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.

 

Weapons Meet WMD Criteria

page: 10
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

".... many if not most of us who oppose this war do on moral grounds.


REPLY: Grover.. if you and others are against the war, then you are FOR what Saddam was doing to his people; you can't have it both ways. So... you are FOR the rape rooms; the Stinging Rooms; dipping people head or feet first in acid, etc,etc.


BULLHOOEY.....absolutely stupid logic BULLHOOEY!!! Don 't even waste our time with such simpleton reasoning, if that is what you want to call it...you have been listening to way too much mush loosebowels aka rush limbraugh.




posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Perhaps it's because before going into Iraq, we were told that Saddm's WMD's represented an imminent threat to life and limb here in the US.


REPLY: I think you should go back and check that speech; do some research.
The word "imminent' was never used.


that is total bullhooey muaddib you have been deeply insulting to A LOT of people who have had the termity to disagree with you including me. You regularly belittle anybody who disagrees with you by talking down to them.


REPLY: May I respectfully submit that people often feel insulted, ot "talked down to" when they are shown the facts, because if confuses them, and tears down their pre-ordained views. Feeling "belittled" is something one decides for himself; no-one can make you feel belittled.
To quote you, yourself: "If you can't take it....too bad." I now end that line of thought and get back on topic.


But somehow, though even the Administration itself now admits the WMD stockpile they were looking for doesn't exist.


REPLY: Care to link to where that was said?


Most Iraqi's are unemployed and not given any opportunities in their country


REPLY: If you had been there you would see this is not true. I can provide figures but it would exceed the character limit.

ceci2006: I just pulled this off the PNAC website:

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

I see nothing wrong with those statements.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Moral grounds for opposing war? Well there is the ever popular (and throughly ignored) "Thou shall not kill". There is the simple fact that Bush decided on this war, it was not one we needed to fight, but a matter of choice. That makes the United States the aggressor in this case. No matter how bad Saddam Hussien and his sons were, he was not even considered a threat by his neighbors anymore, and based on the fight he put up in both the first gulf war and this one, no real threat to us either....mostly just bluster. From all accounts I have read he had WMD (supplied by different sources, yes, Russia, yes, China, yes the United States and others) in the 1980's but by 2003, between the first gulf war, crushing economic sanctions and intrusive inspectors (whom by the way he did not kick out in 1998, but were advised to leave for their own safety by the Clinton administration before they bombed baghdad again in retilation for shooting at American planes) he was essentially defanged. What WMD program he had was, by most unbiased accounts, pipedreams. Yes he wanted them again, but that was as far as it went. Sarin btw does decay...it is not an inert gas, but becomes increasingly unstable with age and biological weapons by their very natures break down rather quickly.

Moral grounds for opposing the war? Try lying to the American people as the reasons why we had to go to war. Try the President wanted to go to war no matter....he grudgingly allowed the inspectors to go back in and then chronically dismissed them as incompetent and pressured them to hurry...like 3 months is enough time to inspect a country the size of Califorina?

Moral grounds for opposing the war? Try a political agenda pushed by people like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfiwitz and Richard Perle that had more to do with their asperations, than American security, one that they tried to push on the Clinton administration and failed.

Moral grounds for opposing the war? Try the fact on for size that we didn't care enough for the Iraqi people in the first place to plan for what came after....hell the administration didn't care enough for our own troops to plan for it...incompetance or ignorance or hubris or all of the above.

Moral grounds for opposing the war? I have said it once and I will say it again, if it weren't for oil and ego we wouldn't give a rats ass about Iraq. Want proof? One noun...Sudan...how about invading them to help their people. Won't happen. Not enough oil to worry about. If we had really cared about the Iraqi people we would have backed the opposition during the first Bush administration when they attempted to overthrow Hussien instead of letting them hang.

In the long run NO war is moral and opposition to it is a matter of consious, and in matters of concious zappa, you nor anyone else have the right to gainsay anyone else.

If we have to fight...it should always be as a last resort, not a matter of first choice...and with the Bush administration, it was a matter of choice.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

"....if it weren't for oil we wouldn't give a rats ass about Iraq."

