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.

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.

"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]

Come on gentlemen, I'm sure something will be found before the next election.

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

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...

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.

i think they would have a better chance of finding the pope in a porno than finding wmd's

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.