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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 06:30 AM
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.


What I want is for Donald Rumsfeld to de-classify the intelligence papers that this comment was made on



"the area... that coalition forces control... happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."


(Quote from 30 Mar 2003 where Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos)

Take reporters to the places he was referring to and show them the dirty great big stockpiles of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons that Iraq supposedly had.

Then I'd like him to explain how a country that only possed missiles that could hit out (possibly) as far as Cyprus presented "A clear and present threat to the United States of America"

Then maybe he could explain why North Korea, which incidentally does have missiles that can hit parts of the US was left to develop nuclear weapons and the subsequent delivery technology.

Maybe he could also explain the lack of direct sanctions and military action against the following countries who have had secret programmes for developing nuclear weapons - namely India, Pakistan, South Africa, Brazil and Israel - three of which are now acknowledged nuclear states.

After that I'd like full disclosure of the weapons systems the US provided to Saddam Hussein when they switched allegiances from Iran to Iraq post revolution in Iran.

After that I'd love an explanation as to why the US who were so desperate to get rid of the guy because of his "appalling human rights record" waited from 1988, when the Kurds were gassed, until 2003 to act, when Bush Snr could have removed Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War. (and on that tack, maybe he could explain why the US has left countless other mass murdering dictators in place across the world but chose Hussein as a "special case")

I'd also love to know how the country who's military was crippled in 1991, and was subject to some of the highest rates of aerial reconaissance and intelligence gathering on the planet managed to suppoosedly re-arm itself in such a short period.

That should be just about enough to satisfy this "hate filled low-brow" who has at least the INTELLIGENCE to question whats put before him instead of believing every single thing he's fed by government.




posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
neformore...

You get my very first ever 'way above' my man. Well written and concise. Brilliant.


As for the 1.7 tons and all the obfuscation being tossed around here's my take: If I may take the liberty to speak for the LWNJ contingent... all 'we' want is an Iraq that has a reasonable similiarity to the one Bush sold us in 2003. You could dredge up at least that much 'dirty material' in any developed country in the world. But POTUS wasn't selling dirty material.

Sheesh...



[edit on 23-6-2006 by jtma508]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Ahh, "the intelligence to question what's put before him . . ."

Neformore- I echo jtma508's remarks. Well said!

Maybe logic and common sense haven't been forgotten.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   

A clear and present threat to the United States of America


In the post-911 world, any state that is run by despots and gives money to international terrorists groups, and even permits them to train within their borders, is the enemy of the United States and is going to be invaded by the US, if it can't be coerced other ways. Hussein's Iraq was a clear and sensible priority target when you are setting up to re-organize the middle east.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
This looks like a preliminary report. The classified document is...one page? two pages? They've got thousands of classified documents being poured over. They know much but release little. I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but for me there's a "wait and see" response. I highly doubt this claim would come out though without some very substantial evidence. I do hope they check those four sites Dave Gaubatz was referring to.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Census
saw it on fox eh?!?

If this were true and verifiable by a more credible source then fox news then i would suggest that the weapons were planted by the u.s for obvious reasons.

i recall fox reporting that saddam was responsible for 9/11 on more then 1 occasion too so there ya have it. mr blix said no but fox says otherwise...ya ok. more hot air from the no spin zone


[edit on 21-6-2006 by Census]


REPLY: I just don't understand the fear of some people of one cable TV network. They present information usually better than most. Their "spin" is but one voice against the likes of NBC, CNN, BBC, MSNBC or See BS. A recent UCLA research report on the media showed Fox to be more "fair and balanced" than all the others, and UCLA is hardly a bastion of conservatism.

Like any other news outlet, they present the news, and it's up to the individual to take it at face value, or do further research on the issue.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yumi
So you consider chemicals that were used before 1991, sold to Saddam by Bush Sr. and Donald Rumsfeld, that were now about as dangerous as old pudding except old pudding would have more mold, are proof of WMDS? You must have very low expectations of what proof is. How about a Nuclear Warhead with a "Made in 2001" on it? You know, something dangerous, that wasn't sold to Saddam by Bush Sr. and Donald Rumsfeld?


The only thing given to Iraq during the war with Iran was intelligence/surveilance. As to the NBC weapons recently found, most were older weapons; pre-'91 vintage. However, myself and many others have provided links to facts showing that more recent WMD's and Saddams nuke program were taken mostly to Syria during the 12 months we (mistakenly) waited for the UN to make up their minds, and were transported there right up to two weeks before the coalition forces began the Iraqi liberation. If you like, I can, again, provide info and/or links.

