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: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
The WMD threat was supposed to be active programs, ready weapons and a clear and present threat to the american people.

Remember those satelite images of a bunch of trucks that were supposed to be active and moveable biological and chemical weapons labs?

500 canisters of decaying damaged canisters or shells from the pre gulf war era, even if they weren't decaying or damaged and in prestine condition, are not the threat this war was started on.



I agree whole heartidly. We know Hussien had potent WMD at one point but that was not what the war was sold on...despite what apologists for this godforesaken mess would have us believe...it is what he had when we invaded is the crux....we were told tonnes of material such as anthrax and sarin, an active nuclear program and so forth and none of that was found. Even the CIA questioned whether the aluminum tubing was centrfuge grade, no active nuclear program was found, and a few hundred canisters of decayed material is not worth what this war has cost in lives or money.

I might think my neighbor is crazy and armed to the hilt and planning to attack me but that still does not give me the right to invade his home and burn it down....a war built on suppositions is the exact same thing.




posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Or perhaps :

They are just doing their jobs, going about conducting a war, removing the Weapons of Mass Destruction, freeing a nation, building schools, starting a police and security force; and could care less about the "perceived" notion of embarrassment.


You don't just go about and do your job and kill 50,000 people in the process without some sort of major justification. Since they are there, they should obviously finish what they started, but they were never justified to attack in the first place. They were justified on a technicality not on the "thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons" ready to be launched, which was the only reason so many people even supported this war. Yea, bringing democracy is great, but did they ask for it? No. I don't recall seeing the Iraqi people fighting a war of revolution and then we decided to help them (like the French helped us with our revolutionary war).


Man! What does it take for some people to get it.

Yes, what does it take? For you to go over there and see what your "democracy-building" has done to the hundreds of thousands of families adversely affected by the war? Sure, there are lots doing better now, but this is not a situation where you can do a cost-benefit analysis on people's lives. Each person's life is important and you damn well better know what you are doing and have a strong mandate to do it before you start racking up "collateral damage."

[edit on 8-7-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I have searched and searched and searched and still can not find where President Bush said "TONS" of WMD's.
HMMMM

I can't find where he said 1000's and 1000's of pounds either.
HMMMM

All I can find is the President telling us over and over again that the justification is due to violation of UN sanctions and Saddam's crimes against humanity.

Face it, we could find a million nukes, prepped, armed and pointed at the United States and you all would still find some reason to say the war is illegal. We who support the war know this, we know that no matter what the brave soldiers do or find, you will always find something to complain about.
We know your tactics and no matter how much you postulate on here about how evil we are, how much the war is nation building, how we were lied to, we know the truth. The brave men and women over there building the schools, the police academy's, they know the truth. They find WMD's and it's "They are old" or "They are not enough." or you just flat out lie and say that we were promised "Tons" where ever that came from.

We saw the same thing in Vietnam, people hating the war so much, pacifists so anxious and afraid of violence, yet SAYING, if they attack here I would??? Would what?? TALK like you always do? Actions are much stronger than words, just ask the Iraqi's that voted, they will tell you. This administration does not just talk, they go fight and free oppressed people. So keep on with the "Talking points" because we all know them by now. Still we fight for those that can not, still we find the weapons that Saddam used to kill millions, still we build so that they can live. All while you are "Talking down."
Talk is so cheap, talk is so easy and currently talk is free. I've been there, I've fought there, I know what those people are like and what they suffer under.

Say 50K have died in the war? How does that compare to the 5 million or so that Saddam killed before we took him down. I know...it's 10%

So 90% of the effected Iraqi's are alive today because of us. Pretty good I would say.

We found weapons, you were wrong, get over it.

Semper



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

"Regardless of(how much material in the weapon is actually a chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic.", he said. "Anything above zero(percent agent) would prove to be toxic and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."

Though about 500 chemical weapons
— the exact number has not been released
publicly — have been found, Maples said he
doesn’t believe Iraq is a “WMD-free zone.”


No real numbers on the ammounts of toxic material, just exposition and a statement that they found, something thus Iraq is NOT a WMD-free zone.

Sorry, not buying this.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Or perhaps :

They are just doing their jobs, going about conducting a war, removing the Weapons of Mass Destruction, freeing a nation, building schools, starting a police and security force; and could care less about the "perceived" notion of embarrassment.


