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.

 

Why didn't The USA plant Weapons Of Mass Destruction?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:16 PM
link   
if i am not mistaken, each nuclear war. bares a unique signature within the uranium or plutonium it has in it based on where it was harvested from. also, i think there is a catalog that states which war.s were enriched from each different site where they harvested the uranium. it would be a dead giveaway if they found a particular war. in Iraq made from uranium known about by the US.




posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Thanks for everyone's opinions. I suppose there are many complex reasons why the US wouldn't stage the discovery of WMDs.

I do believe there is a lot of evidence pointing towards a conspiracy with 911. Whether it was the US, Soudies, Isrealies, Afganies, Taliban or Al Qaeda I don't know, yet I can't help but doubt it was a bunch of muslims with box cutters. What I guess I'm trying to say is if the US could pull off 911 and frame the Arabs then they would have been capable of staging the capture of some WMDs. So I guess it throws doubt on the theory that 911 was a false flag operation.

[edit on 5/2/07 by mustbebc]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mustbebc
Just wondering, the US Government seems capable of so much evil. So why have they not simply staged the discovery of WMDs? It would seem that if they had done so, they could have somewhat justified their presence in Iraq. At least they wouldn't have had to make up their lies about installing a democracy.


Maybe because part of the overall plan was for a transition of power to the Democratic ruling elite, e.g., Clinton, et al. This way the American people will continue to believe that they really have a choice regarding their leaders.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   
After the 9/11 coup, those in the cabal in charge of the USA no longer needed to provide much in the way of defense for their actions. After the war was initiated it was too late to go back and undo it.

Yes. The no WMD thing may hinder the start of the next war they have planned, but there is nothing stopping another attack upon the USA with which to use as justification for expansion of the war.

All the lack of WMDs really did was cause some dissention regarding the war. It has not stopped it and it never will. The next war will have new justifications that will supercede questions concerning the truth of the threat of the target.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I try to keep an open mind. Sometimes that makes it difficult (or, as is usually the case, completely impossible) for me to choose a side or to form an opinion.

As I've said in many of my posts, I oppose the war. I do so because of my personal beliefs and convictions. That's a personal decision one makes within themselves, and I don't feel compelled to explain or justify it. It's simply the way I feel. I oppose war with every fiber of my being. I'm also no fan of our current administration (though I do try to refrain from personal bashing of anyone, including them.) I say all of this so that what I'm about to say won't be misconstrued.

That said, this is something that has always made me scratch my . in perplexity: it wasn't merely U.S. intelligence that estimated Iraq's potential WMD capabilities. It wasn't even only British and Israeli intelligence that concurred, either. There were intelligence estimates, or some equivalent thereof, even in the countries most staunchly opposed to the invasion of Iraq (France, Germany, etc.) that indicated - at that time - that there was the possibility that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction or the means to produce them rapidly if necessary. I remember reading this in numerous publications, and they weren't solely U.S. publications either. Even at the U.N., while many diplomats urged restraint and wanted to give the inspections regime more time, there wasn't much in the way of concrete evidence that Iraq didn't possess weapons of mass destruction.

This has always made me suspicious. How could the collective countries involved in assessing the threat get it so wrong? I'm not talking about how the U.S. may have embellished and elaborated on the existing evidence more than others. I'm speaking of the more conservative estimates made by other countries that still painted a grim picture of a real threat. Meanwhile, other sources, as others have indicated, suggest that there were weapons, but that they were moved out of the country in the opening days of the war. If that is the case, then why hasn't anyone been able to confirm or deny that conclusively in all the time that has since passed?

I have no opinion with regard to all of this, and can't take any sides, because I'm keeping an open mind. What I can say is that it all strikes me, on a purely intuitive and instinctive level, as being quite off kilter and suspicious. Am I paranoid?

