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.

 

US has found some 500 Chemical Weapons in Iraq

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Left wing nutjobs? Hate filled low-brows? Seems as if you're running out of nice
things to say about people that don't agree with you completely.

If we can't decide, maybe you can tell us what you think ; is he an idiot pawn or
an evil genius? ( Maybe he's an evil idiot, what do you say?)

If they're sitting on an international trump card, where did their heads go when
they replaced them with the trump card?




posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apoc
I find it funny none of you left wing nutjobs have answered the question "what evidence would it take?" specifically...
[edit on 22-6-2006 by Apoc]


Left wing nut job? All lumped together nice and tidy for you, eh? I can't speak for all the other 'left wing nut jobs' but personally I would have been satisfied if any of the WMD development programs, laboratories, facilities and the like that were so adamantly and eloquently presented in the run-up to the war had ever, in fact, been discovered. None have. By us or by any of the independent inspectors in Iraq prior to the war. Had they even found munitions with reasonably fresh chemicals it would at least suggest that there was some fairly recent activity to develop and manufcature chemical weapons.

But you're right Apoc... it's far more reasonable to believe that in the days and weeks before the war Saddam and his crew poured the chemicals/bios into the river and neutralized them so that they wouldn't be able to be detected and/or trucked them all into Syria under the watchful eyes of who-knows-how-many satellites and overflights leaving behind only those munitions that had been manufactured pre-1991.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apoc
I find it funny none of you left wing nutjobs have answered the question "what evidence would it take?" specifically.
We know why this is so. You are hate filled low-brows. NO evidence will ever convince you. My God if we found nuclear warheads you would just say "Bush Planted them".
Talk about being out of touch. You morons can't even agree if Bush is an idiot pawn or an evil genius.

**snip**

[edit on 22-6-2006 by Apoc]


I refer you to my previous answer - and to that of other posters.

Yrs 'a Left-wing nut job' & Ex-UK forces trained to fight in an NBC environment.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by chaosrain
Clearly, if the goal was to prove that Iraq had WMD's they would have been found or planted earlier than now.

...

Now if you want to earn some conspiracy street cred, tell me why we would destabilize a major oil producing country like Iraq and nearly halt the overall supply of oil coming from there in parallel with an effort to secure their oil? Answer that question and you've started along the path of understanding a lot of what is really happening and denying ignorance.


Good points chaosrain. I wonder then, if WMD's turn up, will that boost calls for withdrawl. Surely the original mission aims will have been fulfilled.

Now, of course, have terrorism. I don't believe this is the true aim of the war either. For one, i'm quite sure engaging a guerilla army in the field is NOT the best way to do it.

So what does that leave us with. What is the reason for coalition forces to remove a strongman from the only secular nation in the region?

Perhaps it was thought a presence was needed in the area to 'sort things out' before Saddam shuffled off this mortal coil or was deposed, rather than leave it to 'the natives' or another willing interloper.

Or maybe it is oil. If so, I would like to know what sort of envisaged scenario has motivated Western forces to engage in such an action. Is there something around the corner that our governments are attempting to sheild us from?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Apoc, if you can't speak like an adult, perhaps you shouldn't be speaking with the adults in the room.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Cool in man. Those "WMDs" were smoke grenades left over from the previous July 4 celebration. Not to worry.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apoc
I find it funny none of you left wing nutjobs have answered the question "what evidence would it take?" specifically.
We know why this is so. You are hate filled low-brows. NO evidence will ever convince you. My God if we found nuclear warheads you would just say "Bush Planted them".
Talk about being out of touch. You morons can't even agree if Bush is an idiot pawn or an evil genius.

The fact is Bush knows Russia, China, and France all had a hand in moving WMDs out of and around Iraq to avoid UN Weapon Inspectors (see oil for food scandal). The admin doesn't care all that much about promoting the facts of WMD existance now as we are already there. No point in rubbing other member's of the security councils' noses in it in a public way. I think it is an international political trump card they are sitting on.


But the again, Sadaam would never lie. I guess it was Israel that gased Kurds right?


[edit on 22-6-2006 by Apoc]


I ALREADY ANSWERED, AS HAVE SEVERAL OTHERS! WE WANT WMDS TO BE FOUND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bush Said Mushroom clouds, Nuclear Weapons, WMDs, you have found old, non-lethal Mustard gas sold to Saddam by Bush's Daddy! Until you find WMDs, not sold to Saddam by Bush's Daddy and friends, that are an actual threat to America or other countries, HE LIED!



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   
*Note: Nut job is one that actually looks for substantial PROOF before spending nearly half a trillion dollars to invade a country for WMD's.

This is absloutely astounding to me. These 500 some munitions found were nothing more than remnants from the Iran/Iraq war. Experts say the worst they can do now is give someone a nasty chemical burn. What's worse is that Iraq may very well have bought these weapons with money the US gave them.

Rick Santorum was desperate and brought this up to gain some poll points (which he is down by 18 right now). It is AMAZING that the political bar has been dropped this low.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.



Asked a simple question, got a bunch of deflection. No number's, no types. But I think this amount of radioactive material in the hand's of terrorist's is plenty.

news.bbc.co.uk...

But then where would you get the terrorist to use your dirty little material's?


Some Iraqi militants trained in Taliban-run Afghanistan helped Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq. The camps of Ansar fighters, who clashed repeatedly with anti-Saddam Kurds, were bombed in the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN Security Council that Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected al-Qaeda affiliate and chemical and biological weapons specialist. Powell said al-Zarqawi had both planned the October 2002 assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan and set up a camp in Ansar al-Islam’s territory to train terrorists in the use of chemical weapons.



