It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WMD's found in Iraq, most not even reported.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 05:33 PM
Everyone is forgetting Israel.

Do any of you seriously believe that if Saddam was actively carrying out nuclear research using renegade Soviet Russian technology or contrband plutonium, the Israelis would have let him get away with it?

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 07:20 PM

Originally posted by neformore
If you are Saddam Hussein, and your country is being invaded by a foreign power that is steamrollering your military, and you know full well that when you get caught you will probably be sentenced to death, you are going to throw every single weapon in your inventory at the invaders to buy you time to try and get the hell out of the way, buy some plastic surgery and rent an apartment in New York where no one is going to notice you.

I like the logic in your last post but find it annoying you think Saddam would undergo plastic surgery in order to secure himself a knew life. The fact is we all know what Saddam would have done “in a life on the run” because he had actually one. In this real life “adventure” Saddam risked his own life in order to aid the resistance against the occupation which removed had his Ba’th Party from power.
This is the same Ba’th party which pre-1991 had delivered 92% literacy, and 93% access to healthcare of a free and westernised standard to Iraqis. It is the Ba’th party which brought order and social stability to Iraqi society; and in so doing prevented the current anarchy which is killing more people, at a faster rate, than it ever did.

Even during U.N sanction the Ba’th party tolerated woman’s rights, even let them wear westernised clothing, alcohol was not prohibited. But most of all they kept a sense of order in which women were not stoned to death, and which aimed to ensure that those who said women should be stoned to death were promptly imprisoned, even executed. They did not try to give these people democracy especially because they made up a sizeable chunk of the Iraqi population.
The Ba’th party knew that religious fundamentalists have a using violence, of promoting anarchy by in sighting retaliation; against the crimes they themselves commit in order to persuade people to follow their version of religion.

You might know Saddam was offered the chance to flee Iraq. The question is do you think that chance was real?
Because if that chance was real; or could have ever have been real; then Saddam choose to personally turn down a life of great personal wealth, and security in exchange for a life on the run leading to death row.

Why did Saddam settle for this kind of life?
Why did he resist what we have done to Iraq to the bitter end?
In fact why did he forfeit his WMD’s?
Why did he promote social security as well as stability?

Was Saddam a true Ba’thist?
I believe Saddam was a true Ba’thist because he had demonstrated a life risking interest in its ideology dating back before the Ba’th party was even in power; when membership of it was a criminal offence (under a more religious yet still authoritarian government).
This is why I think Saddam resisted us: he knew it was futile, and he must have known this because he had publicly acknowledged America’s superior military strength in many of his speeches (so be it begrudgedely). Not to know America would defeat the old government of Iraq would make you so delusional that it would be almost impossible for anyone of that mind to govern.
But despite knowing he would be defeated Saddam clearly had guts, he demonstrated this in the resistance, in his early days of politics, in fact the whole of his political career. Saddam believed democracy would be disastrous for Iraq, he really believed it, so it was not just an excuse to dictate.
So far so bad Saddam seems to have fully vindicated; that Iraq really is culturally backward and unsuitable for democracy, and always will be as long as it means representation anarchist-religious fundamentalists in government.
No other democracy represents so many religious fundamentalists in government, and if they did, then the government would fail.

Iraq wasn’t as bad as it is today until Bush came along; but frankly you make a great point. Clinton too was an antichrist!
It was Clinton’s government that persisted in pressuring immoral and unjust sanctions; way after Saddam Hussein had complied with basic U.N demands.
It Madam Albright (under his government) who said even the lose of 500,000 Iraqi children’s lives through U.N would be “worth it”.

The reason why Bush’s is so much more sinful is because he is responsible for making the Iraqis lives so much worse by removing an oppressive government which prevented Iraqis killing innocent Iraqis. Which brought social stability and therefore in effect saved so many more lives.

However it is not a case of party politics but America’s two political parties being “DemoRep” (beahaving as one). But Clinton knew too that Saddam had disarmed (but not his wish to control Iraqis oil, and water interests) (water; much of which is now in the Holy Sands of the nation of “I Steal”) (it would have been in Iraq under Saddam).

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:55 PM
I think people don't understand that it is still possible to come across an up-to-date hidden underground stockpile of WMD's in Iraq. We didn't leave yet, and we haven't stopped looking.

posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Connected
I think people don't understand that it is still possible to come across an up-to-date hidden underground stockpile of WMD's in Iraq.

I agree, many things are posible and who knows it may be some secrets still to be discovered.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in