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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
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 am sorry, I didn't know that you could use empty chemical warheads to carry milk to the poor....among some other evidence which was found during the war and they were not supposed to have....


Was Saddam a threat?.... YES....


Originally posted by grover
Numbers dead really don't matter huh Muaddib? You can po paw all you want but to do so is simply cold and callow.


.....Where in the world did i say anything like what you are trying to imply above...huh grover?.....


BTW, you want to talk about figures of dead people?...

Ok, it is known by now that since the sanctions were put in Iraq, which lasted about 10 years or so, 500,000 children died, not counting adults, from the peaceful ways that the world, which included Russia, China, Germany and France...hummm, go figure those are the countries that Saddam owed the most to because he bought from them wmd and other military equipment......
Anyways, 500,000 children died in about 10 years in Iraq with the regular sanctions, which half of the world wanted to keep instead of going to war. That's about 50,000 children per year, the war has lasted about three years, so if there was no war and Russia, China, Germany and France, among others would have gotten their way, right now there would have been about 150,000 more children dead in Iraq, without counting adults, and that's no exageration.

Want to talk about more figures?....


Originally posted by grover
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.


The problem is that you only see in the news death and violence because that's what sells... they won't show you the peaceful parts of northern and southern Iraq where people continuously thank the coalition for what they did, and of course the media doesn't tell you that most Iraqis, live in those peaceful areas...

they also don't tell you that now more people in Iraq, not in Baghdag but in other parts of iraq, have more running water than they had before, they have more sewer systems which are working now more than during or before Saddam's reign, etc, etc, etc....



Originally posted by grover
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.


I guess you wouldn't be concerned if you saw your neighbor heavily armed running around shooting at your other neighbors, gasing their families, looting their homes.... I guess you wouldn't be concerned if suddenly you realized and remembered that that crazy neighbor never liked you, and was making threats at you or members of your family and was declaring in public that he has given support to other crazy neighbors who are running around shooting people and looting....


[edit on 8-7-2006 by Muaddib]




posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
So Saddam killing MILLIONS, I'll say it again....MILLIONS, is not to you a reason to stop him?

Good in Iraq???

Look here

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Here are some small moments of "good" that we are doing and there will be more as I receive them from my "buds" still over there.

Semper


df1

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
You will find that a Military General says that's what they are.

Without any criteria he is doing nothing more than stating an opinion.

Btw do you also agree with the MILITARY GENERALS that say the white house bungled iraq from the start? Surely you will agree because they are MILITARY GENERALS after all, but I bet your reverence for MILITARY GENERALS doesnt extend to the critics of the iraq invasion.



Someone INFINITELY more qualified than you and marginally more than me.

I dont recall ever citing my qualifications on ATS. You dont know me and you dont know what the criteria is for a wmd.



you would not believe it if Jesus came back and brought you a 50 megaton warhead from Baghdad.

If Jesus came back with a 50megaton weapon I suspect I know where he'd drop it.
.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Yeah. Sure they do. When they are needed to be, poof. It's done. Some old pile of chemical weapons, that were getting ready to be launched somehow immediately at the US homeland sure are now considered to be WMD's. Yup, they were big and bad those chemical WMD's, threatening us and the rest of the New World Order so terribly that it was worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. They were, they were, yes sireee Bob...

You know, I want someone to convince me that a 500lb bomb then is not a weapon of mass destruction. Or an artillery round. Or for that matter, a single bullet. "Oh, my body has mass, and part of it was destroyed by a single bullet. So there ya have it; a bullet is now a Weapon of Mass Destruction."
Or how about severe sanctions? Why couldn't those be considered a form of WMD if they would cause 20 or more people to starve to death? I mean jeez, where do you draw the line here?

As a desperate last attempt of convincing the public that there were WMD's in Iraq to justify the war, these chemical weapons are just not the kind of WMD I think the average person was led to believe that were there to warrant sending in the American military. To me, a WMD used to mean something really catastrophic, like a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb, capable of taking out hundreds of thousands of people. But by the above logic, yep, there was a bullet or two in Iraq.... Time to invade.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
OK, so the Military Man's assessment is an opinion.