REPLY: If you belive this, you have no clue; but you ARE getting your talking points straight.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Yes I do believe that and I certianly do have a clue thank you very much. You can call them talking points all you want. Won't change their validity though.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   

What WMD program he had was, by most unbiased accounts, pipedreams. Yes he wanted them again, but that was as far as it went.


REPLY: You really don't do any research, do you? By the way, no, I don't listen to Rush; maybe ten times a year, if that. Although I've heard some of what he says from other sources (and most of which cad be vetted), I prefer to do my own research, such as:


Jordan's King Abdullah revealed on Saturday that vehicles reportedly containing chemical weapons and poison gas that were part of a deadly al-Qaida bomb plot came from Syria, the country named by U.S. weapons inspector David Kay last year as a likely repository for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

In his testimony before Congress last year, weapons inspector Kay said U.S. satellite surveillance showed substantial vehicular traffic going from Iraq to Syria just prior to the U.S. attack on March 19, 2003.

David Kay, former head of the Iraq Survey Group searching for evidence of weapons of mass destruction, has hinted at the same conclusion. When he testified about his Interim Report, he reported, “…we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD program.
“The banned arsenal, hauled in giant tankers and stripped out 747 airplanes from Iraq to Syria and from there to the Bekaa Valley under Syrian special forces and military intelligence escort, was discharged into pits 6-8 meters across and 25-35 meters deep dug by Syrian army engineers. They were sealed and planted over with new seedlings. Nonetheless, their location is known and detectable with the right instruments. Our sources have learned that Syria was paid about $35 million to make Saddam Hussein’s forbidden weapons disappear”




Sarin btw does decay...


REPLY: Not according to the experts and, in any event, exposure to air and/or moisture is what causes the decay; neither of which are present inside of a shell.


Try the fact on for size that we didn't care enough for the Iraqi people in the first place to plan for what came after...


REPLY: Ever do any research on what after happened after WW2? .... how long it took for things to get back to normal? Or Germany for that matter? No-one is can foresee events that have yet to take place. Plans WERE made, and they're going better than expected.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Yes I do believe that and I certianly do have a clue thank you very much. You can call them talking points all you want. Won't change their validity though.


REPLY: I'm still waiting for the photos of American oil tankers at the Iraqi ports. And I have yet to see any proof that says it was for oil. Have any?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Germany did not dissolve into sectarian strife...there were some revenge killings by Jewish vigilanties but that was it. By all accounts Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world but that its superstructure, because of war, attack and neglect is badly decayed. It is not a matter of what is flowing now, it is a matter of the potential and a matter of who controls it. Essentially what we did was to take out the weakest regime in the region. I do not count Afghanistan in this because that is seperate though I still say we would have Bin Laden's head by now if Bush had simply shut his big mouth with his wanted dead or alive posturing, and sent in the seals.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I tried to get this back on topic about the WMD's, but....

We did not damage the oil pipelines, or any other infrastructure there, since that is their only worthy export. We purchased oil from Iraq for decades, and we will again, at market prices. I any case, all oil goes into a giant "pool" for lack of a better term, and it is bought and sold to meet market demands. The only people wh think it was a war for oil is the Cindy Sheehan nutballs, and those who don't know any better. No offense.

Actually, America probably has the largest known oil reserves in the world, even if you forget about Alaska (about 4 Billion barrels), there's an estimated 3 TRILLION barrels of shale oil in Colorado, alone. Even if you figure current technology can only extract 50% of that, it's enough to last 400 years, even taking expanded use into account. Now... if the Dems will ever let us get it out........



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Why do you on the right ALWAYS have to resort to insults?..."Cindy Sheehan nutballs"...what gives you the right to insult her or anyone else so? Whether she is being used or not, she deserves the benefit of the doubt....her son volenteer or not, died in Bushes splendid little war, at her grief and opinions in that matter deserve respect.