How naive can you get?

So you're telling me that if the Bush administration found the WMDs that they used to justify the war they WOULDN'T hold a big press conference to wave it in the face of war naysayers and the growing public disapproval for this new Vietnam?


Perhaps they are too busy fighting over there so we wont be dieing over here,


So are you insinuating that if we weren't fighting the terrorists/insurgents (whatever term suits you) in Iraq they would be busy attacking the United States?

How many people do you think became insurgents after they saw the pictures from Abu Ghraib? How many people do you think have recently became insurgents because of the Haditha massacre?

How many people do you think became insurgents because one of the 50,000+ Iraqis killed (what some would dismiss as "collateral damage") was one of their friends or family members?

It's funny how this "War on Terror" is only serving to create more terrorists.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
..........
You don't just go about and do your job and kill 50,000 people in the process without some sort of major justification.


Are you claiming that the coalition killed, actually the numbers is about 38,843-43,273 people?.... Can you support that statement?

A lot of those people died because of terrorist attacks, and those figures include the terrorists/insurgents that have been killed.... but nice try Jamuhn tryin g to claim the coalition killed all those people...



Originally posted by Jamuhn
Since they are there, they should obviously finish what they started, but they were never justified to attack in the first place.


That's a matter of your opinion and nothing more.



Originally posted by Jamuhn
They were justified on a technicality not on the "thousands of tons of chemical and biological weapons" ready to be launched, which was the only reason so many people even supported this war.


Most of the world did believe Saddam had those tons of chemicals and biological weapons, and the evidence was supporting that fact. Saddam's regime was supposed to have paperwork and evidence that the wmd, chemical and biological weapons he had were destroyed, yet somehow they dissapeared and we are left to wonder what happened to them and why there was no paperwork with evidence that they were destroyed as Saddam was supposed to do.


Originally posted by Jamuhn
Yea, bringing democracy is great, but did they ask for it? No. I don't recall seeing the Iraqi people fighting a war of revolution and then we decided to help them (like the French helped us with our revolutionary war).


Like in many other dictatorships the Iraqi people could not "fight a war of revolution". Anyone that tried to resist was systematically murdered.



Originally posted by Jamuhn
Yes, what does it take? For you to go over there and see what your "democracy-building" has done to the hundreds of thousands of families adversely affected by the war? Sure, there are lots doing better now, but this is not a situation where you can do a cost-benefit analysis on people's lives. Each person's life is important and you damn well better know what you are doing and have a strong mandate to do it before you start racking up "collateral damage."

[edit on 8-7-2006 by Jamuhn]


First, a lot more people are doing better in Iraq now than before, Most people live in the north and south parts of Iraq, mostly the parts which see less or no violence after the coalition went there.

Second, if you think you can solve the problems in the world better, or that you can do a better job, such as deposing dictators who were/are a threat to the world and the people living in those particular countries, go ahead and go to Iraq, and everywhere in the world and work your magic... On the other hand the people that live in the real world know that nothing is perfect, and anything and everything can go to hell anywhere on the planet.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir


How naive can you get?

So you're telling me that if the Bush administration found the WMDs that they used to justify the war they WOULDN'T hold a big press conference to wave it in the face of war naysayers and the growing public disapproval for this new Vietnam?


You want to talk about naive?...

Naive are the people that don't see all the evidence that has been presented over the years and put the puzzles together to realize that Saddam did have a wmd program up to when the war started...


Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
So are you insinuating that if we weren't fighting the terrorists/insurgents (whatever term suits you) in Iraq they would be busy attacking the United States?


Humm...let's see, 2006 and no large attacks on the U.S. by terrorists since 9/11... Yep, it must be working.


Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
How many people do you think became insurgents after they saw the pictures from Abu Ghraib? How many people do you think have recently became insurgents because of the Haditha massacre?


If people became insurgents by watching those pictures they were always insurgents. The actions of some people in the coalition does not equal the actions of everyone in the coalition.


Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
How many people do you think became insurgents because one of the 50,000+ Iraqis killed (what some would dismiss as "collateral damage") was one of their friends or family members?

It's funny how this "War on Terror" is only serving to create more terrorists.


i love it how at first some members kept throwing around a figure of 100,000++++, then 100,000, then became 50,000. the actual figure is less than that, although any figure is bad, but it happens in a war, and btw, many of those people killed were killed by insurgents and terrorists and the numbers include terrorists/insurgents who have been killed...



