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.

 

Proof Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what...

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Spin?
Your now saying that because I said the wrong chemical its spin? No its called a mistake. The fact is hundreds of 155mm shells where "missing" not enough in my mind to warrant an invasion but enough to be worried yes no?


550 155mm shells filled with mustard had been lost shortly after the Gulf war,

www.fas.org...


Its amazing that that 550 shell quote is still circulating.


Iraq declared that it filled approximately 13,000 artillery shells with mustard prior to 1991. UNSCOM accounted for 12,792 of these shells, and destroyed them in the period of 1992-94. However, Iraq also declared that 550 mustard-filled artillery shells had been lost in the aftermath of the Gulf War; it later (in March 2003) claimed that this figure was arrived at by way of approximating the amount used, for which reliable records are not available, and thus the quantity unaccounted for is simply a result of the use of unreliable approximations.

Claims and evaluations of Iraq's proscribed weapons


It was an estimate of how many were lost in the Gulf War.




posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Then you don't know much about either - one is a minor inconvenience to a modern army, the other ruins the earth for a generation

Ahem a minor inconvenioce you say:


The skin of victims of mustard gas blistered, the eyes became very sore and they began to vomit. Mustard gas caused internal and external bleeding and attacked the bronchial tubes, stripping off the mucous membrane.

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...
I for one like my skin in the position and status that its in and dont want it blistering and dont want my inside bleeding.



Why not? They have a neighbour that has used chem against them recently.

Good question , also begs to ask why not have land mines.




So you seem to agree that NBC is a reasonable and legal part of a country's armoury if they choose not to sign a convention saying they won't possess.

No I dont see it is as fine and resonable but frankly I cant change that so we are stuck with them, I alone cant change the worlds entire diplomats and frankly nethier can you unless you a have nuke hidden somewhere?


Why then was it 'justification' for invading Iraq and killing 30,000+ people?

If he had weapons of mass destruction IMO you would not have seen it justification for ending one life, please tell me if I am right or wrong. You place human life above all else and cherish it, I respect that and I believe human life is indeed above most things but is allowing a dictator to slaughter his own people ok?
Is genocide ok as long as we are not involved?

Where do we draw the line at helping people ?
Was bosnia our fight? No, it was the bosnian and serbian fight not ours.
Was afghanistan our fight? No it was thier fight to take down the oppresors, we went in because we seen a threat.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai
It was an estimate of how many were lost in the Gulf War.

Bad rounding? No, I'd rather see proof that there is NOT 500 odd bombs lying somewhere around the globe from iraq than believe what "someone" said in a report.



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
The real question is... Will the demacrats get anywhere with their impeachment process? If this isn't enough to pull the rug out from underneath this administration, no president in history should've been impeached (nixon, Clinton). I am certainly eager to watch this media spin and where the momentum will lead. AAC



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp


Ahem a minor inconvenioce you say:


The skin of victims of mustard gas blistered, the eyes became very sore and they began to vomit. Mustard gas caused internal and external bleeding and attacked the bronchial tubes, stripping off the mucous membrane.

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...
I for one like my skin in the position and status that its in and dont want it blistering and dont want my inside bleeding.




Why then was it 'justification' for invading Iraq and killing 30,000+ people?

If he had weapons of mass destruction IMO you would not have seen it justification for ending one life, please tell me if I am right or wrong. You place human life above all else and cherish it, I respect that and I believe human life is indeed above most things but is allowing a dictator to slaughter his own people ok?
Is genocide ok as long as we are not involved?

Where do we draw the line at helping people ?
Was bosnia our fight? No, it was the bosnian and serbian fight not ours.
Was afghanistan our fight? No it was thier fight to take down the oppresors, we went in because we seen a threat.


Mustard gas is a fairly minor threat - to a modern army its main effect is to require respirators and NBC suits to be worn (reducing combat effectiveness) rather than causing casualties.

Think you're over-estimating mustard, it's not nerve gas and it's certainly not anthrax.

Fact: UK WW1 fatal casualties from gas were c. 5,500 and that's with primitive protection and c. 5,000,000 serving over the course of the war

Think you're shifting the argument - so the justification wasn't 'WMD'?, it was the fact that he killed his own people?