We can kick the weapons of mass destruction ball back and forth all day but in the long run it is really moot....the real question is...was Saddam Hussien a threat to the United States or not? I think the only coherant answer to that comes from the Saudi's and the Kuwiatis, who had ceased to consider him a threat, and if his neighbors felt that way, how much less of a threat could he have been to us.

By the way simon has done an excellent job rebuting Muaddib and, no doubt your arguements as well should he decide to.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Topic:Weapons Meet WMD Criteria


Originally posted by zappafan1
I tried to get this back on topic about the WMD's, but....

I hope I can help!


Please friends, remember that it's okay for us to disagree with each other, but we must resist the temptation to pontificate on each other as people.

We're all ATSers, and we all have different opinions.

That's the point. So please refrain from the personal commentary.

This is an important topic, and one I want to see thoroughly explored on PTS, but we must focus on the topic if we are to ever find answers.

Try to be patient with each other.

Couldn't hurt.


And now, back to whether the weapons we've been told have been found in Iraq qualify as WMDs.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Man oh man. I just can't believe your logic Muaddib, or that of the Bush pre-emptive war doctrine, for that matter. If every nation on earth gets the idea that it is ok to strike pre-emptively, and for lesser and lesser reasons, then I will concurrently lose all faith in humanity's ability to sustain itself. Cause it's not going to last much longer.
.................


I disagree with you. First of all, noone has "wiped off any country or people yet". Second of all Israel has already attacked one other country who made such threats and was building nuclear plants to make nuclear bombs, yet iraq continued to exist after 1981.....

If a country makes "threats to destroy an entire nation with it's people in it"...such as using a nuclear weapon, the other nations in the world have the responsibility to stop this from ocurring, but we know that the UN would not do something like that, hence nations like Israel have to defend themselves.

Israel is a small nation in comparison to all the land that all Arab people have, one nuke alone will totally destroy Israel, hence Israel does not have the...luxury of nations like Iran to get their hands on nukes, more so because the Iranian regime keeps talking about the destruction of Israel.

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Heh, funny Muaddib, for I am aware of that precarious position Israel finds itself in, due to it's sheer small size. That argument has been discussed before here on ATS. But I don't think I've ever heard that one nuke alone would take them out, at least not one that Iran would likely have unless they were assisted by Russia or China or something. I dunno, what's the smallest, single nuke that could wipe Israel off the map? And is that resulting size attainable at this stage of development in Iran's nuke program?

But really does it matter?? If 5 to 10 smaller nukes- more easily manufactured by Iran- COULD wipe Israel off the map? The point is now, and was in the previous discussions, that Israel cannot afford that Iran obtain them. Period. So in this case, Muaddib, preemption may be Israel's only option, if they get credible evidence, beyond mere conjecture, that Iran has at any point the capability to take out Israel without Israel's ability to respond. Because any Amercian response may be far too little, too late. But really my overall argument against the preemption doctrine is the resulting precedent it sets:

Japan Threatens Pre-emptive Strike! That's a bit escalated up from previous language used by Japan, isn't it?



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 03:13 PM
link   

This is from the Environmental News Service. It argues that the deal has been made, but instability threatens it.


The Environmental news source is famous for inventing sources and bits of news to further their goals of us all eating grass and never running our AC. Sorry no dice there. The "Jurist" you quoted ceci, is INCREDIBLY inflammatory against President Bush!!! Can not hardly give much credence to it after reading your link. Sorry


Semper, but I said the U.S. gave Iraq arms to fight Iran in the Iran/Iraq war. I didn't say WMD's.

Sorry, I get excited and carried away, I must have misread you.


I feel that the occupation in Iraq is one of colonialism based on mining a country's resources and ruling its people. What America did over there is not different from what happened with other countries in the past when they wanted a resource and used the people from the occupied territory to get it. I also feel that in such a colonized society, there is a hierarchy:

That is only indicative of a "global" disdain for an American ideal of liberating oppressed peoples.


Iraq is going to be messed up for a long time because of the "occupation". Civil War has only yet to begin. It's more complex than you think.