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   


So you're telling me that if the Bush administration found the WMDs that they used to justify the war they WOULDN'T hold a big press conference to wave it in the face of war naysayers and the growing public disapproval for this new Vietnam?


What does that have to do with the fact that you nay-sayers will never be satisfied? No matter what is found.




So are you insinuating that if we weren't fighting the terrorists/insurgents (whatever term suits you) in Iraq they would be busy attacking the United States?


NO, I am saying that the entire world accepted the term Leader of Al-quaida in Irag when referring to al-zaquari, yet all the peaceniks still spout is "No Al-Quaida in Iraq."
MAN he must have been lonely.




How many people do you think became insurgents after they saw the pictures from Abu Ghraib? How many people do you think have recently became insurgents because of the Haditha massacre?


0.
You obviously have not done your research into the people over there. They do not hold to your, or my, perceptions of the value of life. (Remember the beheadings?) The only thing that they respect and understand is strength. YOU are playing right into the insurgents hands being as soft willed as you are.



"The Arab mind has proved itself time and again to be merely a religious mind-- Thus, [the struggle for] the Palestinian right has transformed from a rational action into an expression of hate and violence. Political emotions have taken the place of reason; the glory of suicide, killing, and the disrespect for human life have become prevalent [values]-- The Arab mentality has not realized that even imperfect peace agreements are preferable to war. Indeed, such agreements do not entail all of the rights or a comprehensive peace, because true peace is democracy, co-existence, development and modernization -- things that the authoritarian Arab regimes are not ready for--

Source : memri.org...

Or here. This is extreme, but in those times, extreme measures were necessary and it shows a good understanding of the way they think.




Your enemy, our enemy does NOT think the way that you do. Do you think more or less suicide bombers are lining up because they perceive weakness due to the pacifists anti-war retoric?
It's more, I have seen it with my own eyes. All they respect is strength.

Are you aware that we are just now learning to interrogate them? They are taught that lying is perfectly acceptable if it culminates in a profitable exchange. It also exposes you as a weak trader and susceptible to their strength.

You must know your enemy. Not everyone in the world thinks the way that we do.




It's funny how this "War on Terror" is only serving to create more terrorists.


Ridiculous, unsubstantiated and irrelevant.

Semper



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Muaddib,

Also by the way, the figure is actually bloated because they consider ANY death in a combat zone to be related.

That's right, when some 90 year old woman dies of a heart attack in Falluja she is also counted. Traffic accident victims, victims of disease and your everyday garden style murder. YEP, they are added to that number as well.

But what do you expect?

Semper



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
So are you insinuating that if we weren't fighting the terrorists/insurgents (whatever term suits you) in Iraq they would be busy attacking the United States?


Humm...let's see, 2006 and no large attacks on the U.S. by terrorists since 9/11... Yep, it must be working.

*bangs head against the wall*

[sarcasm]Yes, obviously the reason we haven't had any terrorist attacks is because we invaded Iraq.[/sarcasm]



Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
How many people do you think became insurgents after they saw the pictures from Abu Ghraib? How many people do you think have recently became insurgents because of the Haditha massacre?


If people became insurgents by watching those pictures they were always insurgents. The actions of some people in the coalition does not equal the actions of everyone in the coalition.

Let's talk about a hypothetical situation here:

So...

If you were an Iraqi citizen and members of the United States military came into your home and killed all of your family members in cold blood and subsequently you decided to join the insurgency would you be justified in doing so? What if they detained you without having any evidence that you had done anything wrong and then tortured you to rat on your non-existent terrorists buddies. Would that be justification enough?

I want to know where you draw the line. Not everyone is going to be as non-violent as Mahatma Ghandi and almost everyone has a point at which they would take up arms.

If tomorrow the United States government announced that due to it's interference with the "War on Terror" they were going to "temporarily suspend" the constitution and give dictatorial power to George Bush until this indefinite war has been won you know what I would do? I would become a revolutionary, as would many Americans. Of course I would be labelled a "terrorist" by the government. Does that mean I was always a terrorist just waiting for an event like this to show my true colors?

Maybe according to you.

I personally would say that I was always an American.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Muaddib,

See? there is no comprehension of the people we are fighting. As evidenced by the previous post.

