Weapons Meet WMD Criteria

Originally posted by semperfortis

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.

Is there any order that you wouldn't follow?

Originally posted by Muaddib
Perhaps you should start by not exagerating trying to spread whatever propaganda you are trying to spread?...

I mean this with the utmost respect: I don't think you are very qualified to tell others not to spread propaganda.

You still haven't answered my question Mauddib. And I addressed it directly to you:

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?

I extend this question to Semper as well since he dismissed it off hand and didn't bother to actually answer it: Do you think there are any circumstances that justify becoming an insurgent? In America do you think there are any circumstances that justify becoming a revolutionary?

Originally posted by Muaddib

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....

My post, entitled "Grasping at straws.":

Originally posted by intrepid

"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.

OK, need a question? Oops, that'll make 2 then.

If any substance that can be used as a WMD, which probably could be found in any city, or town for that matter, is found, do you believe that Iraq should be considered a WMD area?

Originally posted by intrepid

If any substance that can be used as a WMD, which probably could be found in any city, or town for that matter, is found, do you believe that Iraq should be considered a WMD area?

Come on Intrepid you know as well as anyone that what was found were designed from the gitgo to be used as WMD's. They may be old and decrepit now, but they do exist. Saddam said he had destroyed them all--he didn't. Saddam said he had destroyed all of Iraq's capabilities to make more--he didn't. What specifically is it about the issue of WMD's that gives you such heartburn?

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
.........
I mean this with the utmost respect: I don't think you are very qualified to tell others not to spread propaganda.

I don't have a propaganda, i have an agenda, and that is getting to the truth. Now show me where i exagerated or lied.

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
You still haven't answered my question Mauddib. And I addressed it directly to you:
......................

Now you are dealing with rhetorical nonsense which has to do a lot with "scinece fiction" and "fantasy" and not with the facts. We are talking about the facts here, not about some wild fantasy in which events unfold as you "think could unfold in a fantastical world." We are dealing with facts here, so stick with the facts, thanks...


[edit on 9-7-2006 by Muaddib]

Muaddib: Have you even read the "political bickering" thread on BQB? I also concur that just because someone says something differently from your mind-set it doesn't mean that it is propaganda. There has been a lot of documents out there that provide an alternative view which the war was being fought.

I most certainly think it was because of oil. Especially with Mr. Karzai as President of Afghanistan. And the fact that the U.S. is possibly building a pipeline in Afghanistan.

I also most definitely think that the war in Iraq was pre-planned by virtue of the Downing Street documents. They provide damning evidence that this war was thought of way before 9/11.

I also believe that this war was pre-planned because of PNAC. If you read the document, it pretty much lays out the intentions why this war is being fought. Especially when creating another "Pearl Harbor" for the American people to go along with the game plan.

As for WMD's, this is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, it is my opinion that anything is possible. Whether these weapons are considered or not, they could have been planted in order to get people like you to believe that the war was justified. And judging from your vigorous defense of this news, some people fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Propaganda works, most indefinitely.

[edit on 9-7-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Astronomer70
What specifically is it about the issue of WMD's that gives you such heartburn?

From the original post:

"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.”

As I said, grasping at straws. I would think a thinking person would see that.

And you would be correct too. As I said, they may be old, decrepit and ususeable now, but they were designed and built to be used as weapons of mass destruction. They are real, they exist. Is it because we didn't find vast stockpiles of the damn things sitting waiting to be used at a moments notice? Is it because no nuclear weapons have been found? Is it because they just don't measure up in your eyes and mind to what you originally expected? What?

Originally posted by Astronomer70
And you would be correct too. As I said, they may be old, decrepit and ususeable now, but they were designed and built to be used as weapons of mass destruction. They are real, they exist. Is it because we didn't find vast stockpiles of the damn things sitting waiting to be used at a moments notice? Is it because no nuclear weapons have been found? Is it because they just don't measure up in your eyes and mind to what you originally expected? What?

Thank you, yes to all. This isn't news imo, it's latent justification. I'm wagering you could find the same substances in Jersey. Is the US gov. going to invade that state?

It seems that hindsight is blind, if you want it to be. :shk:

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.

And that has proven to be untrue.

I'm not aware of anyone claiming that Iraq never had any chemical weapons.
The record seems pretty clear that he did - 15 years ago.

On the other hand, it also seems pretty clear now that there was no "stockpile" of WMD that constituted any legitimate threat to the US. Or any WMD production program. So the propaganda campaign on which we were sold this war was completely bogus.

