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.

 

Where are the WMDs then?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
So we went into Iraq in 2003 and claimed there were WMDs there. That is what Colin Powell said at least. However we never found any WMDs there.

Then something comes up. What if the WMDs were actually transported to a neighboring country such as Syria or Iran? Or they could've gotten into terrorists hands where they are hiding out in Pakistan. Could that be possible and proven? If so, that means everyone who claim Bush and Powell are liars can take it back.

They should actually blame the intelligence agencies in the first place since they are the ones who inform the administration.




posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Most reports indicate that it was Syria the weapons were transferred to. Even the Iraqi's themselves have admitted to it.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Wassup? Anybody got anything else to add to this?



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   
There were no WMD's.
Its that simple.
The government, BEFORE 911 stated saddam didnt have the ability, and was succesfully contained.
The US government said they had proof, AFTER 911 that he had stock piles.
Then the government addmitted after the invasion, wmd's never existed.


So they went from saying there wernt none, to we've got evidence of large amounts, to we were wrong.

Why cant people see, they lied and overstated the wmd ability specifically to frighten congress and the people into launching war?

The day they find those wmd's buried in the syrian deserts, is the day ill admit GW Bush won the 2000 election.

Here's a question for all you sheep whom presume the weapons were shipped in containers to syria.

Our satellites can read number plates of cars, so why the hell couldnt they track large lorries travelling from suspected WMD depot's across the border?

Why wouldnt they use this information, to show the public they wernt lying, and keep that approval rating high?


Seriously, you people arent STILL, looking for wmd's in Iraq are you?

Iraq WMD's are like corporate MORALS.
THERE ARE NONE!



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I think the Bush administration lack of zeal post-war to find the WMD is proof enough that none exist.

If they got transfered to Iran or Syria shouldn't Bush and company be yelling that point right about now ?



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Our satellites can read number plates of cars, so why the hell couldnt they track large lorries travelling from suspected WMD depot's across the border?


I'm not in disagreement with you, Agit8dChop, but for arguments sake I'd like to point out that satellite surveillance technology is simply not good enough to make this a valid argument. Yes, our satellites do have some amazing resolution capabilities but there are limitations.

Anyone moving WMDs or any contraband can easily hide their movements. Of course, the schedule of any satellite overflight would have to be known but for anyone who might have developed WMD or highly technological weaponry, this would be childsplay. When a satellite was scheduled to overfly an area, the " "perps" can simply pull off a road and camoflauge their vehicles from visual and infra red detection.

I'd like to add that the idea that Iraq would move WMD to Syria or even Iran is not out of the realm of possibility. During Desert Storm, Iraq, in an effort to "save" their air force, sent a number of their planes to Iran.

Speculation aside, the WMD argument, in my opinion, was an intelligence failure.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 03:33 AM
link   
I'm willing to chalk the WMDs up to the Chupacabra. Because my belief that he got em, is almost as high as my belief in their existence.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Here are some news sources that I found regarding this topic:

- www.nysun.com...

In this article, I believe that the WMDs could've possibly been transported to Syria using cargo flights instead of trucks on the ground. According to Mr. Sada, the guy who was in charge of the transportation was none other than "Chemical Ali". I'm wondering why we didn't question him about the WMDs during his trial from not too long ago? Furthermore, I believe Mr. Sada claims that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, "Chemical Ali", got his chemical weapons from Syria.

Here is a link that tells about his trial: en.wikipedia.org...

- en.wikipedia.org...

Note that in this article it said that Saddam periodically removed guards from the Syrian border and replaced them with intelligent officers that would control the flow of possible weapon-transporting trucks between borders.

- www.msnbc.msn.com...

What do you guys think of Saddam's tape where he supposedly confessed to transporting weapons out of Iraq?

Here is a YouTube video where it shows Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands and supposedly Rumsfeld selling arms to him. But this dates back to 1983.



So out of these sources, I think Saddam did have WMDs at one point in time and got rid of them, but you never know. Not everyone agrees with it.

If Saddam got rid of his WMDs at one time, these weapons still can be anywhere in the world then. All we know is that we can't just blame Bush/Cheney for lying about the WMDs if we don't have enough evidence.


edit: removed unnecessary "I" after "ground, removed "can" after "I", changed from "commercial" to "cargo"

edit: added last paragraph

[edit on 29-7-2007 by Dan5647]

[edit on 29-7-2007 by Dan5647]



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
We actually have satellite footage of the weapons and caravans of cargo being shipped to Syria...thats old news. Iraqi's leadership themselves have admitted to having WMD as well as their whereabuts so i dont understand what the question here is?



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
We actually have satellite footage of the weapons and caravans of cargo being shipped to Syria...thats old news. Iraqi's leadership themselves have admitted to having WMD as well as their whereabuts so i dont understand what the question here is?



thefatlady replies:

Aw you spoiled my fun, yep, Syria. And he did have them, liked to show them off to visitors especially of the female persuasion.



posted on Jul, 29 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Google is your friend. You wanna see the news reports and the accounts from the Iraqi's themselves? Its all on there....just search.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dan5647

They should actually blame the intelligence agencies in the first place since they are the ones who inform the administration.


The agencies coupled with looking at the IRAQ WMD Evidence, were run by Dick Cheney's Daughter, and Wolfowitz's GF.

Doesnt that say enough>?



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
There were no WMD's.
Its that simple.
The government, BEFORE 911 stated saddam didnt have the ability, and was succesfully contained.


Really? Which government? The US'? Under Bush?

Here is what some leading democrats said during the Clinton administration...


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998



"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998



"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998



France?


French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: "There is a problem – the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right ... in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."


Link to source of these quotes www.rightwingnews.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.rightwingnews.com...