Edit for content.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   
".... Then I'd like him to explain how a country that only possed missiles that could hit out (possibly) as far as Cyprus presented "A clear and present threat to the United States of America"

REPLY: the threat was to ALL western-thinking countries. The connection with Al Queda (do some research on "the mother of all connections") would allow Saddam the selling of those weapons to any terrorist group, so no heat would be brought down on him.

Bush Sr. never should have listened to the (corrupt and ineffectual) United Nations in the first place. "This" war is not a new one; it is a continuation of the first after we agreed to a cease-fire with the UN back in '91.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
Why don't we have some folk's go on record with what it would take to convince them? How many, weapon's what type? More interesting than hearing the tired old liberal 'blame America - defend saddam' garbage.


It's never going to happen. No matter what is found or what documentation is found with it, it will never be enough. Anything found will be blown off as being planted by the US or someother entity. You could open one of those sites Gaubatz has referenced tomorrow and find a fully equipped bio weapons lab inside and there will be those who say that "Haliburton builds a damn nice lab if they are given three years".

I keep reading threads that say the Bush Administration has lied to the American people and we are a bunch of gullible fools for believing them. What makes them so certain that WE are the ones being lied to? For all we know they could be the ones getting fed the big lie.


JIMC5499: So very true. By the way, being from The Pitt, to you listen to Jim Quinn/The Warroom? Talk about someone who lays it on the line and tells it like it is.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
"Then maybe he could explain why North Korea, which incidentally does have missiles that can hit parts of the US was left to develop nuclear weapons and the subsequent delivery technology." ,/quote>

REPLY: Ask Clinton and Carter about that, since it was their 'Agreed Framework" that let it happen. Also the fact that ex-president pantload sold our entire patent database, including 45 years of nuclear tech. and delivery tech, for campaign contributions.

"Maybe he could also explain the lack of direct sanctions and military action against the following countries who have had secret programmes for developing nuclear weapons - namely India, Pakistan, South Africa, Brazil and Israel - three of which are now acknowledged nuclear states.

REPLY: This, also, began long before Bush was in office.

"After that I'd like full disclosure of the weapons systems the US provided to Saddam Hussein when they switched allegiances from Iran to Iraq post revolution in Iran.

REPLY: Surveilance and intelligence, only. Sorry!

" when Bush Snr could have removed Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War. (and on that tack, maybe he could explain why the US has left countless other mass murdering dictators in place across the world but chose Hussein as a "special case")

REPLY: See previous post; we mistakenly agreed with the UN on a cease fire with Iraq. The other mass murdering dictators didn't have the connections with Al Queda, or the WMD's, that Saddam did.

".... and was subject to some of the highest rates of aerial reconaissance and intelligence gathering on the planet managed to suppoosedly re-arm itself in such a short period.

REPLY: The aerial recon concentrated mainly on one-third of Iraq. Ten years is a short period of time. Is it really possible that every single intelligence agency in the world, including America, France, Germany, Russia, The Massad, Brittain, et-al, could be wrong about Saddams WMD program? All of them? Even the ones who were making money on the side (France, Russia/weapons and the Oil-for-Fraud Program) and did not agree with the war (for obvious reasons)?



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SKMDC1

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I keep reading threads that say the Bush Administration has lied to the American people and we are a bunch of gullible fools for believing them. What makes them so certain that WE are the ones being lied to? For all we know they could be the ones getting fed the big lie.


Who is "they"? Do you mean the Bush Admin is being fed the big lie and they're passing it on innocently? If so, who is feeding them this lie? Or do you mean the people that say the Bush Administration lied about reasons to go to war in Iraq? No WMDs? No connections to Al-Queada? Do you mean we actually HAVE found WMDs and we're being lied to about it, and there ARE actual connections between Iraq and 9.11 and we're being lied to about it? I'm confused as to whom you think is telling "the big lie"?

I believe the Bush Admin. has undoubtedly "misled" America about the reasons they invaded Iraq, but it's not because ANYONE fed me a lie, it's because of the lack of evidence. I've seen no evidence of any of the presented reasons for war.

To answer the question from earlier about what would be enough... Exactly what Donald Rumsfeld said he knew for a fact was there. Active Nuclear and Biological warfare programs/devices. Paper weights from the Gulf War I don't count I'm afraid.


REPLY: Below are links to info I've had for a while, and linked to many times. I just don't know what more one could want. What I don't know is why this information hasn't been presented by Bush to quell all the crap about "lies to justify war".

