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.

 

Powell casts doubt on Iraq WMDs

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Really Arch, heelstone, Big Easy...so decisive these days, eh?

First, as to no, yet to be defined and clarified, WMD being found, many threads within ATS will show some amounts and quantites that have been found.
[Edited on 25-1-2004 by Seekerof]


Oh don't be so gullible you silly little Bush follower. The only reason innocent Iraqi's are dying and women being raped is because of hunger for power. That piece of scum should be impeached.




posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Excuse me Arch?

Hows this for clarification:

"In October 2002, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Source:
"Is the War on Iraq Lawful?"
Link:
writ.news.findlaw.com...


Also this:

"President Delivers "State of the Union"
Link:
www.whitehouse.gov...

And this:

"Secretary Powell at the UN: Iraq's Failure to Disarm"
Link:
www.state.gov...

Bush's words were:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late." ---- G.W. Bush

So what exactly was the reason to goto war....what was the administration's primary reasoning/motivation for war with Iraq?

To eliminate a/the threat that could have become imminent and make this country safer in relation to national security concerns. Also, to make Saddam/Iraq comply with 12+ years of UN resolutions, and to rid the Middle East of a dictator who was supporting terrorism.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Why We Went to War
From the October 20, 2003 issue: The case for the war in Iraq, with testimony from Bill Clinton.
by Robert Kagan & William Kristol
10/20/2003, Volume 009, Issue 06





"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003


Bill Clinton. Bill Kristol. They're both liars. Bill Clinton is Poppy Bush's boy. Didn't you know that seekerof? And Kristol is just a whore for the neocons.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   
"Deadly chemicals are found dumped in river"

This story is evidence? Has there been any further follow up? I have never read anything else about it, so I'm putting it down as propoganda like the bio lab story that turned out false as well.

"Chemical Warhead found in Kirkuk, Iraq Ignored by the American Media"

Why is there no link to this? Is this story real? Even if it was, there was nothing in the quote that proves WMD. "Trace amounts" of nerve agent means nothing. If it was just traces, then it wasn't a WMD. Where is the follow-up story showing that this warhead was full of nerve agent? There is none. This story is bull# and is not evidence for WMD.


As for other administrations lying, that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that this was used for an all out illegal war. Had Clinton pulled this little stunt, I would have been just as upset. He didn't. He just bombed here and there to sate warmongers. All politicians lie, but acting on those lies is far, far worse. Especially when the amount of money and lives are involved as in an all out invasion.

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Lies About Iraq’s Weapons Are Past Expiration Date


For weeks, we have been hearing breathless media reports of possible discoveries of chemical and biological weapons by U.S. and British troops in Iraq. Within hours or days, if one scours the back pages of the newspaper, he finds that it was merely another false alarm. But what is never mentioned is that these weapons, made five, ten or fifteen years ago, are almost certainly unusable, having long since passed their stable shelf-life, according to the Department of Defense's own documents based on a decade of international inspections, electronic surveillance and information supplied by spies and defectors.

There was never any question Iraq once had weapons of mass destruction programs. Nor was the world naïve enough to trust Saddam Hussein not to try and hide such weapons from UN inspectors. The rationale for the U.S. invasion, however, was that after a decade of sanctions, war, U.S. bombing runs, and UN inspections, Iraq still possessed a viable nuclear, chemical or biological threat that could be deployed beyond Iraq’s borders or which was in danger of being supplied to terrorist groups

www.alternet.org...


They knew that all the WMD he may, or may not have been hiding were no longer WMD. Toxic waste? Certainly, but not a weapon.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Come on gentlemen, I'm sure something will be found before the next election.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:34 AM
link   
heelstone, in regards to those links you are seeking.....if I can find them in past threads, you can likewise do so also.


Also, as to "follow-ups", search engines do work quite effectively.



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Ok, so maybe Saddam did send his WMDs to Syria...

I say SO WHAT? If that's true there's nothing we can do about it. Should we invade another country in the middle east? Do you realize what the ramifications of doing something like that would be? The entire world would turn against us, more than they already have. You want to talk about terrorism....invade Syria or any other Muslim country and see what happens.

As for the Iraq invasion...it's over and done. There's nothing we can do to change it. Let's face it, Bush won't be impeached, hell he's hardly being questioned about this. The people who planned the war long before 9-11 used WMDs (real or made up) as an excuse to push their agenda, which goes far beyond talking out Iraq. These people will get away scot free... The only thing I can really do is attempt to get a new administration in the White House and hope they aren't as corrupt as the last.

Em....well....the last two that is...



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Excuse me Arch?

Hows this for clarification:

"In October 2002, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the President "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Yeah, and that, short of declaring war was unconstitutional. Have you forgotten that?

Imagine, giving that power to a guy who can't even correctly pronounce 'nuclear' and who by his own admission doesn't bother reading the news. HE relies on his yes men to give him the low down. The founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they only knew.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:39 AM
link   
i think they would have a better chance of finding the pope in a porno than finding wmd's



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
heelstone, in regards to those links you are seeking.....if I can find them in past threads, you can likewise do so also.


Also, as to "follow-ups", search engines do work quite effectively.
Alright, the warhead story does exist on CNN's site. Took a while to find it. I also found this:

www.cnn.com...