Doesn't matter what others do muaddib...what matters is what we do...especially considering that we are the ones going around asserting our much touted ideals. If we have any hope that others will respect the rule of law, international or otherwise then we have to submit to it as well or we are merely asserting a double standard.

as for your agenda:

propaganda: def: Their lies.
public information: def: Our lies.

Hang it up ceci, muaddib postiviely hates it when you point out that he is just farting in the wind like everybody else.

Originally posted by intrepid

Thank you, yes to all. This isn't news imo, it's latent justification. I'm wagering you could find the same substances in Jersey. Is the US gov. going to invade that state?

It seems that hindsight is blind, if you want it to be. :shk:

You know, you could probably find the same precursor substances in New Jersey, particularly if they make insecticides, but unless New Jersey is actually manufacturing WMD's (which they may be), we aren't likely to invade them. Iraq not only had the substances, they also had mixed and placed those substances into purpose designed weapons. We know they used some of those weapons during the Iran/Iraq war, we know they used some of them after the first Gulf War against the Kurds, we know they had the infrastructure, technology and expertise to produce more of them.

Of course Saddam said repeatedly that he didn't have any such weapons--he said they had all been destroyed--he lied, repeatedly. Saddam also said he had destroyed the infrastructure needed to make more--again he lied. Saddam said a lot of things related to WMD's and most of what he said were lies. Saddam went to fairly extensive lengths to hide his WMD's and he was pretty good at it. We also have pretty solid information that Saddam shipped a sizeable quantity of WMD's out of the country. And as you probably know from right here on ATS, courtesy of Valhall, there are sites inside Iraq that have yet to be investigated.

Taken all together the evidence for the existence of WMD's inside Iraq is extensive and--to most thinking people--persuasive.

quote: 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.

Sorry about that. I did not think that you were serious. I fail to see were me answering a fantasy question adds anything to the thread. In fact, I'm not sure what the answer would be as I have seen nothing factual that has happened like that. I can answer with a question though.
If your own country men planted bombs killing hundreds of your neighbors men women and children, if you could not go to the market without fear of dying, would you be justified in being glad that a strong, brave country came in and helped fix it?

I most certainly think it was because of oil. Especially with Mr. Karzai as President of Afghanistan. And the fact that the U.S. is possibly building a pipeline in Afghanistan.

Ceci, how can a fact be possibly? Is it possibly a pipeline, or a fact?

Is there any order that you wouldn't follow?

Immoral, Illegal or unethical. All personal to the individual. After being in uniform since 1980, I have never been given one of those, not in combat, in barracks, in police actions or SWAT.

As for WMD's, this is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, it is my opinion that anything is possible. Whether these weapons are considered or not, they could have been planted in order to get people like you to believe that the war was justified. And judging from your vigorous defense of this news, some people fell for it hook, line and sinker.

The war is justified regardless of the WMD's, we are freeing a repressed people. Again I reiterate, it does not matter what we find, from chemical to biological to nukes, you either wont believe it, or claim it's planted.

On the other hand, it also seems pretty clear now that there was no "stockpile" of WMD that constituted any legitimate threat to the US. Or any WMD production program. So the propaganda campaign on which we were sold this war was completely bogus.

That is definitely not clear to me or to anyone "on the ground" in Iraq that I am familiar with. That appears to only be "clear" to those with an agenda.

Semper

Originally posted by grover
but semper...are 500 rusty canisters of decayed nerve gas really what we went to war over? I mean really...is that worth thousands of lives? If it was 500 canisters of fresh potent gas that might be one thing....but this?

No it's not and definitely no backsies.

Originally posted by ceci2006
Muaddib: Have you even read the "political bickering" thread on BQB? I also concur that just because someone says something differently from your mind-set it doesn't mean that it is propaganda. There has been a lot of documents out there that provide an alternative view which the war was being fought.

No ceci, there is a difference between you and me, i am not trying to insult you or anyone else, but as i have already pointed out, and proved so many times, some people exagerate and make generalizations just to make a point, to bring forth a political agenda. I prove my points with facts without exagerating. If there is anything which could be wrong about my statements i say it clearly and even acknowledge it when i am proven wrong.

BTW, it has never been about politics, even when the president said that there were no stockpiles of wmd, what did i say and what evidence did i bring forth?... i am not presenting the party line, I am presenting the facts.