However, with the captured 3000 hours of audio tapes, and over 12 tons of documents confiscated, which are being translated as we speak (post), more and more things are coming to light that will make much if not all on the info in the following links brought iinto the light, and which will show all the naysayers wrong.

www.renewamerica.us...

www.frontpagemagazine.com...

www.freerepublic.com...

www.debka.com...

www.defenddemocracy.org...

www.defenddemocracy.org...

www.washingtontimes.com...

www.defenddemocracy.org...

www.cnsnews.com...

www.cnsnews.com.../SpecialReports/archive/200606/SPE20060623a.html

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says. January 26, 2006
".... The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed. Mr. (General) Sada, 65, told the Sun that the pilots of the two airliners that transported the weapons of mass destruction to Syria from Iraq approached him in the middle of 2004, after Saddam was captured by American troops. he pilots told Mr. Sada that two Iraqi Airways Boeings were converted to cargo planes by removing the seats, Mr. Sada said. Then Special Republican Guard brigades loaded materials onto the planes, he said, including "yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel." The pilots said there was also a ground convoy of trucks.

The flights - 56 in total, Mr. Sada said - attracted little notice because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in June of 2002." (Excerpts from the folowing link).

www.nysun.com...



All of the WMD's given up by Khadafi..... without a shot being fired I might add, came from Iraq, and the complex in a Syrian hollowed-out mountain with an active nuke program (and 406 Iraqi scientists) is old news.

This, I'm afraid, will not be enough, there will never be enough, to end the criticism against the war against Saddam. If you're against the war, then you must not be concerned about the end of, or at least somewhat complacent, about Saddams rape rooms, childrens prisons, the stinging rooms, putting dissenters into tree chippers by the young Hussein boys, or dessenters dipped into boiling oil, head or feet first, olympic team members who lose being put into prison, and their families tortured or killed.

And WE'RE the bad guys.

Edited for added content.


[edit on 23-6-2006 by zappafan1]

[edit on 23-6-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
A former spook has released more details about the classified document in question. It is a good read, and goes straight to some of the earlier points made in this topic about a middle man conspiracy.

This topic is starting to overlap with the Gaubatz WMD story covered by ASTNN, if you haven't read that from start to finish, you are missing much of the behind the scenes information.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 06:35 PM
link   
But these chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, they aren't even weapons of single destruction. WHy is this news?



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gigram
But these chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, they aren't even weapons of single destruction. WHy is this news?

More distraction. Has there been another poll released lately that shows George Bush about as popular as herpes?

They're also probably gearing up a little bit for all the speechifying over the July 4 holiday. Gotta keep those veteran voters thinking all that running around in the desert is still a good idea.

And some people will buy it. Because, to reiterate, people are stupid.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gigram
But these chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, they aren't even weapons of single destruction. WHy is this news?


Are they? You have seen them? What is your source for that? How aware are you of Iraq's chemical weapons program? I suppose you would volunteer not to wear a hazmat suit to get them too?

There is something extreamly amaturish in downplaying the dangers of chemical weapons, particularly considering over 300,000 dead Iraqi's would disagree. I don't even support the war and I think comments like yours sound rediculous.

The CIA says otherwise



IRAQ HAS A SIZEABLE CW STOCKPILE, AT LEAST SOME OF WHICH CAN
SURVIVE SEVERAL YEARS OF STORAGE.

IRAQ'S MUSTARD, THE CW AGENT MOST USED IN THE WAR WITH IRAN,
IS QUITE STABLE; MUCH OF IT SHOULD REMAIN EFFECTIVE FOR SOME TIME.

THE UNITARY FORM OF IRAQ'S SARIN - ITS PRINCIPAL NERVE AGENT - HAD
A RELATIVELY SHORT SHELF LIFE DURING THE WAR WITH IRAN.

THE IRAQIS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROBLEM:
THEY HAVE TRIED TO INCREASE UNITARY SARIN SHELF LIFE BY IMPROVING
THE PURITY OF THE PRECURSOR CHEMICALS AND REFINING PRODUCTION
PROCESSES.

THEY HAVE DEVELOPED AND TESTED BINARY NERVE AGENT ROUNDS FOR
ARTILLERY SHELLS AND BINARY MISSILE WARHEADS AS WELL.

CIA BELIEVES THAT BY NOW IRAQ HAS EITHER INCREASED THE SHELF LIFE OF
UNITARY SARIN OR PRODUCED LARGE QUANTITIES OF BINARY MUNITIONS.


Read the whole thing.

Now, do you have evidence that the CIA is incorrect and the chemical weapons are not lethal? Because the way I see it people have a choice, they can either believe the CIA which released this report specific to Iraqi WMD, which is similar btw to a report the UN weapons inspectors released regarding the Iraqs WMD program during weapon disposal, or you can believe what an anonymous DoD official told the media.