I fear the dictator that was systematically destroying tens of thousands of his own people with the WMD's that you still assert he never had, was messing up Iraq quite a bit more than we are. We have given them the first TRUE vote they have had in decades. A voice, a chance to stand on their own feet.

Still, no matter what is found, there are those that will be against this for any reason they can find, and further doubt anyone that produces any shred of evidence. This is the American way, that people should disagree. It is only frustrating to me to see the very positive effect we are having over there and still see the negativity on here.

It is also frustrating to read posts where it is QUOTED that WMD's were the reason we went into Iraq. That simply is not true.
Neither is it true that we went in for oil.
These are talking points propagated by a political faction that is against anything this administration does. We know that, we see it all the time, yet it remains frustrating.


Man oh man. I just can't believe your logic Muaddib, or that of the Bush pre-emptive war doctrine, for that matter.


I am not aware of any such doctrine. If that were the case, Iraq would not have violated the UN sanctions for 12, thats TWELVE years before someone, (US) had the guts to go in and free those people. Also if such a doc. existed, we would be in North Korea and Iran. We may be yet, but certainly not preemptive.


That was grotesquely misleading information from the White House. All biological agents and chemical agents - with two exceptions: mustard gas and binary sarin and cyclorain munitions - dating from 1991 would have been degraded completely. No expanding or improving facilities for biochem warfare were found, not before the 2003 war and not even after the 1991 war.



According to the document, coalition forces have recovered some 500 weapons munitions since 2003 that contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agents. Other key points are that these chemical agents could be used outside Iraq and that "most likely munitions remaining are sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles."

Which is to say, we don't know what other stores may remain, or where they are, or who else may know about them.

Most significant, perhaps, is the assertion that while agents degrade over time, "chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," according to the released document.

In other words, the word "degraded" doesn't necessarily mean "nothing to worry about." Moreover, Wednesday's document is but a small piece of a much larger document that remains classified and that Republican insiders consider "very significant."

www.classicalvalues.com...


No matter how bad Saddam Hussien and his sons were, he was not even considered a threat by his neighbors anymore, and based on the fight he put up in both the first gulf war and this one, no real threat to us either....mostly just bluster.


Was he a threat to the Hundreds of Thousands he was killing and torturing of his own people???


Moral grounds for opposing the war? Try lying to the American people as the reasons why we had to go to war. Try the President wanted to go to war no matter....he grudgingly allowed the inspectors to go back in and then chronically dismissed them as incompetent and pressured them to hurry...like 3 months is enough time to inspect a country the size of Califorina?


With the exception of some Liberal talking pints, liberal VERY liberal news lines and fictional accounts, I have yet to see where anyone has proven President Bush lied. Intelligence reports are by their very nature unreliable and ever changing. Regardless, Congress voted to go into Iraq and no one is spouting on here about Congress lying are they??? They read the same reports and came to the same conclusions. They voted for the war, before they voted against it. SORRY, couldn't resist.
So why not call congress liars?
Why is always about the President??? I know, but that is another thread.


Yes I do believe that and I certianly do have a clue thank you very much. You can call them talking points all you want. Won't change their validity though.

Grover, I know that you feel strongly and thoroughly believe what you are saying, but not everyone here believes the validity of what you are posting. We have different opinions.


Germany did not dissolve into sectarian strife...there were some revenge killings by Jewish vigilanties but that was it. By all accounts Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world but that its superstructure, because of war, attack and neglect is badly decayed. It is not a matter of what is flowing now, it is a matter of the potential and a matter of who controls it. Essentially what we did was to take out the weakest regime in the region. I do not count Afghanistan in this because that is seperate though I still say we would have Bin Laden's head by now if Bush had simply shut his big mouth with his wanted dead or alive posturing, and sent in the seals.


SEALS were in Afghanistan.
Your correct, Germany and Japan were not like Iraq. Why? Different cultures and back then the US would now have played around worrying about what the liberals were going to complain about next. Back then we went in and did the job right. Back then we supported our President. Back then we were a proud nation of one mind and one heart. We went in and destroyed them, not worrying too much about civilian casualties, or collateral damage. Different era, different time, different war.