It just genuinely inspires endless curiosity within me.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by AceWombat04]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by downtown436
We found sarin gas in iraq. It said "made in USA" on the side. We gave Iraq chemical weapons to fight the Iranians. That is why w can say they had wmd's, because they did, however we are the ones that made those WMD's. I have a friend that actually found a cache of sarin near Bagdad, and was poisoned by it and spent some time in the hospital because of it.


That says it all to me and confirms my theories around this as well.

The US knew exactly whay weapons (WMD's or not) the Iraqi government had because they provided them during the Gulf war. If they didn't provide them directly then US and European defence contractors would have.

Surely there's a record of who sells who what in times of war or even outside times of war. But i guess that info would never get out into the public demain anyways.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by mustbebc

Originally posted by carslake

Because its alot easier to say "# bad call, sorry made a mistake on that one" and then just get on with it.

.


Really? Would it be that hard to stage such a thing in a military controlled environment? Some believe the Saddam capture was staged and we know that the tearing down of his statue was staged to look like there were thousands of supporters when there were really only a few.


I don't think it would be that difficult to plant evidence of WMD's. But then it becomes a lie on top of a lie and it becomes harder to maintain that lie. And anyway i feel they have played the line of 'it was an honest mistake, but were here now so we'll just get on with it'.

.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
The mission in Iraq is designed to fail, that's why.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by TheBandit795]


Thats good thinking what better way to escalate the situation than for the americans to pose as being vunerable in Iraq(which they are) so that they invite attack.

Once attacked it allows them a mandate to act how they want.

sorry for not following the line of debate just had to comment.

.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by mustbebc
So why have they not simply staged the discovery of WMDs?


Good question...Why not plant WMD to justify Iraq war?
Either way it doesn't matter. Bush just goes on doing whatever the hell he feels like no matter what anyone else says, including his own people.

There was never any need to plant WMD's. All Bush needed to do was tell everyone Saddam had them, to give Bush a "reason" to gain support to invade. Why run the risk of planting them when all he needed to do was simply tell a lie? In the end, the lie worked beautifully for him. He got what he wanted. Saddam is dead, Haliburton is making a fortune and the oil companies are getting rich beyond their wildest imaginations. Not bad, huh?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by mustbebc
So why have they not simply staged the discovery of WMDs?


Good question...Why not plant WMD to justify Iraq war?
Either way it doesn't matter. Bush just goes on doing whatever the hell he feels like no matter what anyone else says, including his own people.

But it does matter, doesn't it? If his intention was to cavort through the Middle East, then why would he allow himself to take such a political hit? Wouldn't it be easier to ally people for the purpose of going into Iran if there had been, one way or another, WMD in Iraq?

When people disregard things like this, it gives the appearance of picking and choosing facts.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
But there you go using your brain and common sense again. If were in charge and had been so dramatic that they were there. In the end I would have had a Recon team that had a reporter trailing them accidentally find something


Arkane

They don't have to be nukes, either. I thought the main thing was that Saddam had a considerable chemical and Gas supply. I personally think he blew his wad we he destroyed those Shiite towns many years ago.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Royal76]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
planting wmd's would not of helped, because the Iraqi government didnt have any.

There was no infrastructure to BUILD wmd's, so how can they have them stockpiled when shelflife is short?

Saddam and the Iraqi's would of shouted this high and low because they know they didnt have wmd's.

America got away with it, because they accused them.. you cannot prove them to be lying, when all you are doing is accusing someone. Incompitence is the word.

But had they of PLANTED wmd's.. they are now FRAMING them, and this would of look VERY VERY bad.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
Maybe WMDs were in Iraq but they are now safely ensconsed elsewhere, by the U.S military, if you get my drift.
This is only a hunch. No links will be supplied.

The U. S already has tens of thousands of nukes I doubt that they would stage a war in Iraq to get their hands on a few more.

I think the question should be "why did people think that the U.S would plant nukes in Iraq?" rather than "why didnt the U.S plant nukes in Iraq?"



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I would imagine it would be difficult considering all the external world forces also taking part in the war in Iraq. If one were to catch US soldiers or army men bringing in a nuke, it might cause a global catastrophe, and much backlash against the US.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by DJMessiah]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mustbebc
But it does matter, doesn't it? If his intention was to cavort through the Middle East, then why would he allow himself to take such a political hit?