Take as an example you bringing out once again the claim that the president has been changing the reasons for going to iraq. i have presented, in these same forums, several times now the speech that the president made before the war in Iraq to the UN and to the world, and in that speech there are several reasons given for going after Saddam's regime, yet you and others like yourself keep trying to claim that the only reason given at first was wmd, and then the reasons changed....well, that is not true at all. Let me prove it once again.

In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.
.....................
In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Do note that the wmd issue was even left for last.

Originally posted by ceci2006
I also most definitely think that the war in Iraq was pre-planned by virtue of the Downing Street documents. They provide damning evidence that this war was thought of way before 9/11.

It has been presented in these forums several times already that there were declarations even made by the Clinton administration to change the regime of Iraq. That is nothing new and it does not corroborate your other claims.

Originally posted by ceci2006
I also believe that this war was pre-planned because of PNAC. If you read the document, it pretty much lays out the intentions why this war is being fought. Especially when creating another "Pearl Harbor" for the American people to go along with the game plan.

Now that's "speculation" on your part, and taking comments out of context, but again, why don't you mention that Chinese officials wrote a book in 1999, with statements which are not taken out of context, which explains that in the future China needs an "unrestricvite warfare" using terrorists like Osama Bin Laden to attack places like the WTC??....

Originally posted by ceci2006
Propaganda works, most indefinitely.

[edit on 9-7-2006 by ceci2006]

and who is working with propaganda, exagerations and statements taken out of context?...

---Edited to add comment and to correct errors---

[edit on 9-7-2006 by Muaddib]

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.

Originally posted by grover
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.

I am not being put on trial in here, and you should be taking those claims with the staff, as will I. If i respond with sarcasm is because others do the same to me. now would you get back on topic, or are you going to derail this thread and attack me instead?...

[edit on 9-7-2006 by Muaddib]

That is definitely not clear to me or to anyone "on the ground" in Iraq that I am familiar with. That appears to only be "clear" to those with an agenda.

Everyone here has an agenda, including, clearly, yourself.

But I'll bite.
If there was a massive WMD stockpile that was a threat to the US, where is it?

Magically shipped off to [insert next country neocons want to invade here] without the NRO noticing?
Are there invisible WMD's that the massive resources of the US .mil somehow cannot find?

Please explain...

Somehow I think that if a large WMD stockpile, evidence of active WMD production programs, or anything that might back up the prewar hype were found, the Administration would be shouting from the rooftops "LOOK! We were right!". But somehow, though even the Administration itself now admits the WMD stockpile they were looking for doesn't exist, the die-hard crazies pull a "black is white! up is down!" routine, and drag out some expired circa-1989 artillery shells with a thundering "Aha!"

On the other hand, it also seems pretty clear now that there was no "stockpile" of WMD that constituted any legitimate threat to the US. Or any WMD production program. So the propaganda campaign on which we were sold this war was completely bogus.

That is definitely not clear to me or to anyone "on the ground" in Iraq that I am familiar with. That appears to only be "clear" to those with an agenda.

Semper

You should worry more about the stockpiles in Pakistan. This is seriously scary how people defend going to Iraq now. It's so vague but underneath the fog and the promise of "Freeing a repressed people" which is such a bad ploy to get good americans into a war. You don't free a country by oppressing it through extended bouts of violence and poverty and chemical poisioning. If you think that then there is something wrong with your perception.


And beyond that Semper I want you to visualize something for me. Who benefits from a perpetual war? Think about that without any Right/Left/ opposition connotation.

You think about that. Erase the American Eagle of Freedom from your head and all the symbols that you believe in for this minute.

WHO BENEFITS from a PERPETUAL STRUGGLE of occupation

and a bonus:

Why are these benefits not capped in grim times such as these?
Most Iraqi's are unemployed and not given any opportunities in their country while Westerners are given the full red carpet treatment.

There are no answers in the media. You know why? It goes into the buzzsaw,semper. You tread on serious treacherous waters when you wander into this area.

AND That's what should be the focus of this occupation and "War on Terror"

Who are the culprits making BLOOD money on suffering and fear and everything in between?


Once the money starts flowing it's hard to turn the spicket off. Because it's now a flourishing business for a elite few. But the price will come eventually for all of us who let this continue.

SOmething to think about and you are kidding yourself if the rest of the world isn't thinking and discussing the same thing in private.

U.S. media is like Star Magazine to the rest of the world now.

I am not attacking you muaddib....I really could care less one way or the other.....but don't go claiming that you don't insult or belittle people who disagree with you without expecting to be called on it because scarasm or not....you do. If you can't take it....too bad.