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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
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.


Sorry buddy, gotta go with ARchAngel on this. WMD was definitely the stated case. Unequivacably. Then it shifted a couple more times.

Now it's wmd related program activity or some such nonesense. Lies, lies and more lies. STep right up and getcher lies, hot off the press.




posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Please, I have no problem in being wrong....
Please provide the words that were spoken to constitute that WMD were the only main reason to go to war, other than UN resolution violations being mentioned. I'm quite positive in my belief that there were more stated reasons along with WMD.





regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Please, I have no problem in being wrong....
Please provide the words that were spoken to constitute that WMD were the only main reason to go to war, other than UN resolution violations being mentioned. I'm quite positive in my belief that there were more stated reasons along with WMD.





regards
seekerof


Look no further than last year's state fo the union address. He was very clear on the reason.

We can all agree that Saddam was an evil man. But it was the U.S. who helped him to power. Check this www.ericblumrich.com... For us to talk about the virtues of democracyand then turn aroiund and overthrow a leader of a sovereign nation like that is nothin but hypocrisy.

These guys had been planning this back when Clinton was in office. They just couldn't get him to do it. Why? Who knows. Probly cause he knew it would get him kicked out of office.

I hate to sign off but its time to hit the rack. The rug rat gets up way too early!



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 02:54 AM
link   
"The stated reason was the threat from his WMD."

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


Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Bush

The ONLY reason for invading Iraq was WMD. All the other points were not reason for an invasion. They are secondary facts that have been turned into the self-serving bait-n-switch alternative to real WMD.


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.

Article 2 clearly states that force is not to be used in international disputes. The only exceptions are by order of the security council, not America.

If invasion is permitted to enforce UN resolutions then an invasion of Israel would be justified to enforce the more than 100 resolutions against them.


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

The proof that he was in violation would be finding WMD. Being in violation would not be a reason for war any more than it would be for all the other nations who are not complying with UN resolutions.


"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 donations to Palestinian families was for martyrs, which would include everyone Israel killed, which is over 95% of those included. It is questionable if the others are terrorists. Were it not for the occupation I would agree, but until they do they are freedom fighters. The other proofs have been discounted, or are not founded on anything other than the words from questionable sources.


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.

The shelf life is of consequence when considering if they are WMD. If they are not capable of mass destruction, then they are not WMD.

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?

Iraqi's interviewed all have said that the WMD were destroyed years ago. This is what Saddam has said for years, and is what was stated in their declaration to the UN.

Maybe they were telling the truth.

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

Even if these weapons were still around they would be of no use. The warheads are filled with toxic waste, not any useful materials.

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


It would seem that any source that claimed before the war that Iraq has WMD would be questionable. That would be most of them. Of course none of them knew any more than what was told to them by the administration.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Please provide the words that were spoken to constitute that WMD were the only main reason to go to war, other than UN resolution violations being mentioned. I'm quite positive in my belief that there were more stated reasons along with WMD.


If it were not for Bush drawing images of mushroom clouds over America in the minds of the sheeple would there have been a war?

The UN resolution violations are questionable, and not justification, or authorization, and they are related to WMD, which do not appear to exist. The other 'reasons' are even less reason.

Invading Iraq has made terrorism more likely, not less.



posted on Jan, 25 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
You comment:
"You think its reasonable to invade a country, then have your doubts after?"

Vietnam ring a bell?

You considered Vietnam a reasonable war?




Mention:
"War should always be a countries LAST RESORT"

Really? History seems to contradict quite heavily what you are saying.

Show us some justified, reasonable examples there big guy.


Face it! The guy #ed up, period. You and your kind are going to let him off easy by allowing him to blame it anyone and everyone else? This man needs to take responsibility for his own bad decisions. He's the damn president for Christ sake! Letting a president pass the blame is complete BS. He took the office, he should take the blame himself. Otherwise, the man is not only incompetent, but also a coward.



Originally posted by Seekerof
This just in:

"Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief"
Link:
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/25/ixnewstop.html

Excerpt:

"David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria."

Great! So when do we start bombing them?



Originally posted by ArchAngel
I believe that exactly zero WMD have been found.

And you'd be 100% correct, unless you call some empty chemical warheads WMD. No chemicals = no WMD. The crap they found was leftover garbage. There has been absolutely no evidence of any weapons that could present any threat to the US. There seems to be many people who want to call any kitchen sink with a funnel next to it a WMD lab.


That, is definitely "grasping at straws". Saying that there is no evidence, when none has been presented, is not "grasping at straws". It's just being reasonable. I too consider Seeker an intelligent guy, but he's wearing blinders on this one, IMO. No one appears to be "grasping at straws" more than those who make excuses for Bush.

[Edited on 1-25-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Jan, 26 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
The reasons to invade Iraq, unveiled. Smells like impeachment and the real 'Contract of the Century':

www.g2mil.com...