It does matter to everyone besides Bush. What I was saying is that it really doesn't matter to Bush himself. He got away with invading a country by telling a lie to the American people. He got funding and support without having to produce a single WMD. So to him, if the lie is working why bother planting evidence?


Wouldn't it be easier to ally people for the purpose of going into Iran if there had been, one way or another, WMD in Iraq?


What does WMD's in Iraq have to do with going to war with Iran? The lie he told was to gain support to invade Iraq.


When people disregard things like this, it gives the appearance of picking and choosing facts.


I don't think I'm (assuming you meant me) picking and choosing. Show me a WMD then tell me I'm full of $h!+.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by mustbebc
But it does matter, doesn't it? If his intention was to cavort through the Middle East, then why would he allow himself to take such a political hit?


It does matter to everyone besides Bush. What I was saying is that it really doesn't matter to Bush himself. He got away with invading a country by telling a lie to the American people. He got funding and support without having to produce a single WMD. So to him, if the lie is working why bother planting evidence?

We're sitting here talking about it, as are the politicians in Washington. That implies that he hasn't gotten away with it. His approval rating is at 32% because of it. He is politically stale and a lame duck.



Wouldn't it be easier to ally people for the purpose of going into Iran if there had been, one way or another, WMD in Iraq?


What does WMD's in Iraq have to do with going to war with Iran? The lie he told was to gain support to invade Iraq.

Because he doesn't have political support to go to war with Iran. He can't convince people now to do so.



When people disregard things like this, it gives the appearance of picking and choosing facts.


I don't think I'm (assuming you meant me) picking and choosing. Show me a WMD then tell me I'm full of $h!+.

I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying. I was not referencing you in that statement. The proposition some (again, not necessarily you, because I haven't read anything from you that addresses the question) think that Bush's goal is to make war throughout the Middle East, and engage in an imperialist agenda. If so, and if he has a history of deception, it is not outside of the sphere of impossibility that he would plant WMD in Iraq so that he wouldn't lost political support. The fact that he didn't argues, hence, against the claim that his agenda is imperialist and knows no bounds. To disregard the question leaves a hole in the logic supporting that conclusion.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   
This is one of the things that makes the entire conspiracy fall apart in my eyes. It would have been SO easy to just make all of the pieces fall into place. I mean, in one thread you read that these people are pursuing all of these complicated plans to takeover the world, they planned 911, etc.
Yet, they didn't do something simple like plant the WMDs.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
been lurking for awhile on ATS.....

I would think that hypothetically if the US government wanted to pull off something like this it wouldn't be that easy....Along with all the traceables of the weapons, you're also in a foreign land, you would need many more people for transport, logistics involved etc, and who knows where satellites etc are pointed.....

Something like 911(assuming there is a conspiracy) would be much easier to pull off than planting WMDs



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Oh thats simple.... they had such contempt for the American people that it never occured to them that it would become an issue....they so bought into their own propaganda that they believed that once bush minor landed on that aircraft carrier and proclaimed mission accomplished the rubes would go back to watching American Idol and forget all about it.

Proof of that is that little "humor" skit he did looking for WMD behind the couch and under his desk. What sort of leader that had any regard for either the public or the soldiers who have bled and died for him, would allow himself to be filmed in such a parody... if you ask me it proves more than anything the lie behind the whole damned affair.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by grover]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Hmm,

Just to summarize the thread for anyone who's just joining in....

It seems there's three main theories.

1. The US really believed there were WMD. There's no conspiracy, they are just incompetent (or they were moved to Syria).

2. The US knew they wouldn't find any but were aware that once they got themselves into the war it wouldn't matter.

3. The US probably would plant WMD if they thought they could get away with it, but know that if they are caught red handed, they will give the rest of the world the smoking gun it needs to force them out of the Middle East.

Have I missed anything?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join