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.

 

How dare the U.S. condem Saddam Hussein!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
First of all, When I speak of the U.S. I am being vague. I am not referring specifically to Bush, nor the U.S. Citizens.

FACT:
The U.S. claims that Hussein used chemical and biological weapons on his own people.
The U.S. claims that Hussein did this to test the weapons.
The U.S. also claims that Hussein did this to prevent upheaval and maintain his reign.
(Let's ignore the fact that the U.S. violated and ignored terms set by Geneva to go after him.)

Now for the juicy bit. Try to see if you can see a pattern building here...

FACT:
The U.S. would now like to use new weapons on it's own people.
The U.S. claims they want to do this to test the weapons.
The U.S. also claims that they want to test it in crowd control situations.

Did you spot the similarities there?
Lets have a look at two scenarios.

Scenario A.
Jimmy lived in Iraq during Saddam's reign.
"I don't like Saddam" says Jimmy, "I want to protest!"
"How dare you protest!" says Saddam as he tests his weapons.
Later that week, Jimmy is in awful pain, with no cure for the chemicals used on him. He dies.

Scenario B.
Bobby Lives in The United States.
"I don't like Bush" says Bobby, "I want to protest!"
"How dare you protest!" says the U.S. Government, as they test their weapons.
10 years later, Poor Bobby is diagnosed with fatal melanoma. There is no cure. He dies.
If someone was to put two and two together and say "Hey! You killed him!"
U.S. Government would then reply with "He got cancer because he spent too much time in the sun."

The U.S claims that their weapons are non-lethal.
They may not be immediately fatal, but how do they know it won't cause chronic suffering or death in the long run? It is after all, only un-tested.
Weapons for Warfare should be tested in war.


Final Statment:
The U.S. has NO RIGHT to condem Saddam for actions and/or reasoning that they themselves wish to.

EDIT:
Sorry, I forgot The Article on the proposition
www.cnn.com...

[edit on 25-01-2004 by Gear]




posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Are you aware that when the US test crowd control weapons, they test them on people that have signed up as volunteers? Or heres a better question.... Are you even on the same planet as the rest of us?



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   



FACT:
The U.S. would now like to use new weapons on it's own people.
The U.S. claims they want to do this to test the weapons.
The U.S. also claims that they want to test it in crowd control situations.

Oh for gods sake. Crowd control weapons aren't powerful nerve agents which can kill.

[edit on 18-10-2006 by PisTonZOR]



posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   
First of all, you bumped a thread that is over a month old.



Are you even on the same planet as the rest of us?

Maybe you should know what your talking about before you throw insults.
Maybe if you actually READ my post, and maybe if you actually READ the news article, you would know what I'm talking about.
Here's why:


Are you aware that when the US test crowd control weapons, they test them on people that have signed up as volunteers?

The US is NOT testing crowd control weapons.
The US is testing WARFARE weapons in crowd control situations.
The crowd control situations in this instance are NOT volunteers, they are demonstrators and antiwar activists.



Oh for gods sake. Crowd control weapons aren't powerful nerve agents which can kill.

Obviously you made the same mistake as GeniusSage.
They ARE NOT crowd control weapons. They are weapons of warfare to be TESTED in crowd control.

Go back and read my post. Go back and read the news source.
Don't tell me that it is not fatal.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Yes... I re-read it. The link is now dead, and my question still stands. Are you even on the same planet as the rest of us? You're an absolute joke for comparing this with the chemical weapon tests Hussein performed on his own people.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Woah,

There's a difference between a human shredding machine and a batton.

There's a difference between Biological weapons and a plastic shield.

You're a joke mate.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gear
First of all, When I speak of the U.S. I am being vague. I am not referring specifically to Bush, nor the U.S. Citizens.


So............. who exactly are you referring to?



FACT:
The U.S. claims that Hussein used chemical and biological weapons on his own people.
The U.S. claims that Hussein did this to test the weapons.
The U.S. also claims that Hussein did this to prevent upheaval and maintain his reign.
(Let's ignore the fact that the U.S. violated and ignored terms set by Geneva to go after him.)

Now for the juicy bit. Try to see if you can see a pattern building here...

FACT:
The U.S. would now like to use new weapons on it's own people.
The U.S. claims they want to do this to test the weapons.
The U.S. also claims that they want to test it in crowd control situations.

Did you spot the similarities there?
Lets have a look at two scenarios.

Scenario A.
Jimmy lived in Iraq during Saddam's reign.
"I don't like Saddam" says Jimmy, "I want to protest!"
"How dare you protest!" says Saddam as he tests his weapons.
Later that week, Jimmy is in awful pain, with no cure for the chemicals used on him. He dies.

