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.

 

500 WMD's found in Iraq

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Hey I wonder where they got those rusty shells to begin with?



If you will look at that picture real close, the man standing behind rummy is carrying a satchel which contains some interesting proposals.




posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

we didnt finish the job the first time? thats why we waited 8-10 years to finish the job? o right clintons fault, sorry I forgot. I doubt the public would have gone to war had bush said "yea we didnt finish the job the first time" rather then "look saddam is making WMD still, hes providing them to terrorists"

there is a big difference...the second one is what we call LYING.

You have no way of knowing if that is true other than your opinion. Sure, Saddam all of a sudden found religion.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Sure I consider it news, I did hear about it afterwards. Unfrotunately it does not justify an invasion and occupation of a soveriegn nation, especially since these were not even being refurbished for future combat or any recent weapons program. Yes they can still cause harm, but they were not being gathered up for any such purposes any time in the years of events. I will vote yes because I just heard about this and consider it news.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Sure I consider it news, I did hear about it afterwards. Unfrotunately it does not justify an invasion and occupation of a soveriegn nation, especially since these were not even being refurbished for future combat or any recent weapons program. Yes they can still cause harm, but they were not being gathered up for any such purposes any time in the years of events. I will vote yes because I just heard about this and consider it news.



DYepes

These were only part of his arsenal. Remember, he buried jets in the desert sands. Why?

Why did we invade? Because if we didn't, Iraq would today be known as Western Iran. And we'd be paying $10/gallon for gas, and be doubly worried about nukes and terrorists.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Fox News and MTV?



WARNING!

PROPAGANDA IN FULL EFFECT YO!

DUCK!!!




posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I cant believe this story has 24 replies and is still in submission.

Are people still not aware of what the ATSNN voting system entails? You dont vote for stories because you agree with them. You vote for them if they are relevant to ATSNN, if a moderator has took it from pending to submission mode IT IS RELEVANT TO ATSNN. You also consider whether or not it is properly written and fits the guidelines of ATSNN i.e. full intro paragraph, no more than three quoted paragraphs, and a closing paragraph.

Come on people, its not rocket science. The article was well written and completely conformed to the ATSNN standard.

Now whether or not these 500 WMD's constitute a vindication for war is an altogether different matter.

The reason given for going to war this time round was that Saddam could use WMDs or send them to terrorists so that they could be used. If these WMDs that are found are degraded and unusable then that does not vindicate the reasoning for going to war. It's like saying "we've found uranium ore in Iraq! that proves he would use nuclear weapons". These WMD's were most likely rendered unusable and buried, as atested to by the UN weapons inspectors. If they are not usable as WMD's then they are not a threat. No threat of WMD's, then no justification for invading to prevent a threat.

They also do not vindicate the argument that Saddam had continued his WMD program after the 1991 Gulf War because these WMDs pre-date the 1991 war.

[edit on 22/6/06 by subz]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   


Why did we invade? Because if we didn't, Iraq would today be known as Western Iran. And we'd be paying $10/gallon for gas, and be doubly worried about nukes and terrorists.


jsobecky, thats just your opinion. see I can say it too. there is no PROOF that any of that would have happened because it didnt, the same way my example went. It didnt happen, there for its our own speculation.

Now unless you can dig up a quote from Iran that say "we are going to take Iraq, double our research into nuclear weapons after we do it, then charge americans 10 dollars for gas after we invade Iraq. O and we are going to have more terrorists for some reason to. JUST LETTING YOU KNOW!" then hey Id say you were right. But I doubt that happened, so there really nothing there to say that would have happened.

Now the whole reason I said this wasnt ATSNN appropriate is because it is not news. Its definately ATS appropriate, but I could have told you before we invaded that there were WMD from pregulf war still in iraq. Why didn't we just invade right off the bat? Because there was no reason to.

Can some one explain to me how this is relevent news considering we already knew they were there, they just told us "we have been picking them up over the past 3 years". You couldnt have talked about it 3 years ago before they picked them up? You had to wait all this time till after we picked them up to say " look they had WMD!" well we already knew that, thats not why the article was even written.

The news article was written to tell you weve picked up the stragler WMD from the first gulf war, not that we found new WMD or that it justified the war.

You should know that in the other thread "the secret battle over WMD" I am acknowledging there may certainly be WMD over there because of the recent events, I just dont see how THIS particular thread can be considered news.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
The article is worth it, after all that is why we went into an invasion of Iraq. Right.

So hey the debate about MWDs be new, old or buried still makes news anywhere you talk about them.


So the old MWDs of time pass are resurrected. Right?

Like something said before me . . . some senators needs some votes to keep their seats and they will try anything just to keep the gullible votes.


Even the promise of having them hidden some where in Iraq.

[edit on 22-6-2006 by marg6043]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Grimreaper, it is news because Santourum announced this information in the last day or so. We, ATS members, happen to know the rationale for him announcing this redundant information. Just because the information Santourum has released was already known does not detract from the fact that he recently released it, and his reasons why.