I don't know anything about what I do or have done.

And best of all,

You have been to the Middle East.
Where perhaps? Would you share with me, maybe we crossed paths somewhere? Tell me what unit were you with, or if not military, but a civilian contractor, what company, I bet I know your contact here in the states.

The end result is that you wont believe anything that threatens your world of denial. To even suppose that your core hatred of this action might, just maybe, be wrong, is to subject you to more consternation than you obviously are prepared for.

It is painfully obvious that your not going to believe anything connected to a positive side to the war, no matter who or what or when. This entire thread is of no use to you as you have closed your mind to anything except your own reality.

WMD's were found. Simple, concise and accurate.

Read the article.

Semper


df1

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
To me, a WMD used to mean something really catastrophic, like a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb, capable of taking out hundreds of thousands of people. But by the above logic, yep, there was a bullet or two in Iraq.... Time to invade.

This why I am searching for the criteria used to qualify a weapon as being a wmd. It is not possible to confirm or deny this alleged wmd find unless we know the criteria used to define a wmd.

My advice to the government is to be very careful in setting the bar, because many of the weapons used by our troops are very close to this low of a boundary and the supreme court has already shown a willingness to uphold international agreements over the objections of the president.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
No way these are "THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" our troops went to Iraq for.

Collen Powell laid most of it out in his U N speech


www.whitehouse.gov...


A little later we hear him state:

Mr Powell has also said that he had "never seen evidence to suggest" a connection between the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States and the Saddam regime.

In the February 2003 presentation to the UN Security Council, Mr Powell forcefully made the case for war on the regime of Saddam Hussein, offering "proof" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

The presentation included satellite photos of trucks that Mr Powell identified as mobile bioweapons laboratories.

After the invasion, US weapons inspectors reported finding no Iraqi nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.


This is from

www.abc.net.au...


The old cans of gas are irrelevant to the justification for the invasion.

And when Saddam used the large amount to kill "his own people" George Bush Sr. was our commander in cheif, funny he didnt say a word about saving those people then.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Ok great. Let's say these weapons they found QUALIFY as WMD's. Ok, no prob. Now would you please explain to people like Cindy Sheehan who lost a son or daughter in this war, how that heap of crusty old chems was worth their sibling's life? Or to the poor guy who's limbs were blown off and has to look at that heap as the reason he's going to spend the rest of his life in terrible pain? You can qualify all you want to, but in the end it is limbs that matter. Especially when they are you and yours, and it is YOUR pain, YOUR life, and your horror story on the battlefield.

You know, if there was credible intelligence and reports that said we found massive weapons like nukes that were in place, armed and prepared for imminent use against us, directly, even THEN there'd be a question of whether to invade the place unless we were attacked. Because hell, China right now has plenty that ARE in place and prepared for imminent use against us. REAL WMD's. Where's the beef?


df1

posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
You have been to the Middle East.
Where perhaps? Would you share with me, maybe we crossed paths somewhere? Tell me what unit were you with, or if not military, but a civilian contractor, what company, I bet I know your contact here in the states.

You had me until I thought to myself, "what would the bush administration do?" and the answer became self evident.

Sorry thats classified, next question.



WMD's were found.

We cant even evaluate the question until the wmd criteria is defined. The next thing you know the government will be claiming the criteria is classified.
.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Well now,

I can not exactly argue that. I would be lying if I did. HAHAHAHA


They do classify everything.

Semper



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
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

Semper


You never found a quote?

Well, here is but one...

Bush: Iraq Possesses and Produces Chemical Weapons
Oct. 7, 2002
George W. Bush
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."


zfacts.com...


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.