[Edited on 2004-1-26 by MakodFilu]



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Check out the June ('03) issue of Vanity Fair. There's an interview with Deputy Defense Sec. Paul Wolfowitz. In it he states that the administration agreed that they would give WMD as the reason for invading Iraq. It was something they all agreed would fly with the American people. Meaning, they'd be scared shytless and would go for it.

For Wolfowitz to just come out and say that straight up shows the level of hubris of this administration. I mean, the guy doesn't care if people know it or not. He thinks he can do whatever wants, say whatever he wants, invade any country he wants.... It's insane. I won't even say what I think needs to become of him. I'll just say this:


It's worth a read, Seekerof. I highly recommend it.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
For Wolfowitz to just come out and say that straight up shows the level of hubris of this administration. I mean, the guy doesn't care if people know it or not. He thinks he can do whatever wants, say whatever he wants, invade any country he wants.... It's insane. I won't even say what I think needs to become of him. I'll just say this:

I agree. These people are out of control, IMO.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Iraq is such a disaster, these pathetic, braindead, evil architects (Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney et al) should be hauled off to to International Criminal Court and tried for War Crimes. Now that would be some serious shock and awe.

They deserve the same fate as they've condemned so many others to.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Despite to the contrary of some to many here, here is my contention to this:

This page (given below) lists the Unresolved (unaccounted for) WMD (disarmament) issues. This has been my bone of contention and arguement for quite some time. UNSCOM, the Iraq Survey Group, nor the UN have found or have any documentation from Saddam or Iraq inregards to these listed materials and weapons, and as of current, none have been found. In such, there is 'issue(s)'.

Again, because no WMD have been found, do not and will not justify that Saddam had no WMD. The reasoning is given above in the still currently documented UNSCOM, Iraq Survey Group, and UN documentations/reports on the Unresolved (unaccounted for) WMD's.

Where are they?

"Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes"
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...

And here:

"UNSCOM and the Iraqi Chemical Weapons Program"
Link:
www.globalsecurity.org...


In all the fervor to denounce that Saddam and Iraq had no WMD, I think, seriously and objectively, that some to many miss out on exactly what I am saying, meaning, and implying. Please do not miss out or misunderstand what I am saying, meaning, and implying here. The point behind my method and stance is that there are still unresolved and thus, unaccounted for WMD, either still in Iraq or moved. This doesn't cover those WMD that may or may not have been destroyed and not reported by Saddam/Iraq, but in that case, unless some sort of documentation surfaces, there will be no way of confirming this or verifying this, especially in regards to the amounts and quantities destroyed.


As a side note, I found this bit of information dated (2003-02-06) in a little article/thread entitled:
"Saddam Blinks, Begins Revealing Weapons"
Link:
www.scrappleface.com...

Excerpt:

"(2003-02-06) -- With the threat of additional inspections looming, Saddam Hussein today ordered his military commanders to begin opening up sites where the Iraqi government has hidden weapons of mass destruction.

Around the country, bunker doors opened and Iraqi soldiers wheeled out truckloads of missiles and canisters of chemical and biological agents. Often they simply laid them on the ground and put yellow plastic "police tape" around them to warn innocent civilians of the danger.

Meanwhile, at an airport near Baghdad, dozens of Iraqi scientists and their families boarded charter jets to make the trip to a neutral site where they could be interviewed about their work on weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Hussein said it was the relentless call for more inspections that finally made him blink, and capitulate to the demands of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441."



If this is true, this is roughly one month plus prior to the commencement of Gulf War II and shows that indeed, again if true, that Saddam/Iraq had WMD and may well currently have them, though places unknown.

Just my thoughts and position.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 27-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   
It's very possible that he just didn't document anything, ya know? Just because we document everything, doesn't mean Saddam would. I mean, this is a third world country we're talking about here. Secondly, he may have felt like we just didn't deserve any docs from him anyway. We were a thorn in his side.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I can certainly agree with those motives, but, (you knew it was coming)
it was Saddam's/Iraq's responsibility, per 1441 and prior resolutions, to give such documentations to UNSCOM or the UN, not the other way around.
Again, this is another aspect of that contention I have, besides the OBVIOUS intel. greivances I have already leveled in prior discussions. The whole thing reminds me of a high-stakes poker game gone bad....not good.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 27-1-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Even though, the guy doesn't have a record of being responsible. He was a dictator, not used to taking orders from anyone. It also appeared that he wanted to provoke us, since he really seemed to think that he could take us.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofThis page (given below) lists the Unresolved (unaccounted for) WMD (disarmament) issues. This has been my bone of contention and arguement for quite some time. UNSCOM, the Iraq Survey Group, nor the UN have found or have any documentation from Saddam or Iraq inregards to these listed materials and weapons, and as of current, none have been found. In such, there is 'issue(s)'.
What if that list is plain just a plain lie? I'm not saying it is (I don't even saw it), but consideer the possibility.

[Edited on 2004-1-29 by MakodFilu]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join