The UN?


Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,


Link to UN Resolution 1441: www.un.int...




[edit on 7/30/2007 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 7/30/2007 by darkbluesky]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The Democrats were dead wrong, because they were getting the same carefully edited intel the Bush administration was feeding itself in order to create a pretext for war. Don't lecture us about the Democrats, they're only marginally less full of it than the Republicans, and just as eager to bow down to AIPAC.

Let's not forget that Hillary was an early and vocal supporter of this war, as were many of the Democrats claiming to oppose it now. The Democrats are an utterly worthless fake opposition party, if you think the only people who oppose the current administration and it's policies are Democrats, you listen to too much Rush Limbaugh...

As far as the WMD's, they didn't exist.
Saddam ordered his chemical weapons stockpiles destroyed back in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War, and never rebuilt his capacity to produce them.

He played games with the inspectors because he wanted to bluff the Iranians (an enemy that concerned him far more than the US) into worrying he still might have them, so they didn't invade. This has all been fairly well established in postwar interrogation of people like Tariq Aziz, but you're not going to hear about it for 30 years or so. Why?

Because the neocons can count on their herd of idiot supporters believing the mythical WMD's got shipped to the next country they want to invade on behalf of Israel - in this case Syria. People seem to forget that Syria and Iraq were not exactly pals - in fact Syria fought along with the Coalition against Iraq in the first Gulf War, a fact that has somehow gone down the memory hole since 1991.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
The Democrats were dead wrong, because they were getting the same carefully edited intel the Bush administration was feeding itself in order to create a pretext for war.


What carefully edited intel was the Bush administration feeding itself in 1998?



Saddam ordered his chemical weapons stockpiles destroyed back in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War, and never rebuilt his capacity to produce them.


If you have direct knowledge of this, you apparently have access to information or facts not available to the general public. Or were you asserting your theories/beliefs?


He played games with the inspectors because he wanted to bluff the Iranians (an enemy that concerned him far more than the US) into worrying he still might have them, so they didn't invade. This has all been fairly well established in postwar interrogation of people like Tariq Aziz, but you're not going to hear about it for 30 years or so. Why?

Because the neocons can count on their herd of idiot supporters believing the mythical WMD's got shipped to the next country they want to invade on behalf of Israel - in this case Syria. People seem to forget that Syria and Iraq were not exactly pals - in fact Syria fought along with the Coalition against Iraq in the first Gulf War, a fact that has somehow gone down the memory hole since 1991.


I would tend to agree with most of this. My posting of quotes from previous administrations and other governments was simply intended to correct the record on this thread. It had been stated by another poster that " The government, BEFORE 911 stated saddam didnt have the ability, and was succesfully contained."



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Dark Blue,
Condoleza, Powell both stated, prior to 911 that saddam had been contained, and had no ability to resurrect his wmd capability.

Or have you completely forgotten that WELL KNOWN FOOTAGE!



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   
There were no weapons, im still shocked that human beings are trying to debate this point.
Its really simple....
Here's my reasoning as to how..


1. WE FOUND NONE
2. We had undeniable evidence of WMD's... obviously they lied when stating this, because you cant have undeniable evidence without wmd's
3. Even Tony Blair admitted prior that no wmd's would be found
4. the wmd inspections found nothing
5. Bush Admin prior to 911 admitted saddam had no weapons capabilities
6. no wmd's have been used by Iraq, even in saddams final days
7. insurgents have not used any wmd's against occupational troops, apart from crudley constructed chlorine bombs made from industrial applications
8. GW himself admitted wmd's didnt exist

www.msnbc.msn.com...

CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq


www.cnn.com...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.


They even changed their rational to 'his intent'
news.bbc.co.uk...

But despite the lack of actual weapons, the White House said the report showed Saddam Hussein's intent and capability and justifies the decision to go to war.



I mean, really... c'mon here.. you cant seriously expect people to believe that you honestly tow the line saddam had wmd's........ is this like the last cookie in your jar or something?

Bush told saddam
''LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.''

Isnt it bloody obvious to even the most niave of people, that this war had nothing to do with wmd's?

the american government would not send 150,000+ troops into an active chemical / biological battlefield.

its the stupidest things ive ever heard to date.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
We actually have satellite footage of the weapons and caravans of cargo being shipped to Syria...thats old news. Iraqi's leadership themselves have admitted to having WMD as well as their whereabuts so i dont understand what the question here is?


Are you talking about the WMD United Nations Soapie when Powell was trying to convince that he can fit a plane into a Condom, it's too late for that now, Bush is more concerned about getting out of this Quagmire Condom



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:55 PM
link   
NO, not at all im talking about the biological and chemical weapons that were transferred from Iraq to Syria. What does that have to do with condoms? Or are you just 12 years old like a lot of others on here and penises are all you can think about?



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Agit8dChop

The only thing "bloody obvious" to me is that you have a serious case of "Bush Derangement Syndrome." There is likely no evidence in this world that will convince you that Bush is anything less than the most evil person to have ever lived. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but in less than 18 months Bush will be gone, the world will still suck, and you will have to find someone else to be the target of all of your venom. You seem to be an intelligent person. You do yourself a disservice by being so stridently closed minded

As for whether or not Iraq had (or still has) WMDs, using a CIA report to prove there aren't any makes about as much sense as using a CIA report to prove they exist. What we know about events in Iraq is probably only about 25% of what is really going on - that is a common occurence in any war. We are still finding out the real story of events that happened in WWII over 60 years ago. It seems likely to me that we will still only have part of the full Iraq story 10 or 20 years down the road.

So, did Iraq have WMDs? I would say it is very likely they did. However, I don't think that can be conclusively proven and more than it can be conclusively disproven.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join