Scenario B.
Bobby Lives in The United States.
"I don't like Bush" says Bobby, "I want to protest!"
"How dare you protest!" says the U.S. Government, as they test their weapons.
10 years later, Poor Bobby is diagnosed with fatal melanoma. There is no cure. He dies.
If someone was to put two and two together and say "Hey! You killed him!"
U.S. Government would then reply with "He got cancer because he spent too much time in the sun."

The U.S claims that their weapons are non-lethal.
They may not be immediately fatal, but how do they know it won't cause chronic suffering or death in the long run? It is after all, only un-tested.
Weapons for Warfare should be tested in war.


Final Statment:
The U.S. has NO RIGHT to condem Saddam for actions and/or reasoning that they themselves wish to.

EDIT:
Sorry, I forgot The Article on the proposition
www.cnn.com...

[edit on 25-01-2004 by Gear]



I'm assuming that you are saying our government is just as messed up as Saddam's, but "we" are allowing it? Maybe you should read up a bit.

Thanks for your concern, though.... NEXT!



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 07:54 AM
link   
This may be PTS but decorum will still stand. Reign in the insults gang.



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Actually the US government has tested many things on the american people for hundreds of years and no they were not voluntary. www.whatreallyhappened.com...

[edit on 22-10-2006 by I See You]



posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
The USA had no right to forecefully REMOVE saddam as the rightful leader of this country.

Especially when it was them cementing his power, and providing his weapons.

Every countries leader has there hidden acts.

Imagine if you put GWBush on Trial?

Saddams not the only leader to execute and torture his own citizens.

He managed to control this factioned people, and ensure violence never broke out, something the US Has FAILED to do.

It was wrong for us, to attack this country, blame everything on this man when all our leaders wanted was to make money.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeniusSage
Yes... I re-read it. The link is now dead, and my question still stands. Are you even on the same planet as the rest of us?

Regardless if the origional link is dead, the story can still be found. Do a google or something. I'm getting really annoyed at doing other peoples homework.


Originally posted by GeniusSage
You're an absolute joke for comparing this with the chemical weapon tests Hussein performed on his own people.

Why? I realize you misread the initial post the first time, but this is just ridiculous. I don't understand where your coming from. How can this NOT be compared with the chemical weapons Hussein tested on his people? They are exactly the same.

Both involve testing weapons of warfare on civilians who don't agree with the current administration.


So please, tell me exactly what your problem is with that. Don't just say "You can't compare it." Because they are practically exactly the same. And don't just throw a personal insult my way either. That's just plain stupid.



Originally posted by Infoholic

So............. who exactly are you referring to?

Well the people who first suggested this proposition was Donald Rumsfeld and Michael Wynne. I, however, am referring to the current US Administration in general.

Originally posted by Infoholic
I'm assuming that you are saying our government is just as messed up as Saddam's, but "we" are allowing it? Maybe you should read up a bit.

No. I'm saying that your government had no right to pull Saddam for actions that they themselves wish to do.
...I even said that in my first post.

Final Statment:
The U.S. has NO RIGHT to condem Saddam for actions and/or reasoning that they themselves wish to.

And read up on what, exactly?

EDIT:Fixed quotations



[edit on 25-01-2004 by Gear]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gear

Originally posted by GeniusSage
Yes... I re-read it. The link is now dead, and my question still stands. Are you even on the same planet as the rest of us?

Regardless if the origional link is dead, the story can still be found. Do a google or something. I'm getting really annoyed at doing other peoples homework.


i'm not going to pick a side here because i dont know anything about this and would rather research it before i make a decision one way or the other. however, i will say that since Gear is the original poster of this material, to say that "i'm getting really annoyed at doing other people's homework" is a cop out. it's your thread and your argument. therefore you are responsible for the proof to back it up....of course, genius's argument isnt exactly genius either.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GeniusSage
Are you aware that when the US test crowd control weapons, they test them on people that have signed up as volunteers? Or heres a better question.... Are you even on the same planet as the rest of us?


Well honestly my friend you did not read the post at all.. I mean ... really?? .. Did you read that post with your eyes closed? Did you not take into meaning the words that rather inteligent man typed??

What he posted was pure scientific fact, heck, he even provided links to the US testing on its own people.. he even posted links and evidence of the US "putting down" a riot in true tyrannical ways! Did you not see the video he posted of all those more illegal none nationals marching through our cities on our territory inside our sovereign borders and then the government rolled on them with tanks, airplanes, heck they even had a blimp throwing rocks at the poor innocent people of America who where not even American so they got slightly worse treatment.