Ah, I see, your using the old attack the messenger, not the message tactic. Question his patriotism...and you do this for what? Trying to convince other casual readers of your agenda? You have no idea about who I am, and for all I know you could be some kid living in his parent's basement trying to insult people for kicks. The point is there were not a million nukes prepped and aimed at the US, Iraq wasn't that kind of threat.


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.

This reasons for entering in war with Iraq concerns politicians and politics, not soldiers. Soldiers just do their job. Politicians like to think of them as fodder.


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 were told Iraq was a grave threat ready to deploy massive quantities of weapons. I referenced above where the "tons" quote came from.


I've been there, I've fought there, I know what those people are like and what they suffer under.

That's why you have a bias, because you could never stand the thought that you were manipulated into risking your life for a cause that was misrepresented, ambigious and potentially not honorable. I understand where you are coming from, I really do, you don't want to get used, noone does. But, I honestly think that the truth is more important than how it may disrupt some people's mental security. I don't know what the truth really is, all I say is don't be afraid to re-examine yourself and your beliefs every once in a while. We should all try to do the same.


[edit on 9-7-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 02:06 AM
link   
I would consider our use of Depleted Uranium a lot more dangerous then that stuff thats been mis-stored for over 20 years. The DU will have not only adverse affects on the Civilians and enemies in the long and short term , but it will affect our own men and women handling it as well.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Yeah. Sure they do. When they are needed to be, poof. It's done. Some old pile of chemical weapons, that were getting ready to be launched somehow immediately at the US homeland sure are now considered to be WMD's. Yup, they were big and bad those chemical WMD's, threatening us and the rest of the New World Order so terribly that it was worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. They were, they were, yes sireee Bob...


Hundreds of thousands of people?.... What "hundreds of thousands" of people?.... Can you explain what are you talking about?....



Originally posted by TrueAmerican
You know, I want someone to convince me that a 500lb bomb then is not a weapon of mass destruction. Or an artillery round. Or for that matter, a single bullet. "Oh, my body has mass, and part of it was destroyed by a single bullet. So there ya have it; a bullet is now a Weapon of Mass Destruction."
Or how about severe sanctions? Why couldn't those be considered a form of WMD if they would cause 20 or more people to starve to death? I mean jeez, where do you draw the line here?


........ Now that's what I call a desperate attempt to dismiss the facts....




Originally posted by TrueAmerican
As a desperate last attempt of convincing the public that there were WMD's in Iraq to justify the war, these chemical weapons are just not the kind of WMD I think the average person was led to believe that were there to warrant sending in the American military. To me, a WMD used to mean something really catastrophic, like a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb, capable of taking out hundreds of thousands of people. But by the above logic, yep, there was a bullet or two in Iraq.... Time to invade.


Desperate last attempts?.... Sorry to barge in your party, but there is more than enough evidence that Saddam was after wmd, and he had a wmd program... Why oh why i wonder would Saddam need tons of documents dealing with how to restart, produce and maintain wmd.... Why oh why would Saddam need empty chemical warheads.... Why oh why would Saddam have banned missiles, which were part of the agreement that he would get rid of yet he didn't.... Why would he need to have scientists to keep buried centrifuge parts necessary for Uranium enrichement?.... Why would he need to lie and not present proof of what happened to the wmd he had and he acknowledged of having?....



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Ok great. Let's say these weapons they found QUALIFY as WMD's. Ok, no prob. Now would you please explain to people like Cindy Sheehan who lost a son or daughter in this war, how that heap of crusty old chems was worth their sibling's life? Or to the poor guy who's limbs were blown off and has to look at that heap as the reason he's going to spend the rest of his life in terrible pain? You can qualify all you want to, but in the end it is limbs that matter. Especially when they are you and yours, and it is YOUR pain, YOUR life, and your horror story on the battlefield.


Yeah, well quantify Saddam selling the wmd he had before the war to terrorists, or even use them in U.S. soil...

