or not.

It was for the Security Council Alone to decide, not America Alone.

[edit on 15-12-2005 by ArchAngel]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join