You cannot deny facts, as was posted, you sir need to re-read this here article again and surly you'll come to the conclusion that this fellow here knows what hes talking about, maybe the government gave him mellonella! Of course he wouldn't know because the government wiped out his memory when he showed dissent.. because our government cares when kids think and don't want knowledgeable people like the OP and such going around and debunking the awful truths that make up this tyrannical, imperialistic, sick, sadistic, bastardly nation of ours!!!!!





I felt like being sarcastic today



I don't like our policies.. especially the ones restricting freedoms and such but um.. yeah maybe some Americans who feel such a way should get out of their lazy-boy recliner, walk away from your $2000 computer with your hi-speed Internet right next to your HD big screen TV in your gated communities and take a stroll in... China? .. Russia? ... Guatemala? .. Congo? ... maybe Sudan? .. maybe.. read the histories of our people and look at Germany.. Cambodia.. and then when all is said and done and you feel you have experienced hell.. come back to what regardless your told is still the most free nation on earth with the most liberties and fewest restrictions to personal rights.

Now we should protect those liberties but common, you don't know what a police state is buddy..

[edit on 10/26/2006 by Rockpuck]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Didn't Saddam kill Thousands of people "Testing" his chemical weapons?

www.cnn.com...
kdp.se...
www.state.gov...

Just out of curiosity, how many died in the United States when they tested their chemical "Weapons?"

Semper



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I don't like our policies.. especially the ones restricting freedoms and such but um.. yeah maybe some Americans who feel such a way should get out of their lazy-boy recliner, walk away from your $2000 computer with your hi-speed Internet right next to your HD big screen TV in your gated communities and take a stroll in... China? .. Russia? ... Guatemala? .. Congo? ... maybe Sudan? .. maybe.. read the histories of our people and look at Germany.. Cambodia.. and then when all is said and done and you feel you have experienced hell.. come back to what regardless your told is still the most free nation on earth with the most liberties and fewest restrictions to personal rights.

Now we should protect those liberties but common, you don't know what a police state is buddy..

I find this extremely offencive. It actually makes me feel physically ill. Firstly you know nothing of me. I am not American. You have no idea what hell I went through growing up. Apartheid ring any bells? Don't you dare tell me that I don't know what a police state is.
That put aside... what liberties are you protecting by silencing protestors with untested weapons warfare. Not a police state?
Double edged blade I guess.
If US is protecting it's liberties, then so was Saddam.
On the other hand...If Saddam's Iraq was a police state, then so is US.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
i'm not going to pick a side here because i dont know anything about this and would rather research it before i make a decision one way or the other. however, i will say that since Gear is the original poster of this material, to say that "i'm getting really annoyed at doing other people's homework" is a cop out. it's your thread and your argument. therefore you are responsible for the proof to back it up....of course, genius's argument isnt exactly genius either.

I did back up proof. This thread was bumped, and is at least one month old. It's no wonder the link doesn't work. But if Sage thinks it's important enough to bump, he should do his own homework on it. All things considered:
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.
Once again, I have to do other people's homework.




Just out of curiosity, how many died in the United States when they tested their chemical "Weapons?"

None. It was a proposition to do so. I don't think it was actually passed in the end.
By the way, the US weapons aren't chemical like Saddam's. US wanted to use radiation.

[edit on 25-01-2004 by Gear]



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 07:06 AM
link   
That is EXCELLENT research my friend!!



I still do not think the two compare, Iraq and the US, but there is no doubt now about your postulation having a factual base.

Good Job

Semper



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Sorry for the bump. It seems that those who are so liberal in feigning ignorance actually don't care about the topic at all once they are spoon fed the information.



Originally posted by semperfortis
I still do not think the two compare, Iraq and the US

It's compares in the sense that they are both maintaining power by silencing protest's using weapons of warfare.

Difference being:
When Saddam did it, Due to the nature of the weapons, deaths were seen clearly as a direct cause of the chemicals used.
When US does it, due to the nature of the weapons, no effect may be seen for years. When the deaths do occur, US can wash their hand's clean, giving alternative reasoning.
What seems more likely? Cancer from sun exposure, or from weapons?



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   
You're right. They should stop using the devices that are probably, but not definitly, non-lethal, and go back to bullets.




posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
You're right. They should stop using the devices that are probably, but not definitly, non-lethal, and go back to bullets.


BULLETS?!

I'd sooner be hit by Rubber bullets, sheilds, stunguns, battons etc than this weapon.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join