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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mustbebc
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.

Read again. He's gotten away with freaking invading a country! Who cares that we are talking about it? People are dying over there. How is us talking about it stopping Bush from doing what he did? We are invading a country, with thousands of our own dead and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, we've spent trillions(?) on the war, Haliburton is making a fortune, the oil companies are recording record profits, and Saddam is dead. In my book, he got away with it.


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


Please read again. The topic of this thread is why didn't they just plant WMD's in Iraq. I'm saying he didn't need to because the lies he told us were good enough to gain the support he needed to invade Iraq. If you want to extrapolate that into a discussion about a possible future invasion of Iraq, you might want to start another thread. BTW, we're working on reasons to invade Iran.


because I haven't read anything from you that addresses the question

I think you have that the other way around.


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.


You're assuming that's his goal (although I would tend to agree with you). However we haven't yet invaded Iran (although I'm sure we will soon enough). Again, please address my answer to the topic which is the reason the US didn't plant WMD's is because we didn't have to. Bush got everything he wanted without having to plant anything. Perhaps if he didn't get the support he wanted to invade Iraq he might have needed to plant them but why bother? He got what he wanted.

[edit on 6-2-2007 by mecheng]




posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng
Again, please address my answer to the topic which is the reason the US didn't plant WMD's is because we didn't have to. Bush got everything he wanted without having to plant anything. Perhaps if he didn't get the support he wanted to invade Iraq he might have needed to plant them but why bother? He got what he wanted.

I see what you're saying. If it is a matter of him getting what he wanted, and if he wanted a larger campaign throughout the Middle East to whatever end, then he's not going to be able to do it and therefore he has failed. If he had found WMD's, then it may have made his posturing towards Iran easier because he would have more popular support.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonigKaos
Because the US government is not hiding some World takeover agenda.

WMD were in Iraq but moved into the valleys inside Syria


Why would a mad dictator move weapons when under such tension where he would need them to defend his regime from America?



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 09:05 AM
link   


Because the US government is not hiding some World takeover agenda.

WMD were in Iraq but moved into the valleys inside Syria


LOL LOL, if they had the WMD's why didn't they USE THEM, instead they hid them? COME ON! use your god given human brain for godsake!

-----------------------

As for your question, i too wondered this. Perhaps, If they staged such a thing and got caught it would be a distater, what's more it would be easy to figure out that it was staged.

For example it's not enough to just bury a nuke in the sand and say look look we found a WMD.

You have to find plants that produce them, the whole structure behind it, the money flow, the evidence. What's more it has to be a WMD in the nature of an iraqi made one.
You can't just lay a dead body down and call it a murder.

But most importantly, Perhaps they just don't care if you call their bluff.

"we lied about WMD's, so what, what are you going to do about it?"

So they lied. Nothing happened to them did it? So what difference does it make to them if they bury a nuke in the sand or not? What would they benefit from it?

After all, look at how bush was acting lately, making that joke on camera, looking under his table and saying "oops no WMD's under there".

It's all a big joke to them, the american public, and your soldiers lifes.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join