Im not focusing on you in particular, its just that this story is relevant to ATSNN. It is a recent news item and the reasons given for not wanting to vote for this story are not justified in my opinion. Even though my regular ATSNN-argument-buddy authoured this story I can still find no reason why it shouldnt of been on ATSNN. Hence I voted for it.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
marg, marg, marg, sweetie..

It's WMD's. Not MWD's. Although, that is an interesting concept.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
why does age matter? Because we already went to war once over them, so why would we, 10 years later suddenly go to war over the same forgotten WMD that are now 10-15 years older.



But we did not go to war with them because they had WMDs in the first war. We went to war the first time because Saddam had invaded Kuwait.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
marg, marg, marg, sweetie..

It's WMD's. Not MWD's. Although, that is an interesting concept.




Hey how do you know if the WMD's are now the increasingly elusive MWD's.

Is nice to find somebody with good sense of humor.


love you Js.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
MWD's? Isnt that the objective of the NPT? Mass Weapon Destruction? I prefer Marg's references to the US pursing mass weapon destruction hehe



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 06:54 PM
link   
subz, dont you think we could just discuss it in the big article "The Secret Battle Over WMDs"? I mean Isn't it kind of the whole point of the thread there to discuss Mr Gaubatz evidence and these politicians reasoning for not acting on it? Its not like this by itself is big news, it would have fit better in the other thread where we are already talking about the political gains of these certain politicians over the WMD issue.

shots, if that is the justification then I am completely stunned. They told us they had WMD, and if they said they were abandond from the gulf war, no one in their right minds would have invaded for that reason. We all thought that they had new WMD being made and providing them to terrorists, not some forgotten WMD from pre gulf war. I know the second gulf war would have had ALOT less support if we had been told that, so it was Ok to just leave that part out?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I guess this is why we invaded a country that has NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Gee.....I feel safe now...Iran=soon to be nuclear power...N. Korea= soon to be nuclear power...Yet Iraq=A buncha gorilla terrorist that have a few RPG's and booby traps. What the hell are they going to do tie them to a hot air ballon and hope the jetstream carries it to America? This debate over WMD's is retarded. Cause if Iraq was in Africa or S. America and had a natural resource of Chilli peppers I highly doubt our troops would be getting killed. OIL!!!!!!!!!!!Defense contracting..And a foothold to have natural resource control over Russia and China contracts when the # hits the fan is the ONLY reason were over there. And don't you say terrorist are the reason cause pretty much all the 911 #ers were all saudi nationalist. And if terrorist are the reason then we landed in the wrong country cause there are 5 bordering counties that harbor terrorist.Oh what about what Saddam did to his people...Bull#. cause that crap goes on everyday in Africa..."Blackhawk down"????

Damn you Democrates and Republicans will fall for any political trick!



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
shots, if that is the justification then I am completely stunned. They told us they had WMD, and if they said they were abandond from the gulf war, no one in their right minds would have invaded for that reason. We all thought that they had new WMD being made and providing them to terrorists, not some forgotten WMD from pre gulf war. I know the second gulf war would have had ALOT less support if we had been told that, so it was Ok to just leave that part out?

grimreaper, I just cannot understand your thinking. And I don't mean that to be rude or whatever.

What does it matter the age of the WMD's? As I have asked before, do you really think Saddam found religion? Or did he maybe just back off, knowing that his world was about to cave in?

Had we not gone in, do you think he would have still been so complacent today?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
shots, if that is the justification then I am completely stunned.


Your contention was the reason for the first war was because they had WMDs and you were wrong on that part. The reason the went to war the first time with Iraq was not because they had WMDs that is my point. And yes invading another country would be a very good reason to go to war, just why that reason would stunn you is beyond me :shk:




They told us they had WMD, and if they said they were abandond from the gulf war, no one in their right minds would have invaded for that reason.


Yes they did but that was the reason given for the current war not the first.

[edit on 6/22/2006 by shots]



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
shots, if that is the justification then I am completely stunned. They told us they had WMD, and if they said they were abandond from the gulf war, no one in their right minds would have invaded for that reason.

We were supposed to take their word for it?


We all thought that they had new WMD being made and providing them to terrorists, not some forgotten WMD from pre gulf war. I know the second gulf war would have had ALOT less support if we had been told that, so it was Ok to just leave that part out?

If they made them (WMD's) before, why wouldn't they make them again?



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Apparently I missed something. (I know, that's not news) I could swear the justification was based on Saddam's continued production of new WMDs. Remember Colin Powell's appearance before the U.N.? He displayed what was alleged to be current and ongoing processing capabilities. Remember the so-called centrifugal tubes for the modern uranium processing plant? How about the supposed attempt to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake ore? All indications of developing production capabilities.

I don't think there has ever been a debate that Saddam had some nasty chemicals. I don't understand why this old crap dug up in the desert warrants more than a "be careful with that, its still dangerous."

Show me signs of relatively current production facilities and I might cut the current administration some slack.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
MWD's? Isnt that the objective of the NPT? Mass Weapon Destruction? I prefer Marg's references to the US pursing mass weapon destruction hehe


Yeah that's where they all went



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join