An anonymous DoD official who, by the way, is somehow associated with a secret document of which we have only seen 4 pages that outlines WMD that was somehow hidden from Congress for over 2 years, and much of it remains hidden from the American people still.

I don't know about you, but I'll take official CIA reports that are callaborated by UN weapon inspector reports over an anonymous DoD official quoted by Fox News any day of the week.

To answer your last question, it is news for several reasons.

1) The administration has been hiding information about WMD in Iraq. That is news.

2) There appears to be a coordinated effort to insure the government does not tell the American people about the WMD in Iraq, and the efforts to recover it. That is news.

3) There appears to be a coordinated effort in the media to insure this is a partisan issue, and likewise to insure that all the facts regarding WMD in Iraq do not get out. That is news.

If you are unable to see the news value of WMD in Iraq, and the efforts to conceal its very existance from the American people as news, then your judgement is questionable in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
Nothing on CNN yet...
humm....

you would think fox would be holding a ticker tape parade, and rejoicing for the second coming...

IMO something stinky is happening, since none of it is logical...

we should already have found them... and i do beleive they were there... hell, we still have the receipts of when they bought them... signed by saddam and rumsfeld...



You have US Senators like Rick Santorum going out on a limb with this. I'm from Pa, and the latest poll shows him 18 points behind his democratic challenger. If this isn't true, then why put your neck on the line, being that far back. As to the point of the pool, check out Postgazette.com to see it. Why should he risk his neck for nothing. The US and it's allies said before the war, that Saddam had WMD's. No one pays any attention to all the trucks to Syria before the war. Let's follow them and see where they lead. Lets also say these are what they are, WMD's from before the 1st Gulf war. Wasn't Saddam supposed to have turned these over to the UN? Get a grip!! You want more I got more!! I'm not a Bush lover, hell...at home he wants to give us away to the Mexicans!!! But as far as terorists go, he hasn't been wrong yet!!!



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 06:18 AM
link   
From Fox news: (hardly the best news source in my opinion but anyway..)



Fox News
JOURNALIST: Mr. Secretary, there's a lot made on Capitol Hill about these chemical weapons that were found and may be quite old. But do you have a real concern — are these weapons from Saddam's past, perhaps having an impact on U.S. troops who are on the ground in Iraq right now?

DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Certainly. What's been announced is accurate, that there have been hundreds of canisters or weapons of various types found that either currently have sarin in them or had sarin in them. And sarin's dangerous, and it's dangerous to our forces and it's a concern.


Now wait, Sarin? I wonder where Saddam would have got that from?!?
Perhaps these 500 containers are among the many millions of dollars worth Sarin the US gave to him?!



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ekul08
From Fox news: (hardly the best news source in my opinion but anyway..)



Fox News
JOURNALIST: Mr. Secretary, there's a lot made on Capitol Hill about these chemical weapons that were found and may be quite old. But do you have a real concern — are these weapons from Saddam's past, perhaps having an impact on U.S. troops who are on the ground in Iraq right now?

DONALD RUMSFELD, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Certainly. What's been announced is accurate, that there have been hundreds of canisters or weapons of various types found that either currently have sarin in them or had sarin in them. And sarin's dangerous, and it's dangerous to our forces and it's a concern.


Now wait, Sarin? I wonder where Saddam would have got that from?!?
Perhaps these 500 containers are among the many millions of dollars worth Sarin the US gave to him?!


REPLY: You REALLY need to do more research... but then you'd find we gave Saddam none of those things, and you don't want that; do you?



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ekul08
Now wait, Sarin? I wonder where Saddam would have got that from?!?
Perhaps these 500 containers are among the many millions of dollars worth Sarin the US gave to him?!


Uhm, the US never gave Iraq Sarin gas.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Anyone educated on the full matters never doubted Sadam had WMDs; what people don't seem to understand, especially the ones who expected the WMDs to be found so quickly, is that much of Iraq is just one big 'ole desert. It's not like the WMD fairy just made them disappear. And what all this means is that Saddam lied; he had them and denied it. He knew what was defined as WMD, and didn't admit it. We will no doubt be finding more canisters of WMD in Iraq for years and years to come.

If you notice, the liberal media sources pretty much all are acting silento n this matter, not even mentioning it. They're trying to let it just die quietly. Some tried the "but these aren't the WMD we went into Iraq for..." they're WMD by definition, so it shouldn't matter (especially since WMD aren't the main reason we entered Iraq, as the media made them out to be).

BTW, Zappa, I love your quote!


[edit on 25-6-2006 by WheelsRCool]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join