Deny Deception!



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Let's take a look at the cease-fire signed by Iraq and the U.N. members.



8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;



1. Obviously these materials were not destroyed.
2. Obviously these materials were not removed.
3. Even if these materials were rendered harmless
via time, such rendering was not done via U.N. supervision.

Thus Iraq violated the cease-fire agreement.

It's not a far cry to say once a cease-fire agreement is violated
that it would be fair that firing resumes It's a red herring, imo,
that this is a new war, but rather a resumption of an old
war.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.



Asked a simple question, got a bunch of deflection. No number's, no types. But I think this amount of radioactive material in the hand's of terrorist's is plenty.

news.bbc.co.uk...

But then where would you get the terrorist to use your dirty little material's?


Some Iraqi militants trained in Taliban-run Afghanistan helped Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq. The camps of Ansar fighters, who clashed repeatedly with anti-Saddam Kurds, were bombed in the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN Security Council that Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected al-Qaeda affiliate and chemical and biological weapons specialist. Powell said al-Zarqawi had both planned the October 2002 assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan and set up a camp in Ansar al-Islam’s territory to train terrorists in the use of chemical weapons.



Deny Deception!




SThe 1,000 "sources" evacuated in the Iraqi operation included a "huge range" of radioactive items used for medical purposes and industrial purposes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration told AP news agency.

Thought I would add that part of the BBC article. Adds some clarity as to what that material was used for.

COuld you list a source from the second quote?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Ah, a little more deflection then? 1.77 metric ton's of dirty nuke material trumped by 1,000 'additional' item's? (which ARE radioactive, despite the 'medical' annotation) Maybe if they'd dropped 'em off at your door with a couple pound's of C-4 attached you'd be a bit more respectful?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Ah, a little more deflection then? 1.77 metric ton's of dirty nuke material trumped by 1,000 'additional' item's? (which ARE radioactive, despite the 'medical' annotation) Maybe if they'd dropped 'em off at your door with a couple pound's of C-4 attached you'd be a bit more respectful?


No, I would probably be dead.

Am I deflecting things when I try to illustrate that maybe your argument is bogus?

Lots of countries have LOTS of radioactive material, used for a LOT of different things, few of which have bad things in mind with them. The article you post does not suggest at all that this 1.77 tons of material was found to have any link to any bad intention.

In fact, I might even suggest that you tried to make this story sound more dangerous than it really was by adding the blurb about Zarqawi, which you still haven't provided a source for.

I also don't like you fantasizing about putting things attached with C-4 on my door.

You're making me blush.



[edit on 22-6-2006 by TruthWithin]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I didn't say anything about 'me' putting anything by your door, nice slight of hand though.


Furthermore, I'm not trying to make anything sound any way. I'm simply presenting fact's and 'connecting dot's', you remember that right? That's what you Lib's accused the President of not doing after 911 if memory serve's. It's called having it both way's I believe.


As to the link, my apologie's, running around the house in between post's.

www.cfr.org...

Seem's to me to be a well balanced analysis.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
I didn't say anything about 'me' putting anything by your door, nice slight of hand though.


Furthermore, I'm not trying to make anything sound any way. I'm simply presenting fact's and 'connecting dot's', you remember that right? That's what you Lib's accused the President of not doing after 911 if memory serve's. It's called having it both way's I believe.



Let's please stay on topic and not fit in little jabs about the other's political beliefs. Its unproductive and a waste of time. And please, do not categorize me. You don't know me.

I am simply saying that news from 2 years ago is not proof that WMD's exisit in Iraq, the topic you refuse to refute. One must have 'dots' in order to connect them. I am not buying the dots you present.

Enlighten me.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
You just called yourself a liberal on the NK thread, but if I say it it's slander right? Funny how that work's.

Anyway's, I think it's funny how you characterized the ton's of radioactive material. Like, oh yeah, there was no ill intent. The problem is, under the cease fire agreement, they shouldn't have had it at all.

And I see that you just discount the terrorist aspect out of hand?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

That's what you Lib's accused the President of not doing after 911 if memory serve's.


Yes, I am a liberal, and last I checked liberal was not a bad word. You categorized me by assuming I follow and believe in everything that liberals do. I don't follow blindly, and I try to think for myself though, so do not put words in my mouth about how I feel about President Bush.

THIS IS BICKERING and it is silly.

Please, let's debate the topic.

That being said...

Yes, terrorists are bad people. They want to do bad things. No argument here.

Is this article you present, or even the event it covers satisfactory proof of WMD's in Iraq?

Apparently not.

Finding 1.77 TONS of nuclear material would have been the 'smoking gun' if it were developed to the state of matter where it posed a threat. But it was not. Nor was there any proof that there was the intent, technology or resource to do so. Nor was there proof Zarqawi even know of this and was trying to use it.

Deception flows both ways.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
It seems only these two senators and the talking heads on the right think this is a big deal. All news stations are reporting that intelligence officials are saying these finds are basically nothing. They are not the "threat" we were supposed to stop with this war.

The fact that we found them should surprise no one. Didn't we also find a few jets that were buried by Saddam and basically forgotten?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
My point is, the material didn't need be Highly Enriched to make a dirty bomb!


Zarqawi didn't need to know until saddam needed him to know.


Gotta sign off for tonight, check back tomorrow!



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
So we found something,thats interesting.
Maybe we can drop the vice pres in the pile and let him
look for details. Give us a good reason we sent everyone
over there perhaps ? I thought we were looking for some
aluminum tubes what happened to those ? O...that was the
german informant that lies.....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join