All of their perceptions are based on OUR views of life, war and truth.
Totally irrelevant to that culture.

Semper


df1

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   
The question still remains, "What qualifies a weapon as a wmd instead of your regular garden variety weapon?". The title to this thread, Weapons Meet WMD Criteria, is misleading as no where is any criteria defined. And for any criteria to be of value in justifying the invasion of iraq it must have existed prior to the invasion.

semper: Faux patriotic rhetoric, flag waving and citing ones military background in blind support of the unknown does nothing to prove the existence of wmds, nor does it provide any justification for the invasion of iraq.

You dont even know what qualifies as a wmd.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I see semper AND Muaddib wagered in here but didn't answer my post.

*wonders why*



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I fully comprehend that there were WMD in Iraq at one point, the question is was there an active program at the time we invaded and it seems that the answer was no...old canisters do not make an active program #1 and #2 was Hussien really a threat to us? Can any of you say imphatically that he was? I seriously doubt it especially when even his neighbors considered him defanged as it were and no threat. and #3 was what he had worth an invasion? Numbers dead really don't matter huh Muaddib? You can po paw all you want but to do so is simply cold and callow. It really doesn't matter the Iraqis have done nothing to us. Do they deserve what we have done to their country? No, no more that they deserved Hussien. Semper....understand...many if not most of us who oppose this war do on moral grounds. We were the aggressor and no amount of spin will change that. Yse he shot at our planes but if bush was in the exact same situition he would have been derlict not to push the boundries as much as possible and reassert his soverignity.

I repeat just because I think my neighbor is crazy and armed to the teeth and is intent on doing me harm does not give me the right to attack him and burn down his home. Supposition is a poor reason to start a war.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1
The question still remains, "What qualifies a weapon as a wmd instead of your regular garden variety weapon?". The title to this thread, Weapons Meet WMD Criteria, is misleading as no where is any criteria defined. And for any criteria to be of value in justifying the invasion of iraq it must have existed prior to the invasion.

semper: Faux patriotic rhetoric, flag waving and citing ones military background in blind support of the unknown does nothing to prove the existence of wmds, nor does it provide any justification for the invasion of iraq.

You dont even know what qualifies as a wmd.




How about reading the entire article???
Good idea??

You will find that a Military General says that's what they are.
Someone INFINITELY more qualified than you and marginally more than me.
Again, spin or no spin, you will not take his word, you would not believe it if Jesus came back and brought you a 50 megaton warhead from Baghdad. So no matter how qualified he may be (he is over there, he has the training etc) you wont believe any of it anyway.

Sorry, Intrepid, I never saw a question in your post.

Semper



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   
But semper....if Jesus came back and imphatically said that Bush was wrong....would you believe him? Answer honestly now.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I see semper AND Muaddib wagered in here but didn't answer my post.

*wonders why*


*Wonders why intrepid is also one of the people who never believes any of the evidence shown from several sources*.....


I dind't know you were asking a question to me...and btw, I may not know the awnser....



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
But semper....if Jesus came back and imphatically said that Bush was wrong....would you believe him? Answer honestly now.


ok....this is getting ridiculous now....

What in the world does Jesus have anything to do with this thread?......

BTW, I think Semper made a sarcastic comment...but somehow you are trying to spin it around???

[edit on 8-7-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
yea, it was sarcastic.

Yet the spin revolves on.

Oh well, I knew it was a lost cause with some anyway.

Some people, if you show them the sky and tell them it's blue, they argue it's not.

sigh.....

Semper



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Well my two cents on this is as follows. The war was about enforcement of a UN resolution(officiallY)banning weapons of mass destruction. The term weapons of mass destruction is satisfied with two weapons. If we had found two weapons, we would have found weapons of mass destruction. If that were the case, I'm sure you would all be yelling thats not substancial and if we had found maybe 500 or so, then we would have a case. So, it occurs to me that many of you who ride the political pony are unable to be satisfied with anything and that no matter what was found, it would never be substancial enough to justify the opposing political party. Now, thats the case isn't it?

I do however agree that these are not the weapons about which we should worry but rather those truck loads that have found their way out of Iraq to the protection of sypathizing countries. Just because we do not want that to be the case does not eliminate the possibility and that possibilty, I feel, should be the main focus. Bottom line, we sat around too long trying to appease the UN while they were distributed around the middle east.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join