Semper

ps. I'm back by the way. Case still pending, but I have a few minutes to myself.

Mod Edit: BB Code.

[edit on 12/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]


df1

posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Topic:Weapons Meet WMD Criteria
...
And now, back to whether the weapons we've been told have been found in Iraq qualify as WMDs.

It is impossible to get back to a topic which has never been discussed on this thread. Until we can clearly define what criteria qualifies a weapon as a wmd any further discussion is pointless. And at this point I personally dont give a rats rump what anyone wants to call the weapons in question.

Like many threads this one started out as valid news, but it aint news now.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Semper:

From Wikipedia:


The Bush Doctrine was officially enunciated on September 20, 2002, in a policy document issued by the Bush administration and titled 'The National Security Strategy of the United States of America'. It originated from a set of foreign policies adopted by the President of the United States George W. Bush in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In an address to the United States Congress after the attacks, President Bush had declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them," a statement that was followed by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States, a view that has been used in part as a rationale for the 2003 Iraq War. The Bush Doctrine is a marked departure from the policies of deterrence that generally characterized American foreign policy during the Cold War and brief period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and 9/11.

en.wikipedia.org...


Also: At the heart of the whole Valerie Plame Affair is a lie. Bush was specifically warned by the CIA NOT to use the yellowcake from Niger claim because the documents in question were forgeries and poorly done forgeries at that. Bush went ahead and used the claim that Iraq was trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger and wove the specter of a nuclear mushroom cloud into it to build his case for war at that State of the Union speech. It was that speech htat led Ambassador Joe Wilson to write his article outlining what he had found in Niger and calling the Bush administration on it that led to his wife being outted. In short a known lie lay at the heart of the reasons we were told why we were going to war.

Now it could be argued, and probably will be by some, that Bush didn't know. But, that does not wash. (1) He doesn't write his speeches (thank God or he would be entirely incoherant :lol
(2) He is the President, if the CIA sends a warning not to use something because they suspect its bogus, don't you think the president (and his writers) are going to be informed? Of course they will be. But, nonetheless Bush went ahead and used known false information in his case for war.

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 12/7/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

The Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States,


Come on Grover!!! "Come to be identified as?????"

Thats a load even on here!!!
That is in no way indicative of a policy as was claimed.

Also, can you link the rest of your post? I heard something about that, but I also heard that it was political posturing and much like the dissatisfied Generals everyone went gaa gaa over, wound up only being a ;political move and not pertinent fact.

If you link the source we can both investigate it.

Also, what is your opinion on the FACT that congress voted for the war as well? Why is President Bush the only one being accused of lying?

Semper



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
semper, grover's source was wiki:

Preemptive War

You can also read more at these links:

Preemptive War and International Law

Preventive or Preemptive War?

Preemptive war

Perils of Preemptive War

To name a few...



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I was merely quoting from Wikipedia....however...I do remember the speech and the media even then was calling it the "Bush doctrine" as opposed to the "Powell doctrine" which it "replaced" which proposed only going to war with overwhelming force.

As for the other, come on semper....google Valerie Plame and you will find more than enough...PLUS there are quite a few threads on here including some of my own that deal with this. And no it is not political posturing as some would have it....the whole issue goes right to the heart of the reasons we were given for going to war.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
But see...
That is my entire issue with this.

www.senate.gov...

Go down the list. MANY of the ones that voted for the war, are now the ones hard-lining against it. They had the EXACT same information the President did. Especially the Senate Arms Committee.

Yet, everyone blames this all on President Bush. I still think it was the right thing to do, I'm glad we went there and glad we have done the good we are doing.

Now, do I think we will ever prevail? We have discussed this before Grover, no I don't, but not for the political pandering reasons others do.

Thanks TrueAmerican for the info.

I do have one question though, and trust me, I am NOT informed on this subject. Isn't Wiki a site where anyone can add material to a subject? If so, how can it be referenced?

Sorry, but not up on the Wiki thing.
Semper



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join