Prelim nerve warhead test negative

It was propoganda, as I said. You can't use this story anymore to backup your claims.

As for the river story, I haven't seen a follow up on it yet, but if I ever do, I will certainly bring it up.

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   
As to "shelf-life, try these:

"SHELF LIFE OF IRAQ'S CW AGENTS"
Link:
www.fas.org...

"Shelf Life of Iraq's Chemical and Biological Weapons"
Link:
www.britainusa.com...


More can be found using a search engine.


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone

Originally posted by Seekerof
heelstone, in regards to those links you are seeking.....if I can find them in past threads, you can likewise do so also.


Also, as to "follow-ups", search engines do work quite effectively.
Alright, the warhead story does exist on CNN's site. Took a while to find it. I also found this:

www.cnn.com...

Prelim nerve warhead test negative

It was propoganda, as I said. You can't use this story anymore to backup your claims.

As for the river story, I haven't seen a follow up on it yet, but if I ever do, I will certainly bring it up.

[Edited on 25-1-2004 by heelstone]


THose stories died as soon as the ink dried. In every case.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:50 AM
link   
So what exactly was the reason to goto war....what was the administration's primary reasoning/motivation for war with Iraq?

The stated reason was the threat from his WMD.

To eliminate a/the threat that could have become imminent and make this country safer in relation to national security concerns.

'Could have become'? Maybe in the future is not absolutely right now.

Also, to make Saddam/Iraq comply with 12+ years of UN resolutions

We were the only ones saying he was in violation. Now it appears Saddam was telling the truth!

and to rid the Middle East of a dictator

Like it, or not Saddam was the elected leader of a single party republic. His powers were near dictatorial, but so are those of many other leaders in the world. It was through the fear of America, and the war with Iran that he was able to beat the drums, and force through laws that gave him the level of control that he had. Being a dictator is not a reason to start a war.

who was supporting terrorism.

There is no evidence he supported terrorism.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:51 AM
link   

THose stories died as soon as the ink dried. In every case.
Exactly BigEasy. This whole war was a lie and finding any sort of credible stories to back up the claims made to justify it are as shoddy as stories in The Weekly World News.


[Edited on 25-1-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
As to "shelf-life, try these:

"SHELF LIFE OF IRAQ'S CW AGENTS"
Link:
www.fas.org...

"Shelf Life of Iraq's Chemical and Biological Weapons"
Link:
www.britainusa.com...


More can be found using a search engine.


regards
seekerof



The report from FAS is from 1991. The other is a statement from Butler that is not qualified with any evidence.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone

THose stories died as soon as the ink dried. In every case.
Exactly BigEasy. This whole war was a lie and finding any sort of credible stories to back up the claims made to justify it are as shoddy as stories in The Weekly World News.


[Edited on 25-1-2004 by heelstone]


That is correct.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 01:59 AM
link   
The problem with Iraq is that people do not see what this battle is really about:

The US which is NWO and capitalistic/fascistic fighting to ensure its survival vs much of the rest of the world via increased influence in middle east.

The Europeans/Russian/most everyone else are OWO oriented and socialistic/communistic fighting to defeat the drive of the US to maintain its power over the world and thus it must push the US out of the middle east.

Read all the posts around here, literally many hundreds of them now and I can bet that 95% of them fall in one camp or the other. The only person I do not have respect for is that person that cannot admit their bias and come clean on why they support one side or the other.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone

THose stories died as soon as the ink dried. In every case.
Exactly BigEasy. This whole war was a lie and finding any sort of credible stories to back up the claims made to justify it are as shoddy as stories in The Weekly World News.


[Edited on 25-1-2004 by heelstone]



Or Newsmax and WorldNetDaily.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Arch:

"The stated reason was the threat from his WMD."

Please present to the contrary. Also, WMD were not the only main focus.


"'Could have become'? Maybe in the future is not absolutely right now."

Doesn't matter in a sense, failure to comply with UN Resolutions and the Iraqi Liberation Act were reason enough for Saddam's removal, by military force.


"We were the only ones saying he was in violation. Now it appears Saddam was telling the truth!"

Wrong....the UN stated he/Saddam was in violation through and up to the last UN Resolution (1441).


"There is no evidence he supported terrorism."

"Evidence" to you is what?

Seems there was evidence:

"Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism"
Link:
www.whitehouse.gov...

"Iraq"
Link:
www.terrorismanswers.com...

"Saddam sealing his own fate"
Link:
www.csulb.edu...


"The report from FAS is from 1991. The other is a statement from Butler that is not qualified with any evidence."

Arch, you brought the matter up in your own comments....you provide to the contrary or in such, your comment(s), in relation to "shelf-life" are opinion and are of no consequence, in regards to what I provided.


BTW, please feel free to explain where those "unaccounted for" WMD are or where those documentations that Saddam/Iraq was to provide constituting and declaring those "unaccounted for" WMD as being destroyed?

"Final UNSCOM Disarmament Report on Iraq"
Link:
www.iraqwatch.org...



BigEasy? Source issues?
Care to provide ATS a list of those 'sources' considered reliable and credible and worthy of us as quoted 'sources'?




regards
seekerof



[Edited on 25-1-2004 by Seekerof]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join