Hey even the Russians did say, alongside other countries, that Saddam was helping terrorists against the U.S. and the Russians themselves said and gave evidence that Saddam was going to make terrorist attacks in U.S. soil.... The Iranian president is now threatening the U.S. and the rest of the west in the same manner, but I am sure you will find a way to cover for him too and dismiss his statements as "wild rantings from a madman"....Which you are most probably right, but he is a madman with the power to do what he says he would do, just like Saddam was...



Originally posted by TrueAmerican
You know, if there was credible intelligence and reports that said we found massive weapons like nukes that were in place, armed and prepared for imminent use against us, directly, even THEN there'd be a question of whether to invade the place unless we were attacked. Because hell, China right now has plenty that ARE in place and prepared for imminent use against us. REAL WMD's. Where's the beef?


Oh wow...FINALLY.....now we know the truth... Finally one of you comes out clean and makes it clear for all to see..... nomatter what evidence is presented "you, and some other people like you, believe that there are other ways to stop madmen like Saddam, and you do not want any war at all, nomatter what"....



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis

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.



Just as a heads-up, that Pershing thing never happened. Just made up and distorted facts in order to try to prove a point.

urbanlegends.about.com...



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

You never found a quote?

Well, here is but one...

Bush: Iraq Possesses and Produces Chemical Weapons
Oct. 7, 2002
George W. Bush
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."


zfacts.com...
.............


Are you sure you know what that statement was all about?....

"The regime produced thousands of tons of chemical agents"....

Perhaps you should remember what the UNSCOM found..... That iraq had produced thousands of tons of chemical agents and they were unaccounted for...



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Muaddib, no war no matter what? Where do you get that idea? I've clearly stated that once we were attacked, on US soil, by any country, that calls for harsh measures in return. Hell at that point, nuke 'em all with my blessing if that's what it takes.

The Armed Forces of the USA are not meant for the latest political whim of an administration. ANY administration. They are intended for use, in the strictest sense, for the defense of this homeland if we are attacked. Sure, from time to time, it might REALLY be necessary to use them overseas as a deterrent, but for me that should not include this new pre-emptive first strike doctrine.

All things considered, was the Iraq war REALLY necessary, considering the scale of other threats in comparison? And if it was for the liberation of the Iraqi people, then why didn't we decide to use them instead to liberate the starving people of NK? Or the oppressed in China? Or hell, for that matter, any number of other peoples who were, and still are in much greater immediate need of relief around the world from tyranny and/or starvation? Where's the triaging happeneing here? It's like a medic overlooking someone about to die from mortal wounds and tending instead to a guy with a splinter in his toe.

But ok, sure Muaddib, for you the weapons qualify as WMD's. For you the threat overall was significant enough to warrant the subsequent loss of life. Fine. I got it.
So at what point do you draw the line, Muaddib? What now? One by one we go and take out Iran, Syria, Lebanon, NK, or anywhere there could possibly be a terrorist?? Then maybe we can be safe? They killed 2,700 of us, and we killed how many people from another country who dared stand up to an invading force? 100,000? 150,000? When is full retribution granted here?

Yeah I make rediculous, exagerated analogies because it seems that's what it takes to get a point through to some people that insist the Iraq war was necessary.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 05:59 AM
link   


Bush: Iraq Possesses and Produces Chemical Weapons
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."


No that says he PRODUCED it.

I'm not disputing that. Of course he produced it, he used the rest of it apparently to kill the MILLIONS that you all would have him still killing.

Semper



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 06:07 AM
link   


Ah, I see, your using the old attack the messenger, not the message tactic. Question his patriotism...and you do this for what? Trying to convince other casual readers of your agenda? You have no idea about who I am, and for all I know you could be some kid living in his parent's basement trying to insult people for kicks. The point is there were not a million nukes prepped and aimed at the US, Iraq wasn't that kind of threat.


No one said you were "unpatriotic" not even been implied. So you can stop with the political rhetoric. This IS NOT about politics, it is about your unexplainable hatred of anything dealing with the war.