The US has never supported any dictators or brutal regimes?

The US is going to invade any country that oppresses its own people?

Helping people? By replacing one oppressive force with another?

EDIT: Pesky quote system


[edit on 29-3-2006 by Strangerous]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
Mustard gas is a fairly minor threat - to a modern army its main effect is to require respirators and NBC suits to be worn (reducing combat effectiveness) rather than causing casualties.

Fact is those 550 mustard gas bombs will probably not be used against a modern army fighting unit, why? Because it would cause enough casualties, imagine one of those bombs hitting say I dunno a marine camp with thousands of soldiers? Guys in thier cots die before they can get thier gear on.
Oh and btw, NBC suits where never designed for prelonged use, you suspect that the army can afford to run them 24/7?




Think you're over-estimating mustard, it's not nerve gas and it's certainly not anthrax.

Over estimating? Its a bloody chemical weapon , I'd prefer to treat it with the highest caution I can.


Fact: UK WW1 fatal casualties from gas were c. 5,500 and that's with primitive protection and c. 5,000,000 serving over the course of the war

So? WW1 delivery mechanisms where not efective, now imagine one of those bombs landing in a public place? Oh and btw, 4000 odd men died from the UK from mustard gas but that doesnt change that 160,526 men where wounded and mentally scared.



Think you're shifting the argument - so the justification wasn't 'WMD'?, it was the fact that he killed his own people?

Read my first post, my argument has been that the fact those weapons where mislaid is worrying but not enough to warrant an invasion.


The US has never supported any dictators or brutal regimes?

So we should go by past government rules , right?
Thats the point in looking back on history and dragging skeletons out closets so we can see how bad countries are, not how they are now.


The US is going to invade any country that oppresses its own people?

No, what I listed was one reason and if you think that means we should invade all the other countries answer the question I asked: Where do we draw the line of action?


Helping people? By replacing one oppressive force with another?

The Coalition is opressing no-one and they are leavng, the iraqies chose thier leaders. We helped but that SOB in place so its only right we take him out.



[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
We were told that with out a shadow of a doubt, that Iraq was a threat to the security of the United States. Mustard Gas or not, Iraq was not a threat to the United States.


"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."


Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03


My only question is why did they lie to us? What is their agenda? It wouldnt be a corperate agenda would it


JUST LOOK AT THE DAMN ADMINISTRATION AND ASK WHY THEY WANTED WAR. THEY SHOULD ALL BE IMPEACHED & TRIED FOR TREASON. THE EVIDENCE IS RIGHT IN OUR FACES. THEY DONT EVEN TRY TO HIDE IT.

Why dosent the news cover this? Why did Republicans even let Bush run for president? Why havent Democrats done anything? Because Corperations control both partys. And both partys control our government. Thank you electonic voting.




[edit on 29-3-2006 by Tasketo]



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The NBC suit is a 24 hr disposable suit made of paper, hence there are (in theory) many replacements available.

Soldiers trained to sleep, fight, eat etc in an NBC environment during the Cold War - then it was just another means of waging war, albeit a nasty one.

It only became the bogeyman of 'WMD' when it suited US regimes looking for excuses to invade countries with oil reserves.

As I said mustard gas would be inconvenient to a modern army but would not cause significant casualties - far more terrifying things out there.

Where do we draw the line? Perhaps if the US committed its young men to bleed and die in a country with a former oppressive regime that didn't have any oil then some would argue the had been drawn correctly.

Zimbabwe for example?

I agree history is history but the US's recent record on supporting brutal regimes, training terrorists, rendition for torture etc etc makes their argument that they invaded purely to relieve oppression pretty weak



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Don't be surprised when colan powell is found dead after his yaght gets caught in a deep ocean whirlpool. He carried the load of the war on his back when he took the anthrax to the UN. U belive he ws qouted to say it was the most regretable experience and it left a permenant bad taste in his mouth. AAC



posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tasketo
We were told that with out a shadow of a doubt, that Iraq was a threat to the security of the United States.


Where can I find this official statement (without the use of hindsight and given the point in time)?



mg



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join