This reasons for entering in war with Iraq concerns politicians and politics, not soldiers. Soldiers just do their job. Politicians like to think of them as fodder.


Again : Side line into politics. Again off topic and irrelevant.




We were told Iraq was a grave threat ready to deploy massive quantities of weapons. I referenced above where the "tons" quote came from.

Again, Produced, not discover.




That's why you have a bias, because you could never stand the thought that you were manipulated into risking your life for a cause that was misrepresented, ambigious and potentially not honorable. I understand where you are coming from, I really do, you don't want to get used, noone does. But, I honestly think that the truth is more important than how it may disrupt some people's mental security. I don't know what the truth really is, all I say is don't be afraid to re-examine yourself and your beliefs every once in a while. We should all try to do the same.


A very astute and true statement. However I would gladly die for my country. Gladly, and at times I wonder why I did not.
If the President wants my life, all he needs do is ask.
I serve freely, without hesitation and will until I die.

Semper



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Muaddib, no war no matter what? Where do you get that idea? I've clearly stated that once we were attacked, on US soil, by any country, that calls for harsh measures in return. Hell at that point, nuke 'em all with my blessing if that's what it takes.


Oh i see....so let them attack us first right?... We have to wait for them to attack us, then we can attack back....

I mean is not like anyone around here is going to whine and cry about the United States government not doing something when intelligence states there might, or will be attacks in U.S. soil.....right?....



Originally posted by TrueAmerican
The Armed Forces of the USA are not meant for the latest political whim of an administration. ANY administration. They are intended for use, in the strictest sense, for the defense of this homeland if we are attacked. Sure, from time to time, it might REALLY be necessary to use them overseas as a deterrent, but for me that should not include this new pre-emptive first strike doctrine.


A deterrent....humm....a deterrent perhaps against something like this?....



Russian President Vladimir Putin says that after the 9/11 attacks Moscow warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on the US.
He said Russia's secret service had information on more than one occasion that Iraq was preparing acts of terror in the US and its facilities worldwide.

Mr Putin said he had no information the Iraqi ex-leader was behind any attacks.

It came a day after US President George W Bush insisted there had been links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

He disputed the preliminary findings of a US commission investigating the 9/11 attacks on Washington and New York that found no "credible evidence" of a relationship between the two.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Are you going to tell us now that Saddam was not supporting terrorist organizations?....

How about the fact that Saddam was supporting, given shelter and funded terrorist organizations, and individual terrorists, some of which included the Abu Nidal Organization, Ansar al-Islam, Arab liberation Front, Hamas, Kurdistan Workers Party, Mujahedin-e-Khalq, and the Palestine Liberation Front among others?

Did you know that some of the victims from the attacks carried by those organizations above have killed Americans?... Perhaps you should do a bit of research about what happened to Abigail Litle, an American girl who was killed by an organization which Saddam funded. She was 14 years old when she was killed.

Did you know that Abu Abbas, who was an Iraqi supported terrorist, masterminded the hijack of an Italian ship in 1985, the terrorists aboard the cruiseship decided to separate the Jewish people from the non-Jewish and they killed a Jewish man who happened to be an American, Leon Klinghoffer.

The italian police was going to arrest Abu Abbas but since he had an Iraqi diplomatic passport and supposedly his airplane was on a diplomatic mission he had to be let go...

After some running around Abu Abbas ended up in no other place than Baghdag in 1994, where he lived as a guest of Saddam. Abu Abbas was captured in Baghdag by U.S. soldiers in April 2003.

The former second secretary of the Iraqi embasy in Manila, Philipines, Hisham al Hussein was deported from the country because cell phone records showed that he had spoken with two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, a franchise of Al Qaeda in the Philipines. In 2002 the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf made a terrorist attack which injured 23 people and killed two philipinos and one American. The American was U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson. The secretary of the Iraqi embassy had contacted the two terrorist leaders before and after this particular terrorist plot.

The list is long and i could continue, but i think i made my point...


[edit on 9-7-2006 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join