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.

 

"Evil chemistry" and "Evil biology" Justified War in Iraq

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
According to Ashcroft the War in Iraq was justified because of Sadaams "evil chemistry" and "evil biology".

Ashcroft, being the idiot that he is, is just pulling at straws to answer questions that his feeble little mind cannot comprehend. This guy does not need to stick around for a second term he is just an Idiot.



Saddam Hussein's past use of "evil chemistry" and "evil biology" and the threats they posed justified the war in Iraq, even if no weapons of mass destruction are ever found, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said today.

Ashcroft, in Vienna for talks with Austrian officials on measures to fight terrorism and drug trafficking and to improve air travel security, told reporters that Saddam's arsenal remained a menace and was sufficient cause to overthrow his regime.

"I believe there is a very clear understanding that Saddam Hussein continued to pose a threat," Ashcroft said.

"Weapons of mass destruction, including evil chemistry and evil biology, are all matters of great concern, not only to the United States, but also to the world community," he said. "They were the subject of UN resolutions."


Click Here for Article..........




posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Next wars will be justified by 'evil mathematics'. Sounds to me Ashcroft is speaking 'evil english'.

ANYway, the whole adminstration speaks so vaguely of every detail they can nothing suprises me anymore.



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   
it was justified for me by the torture tapes



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I just hope to god that Bush doesn't get elected to a second term, and also that his cronies never get their hands on top political positions again.




it was justified for me by the torture tapes


What torture tapes?



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Ashcroft puts the icing on the cake of making this debacle the witch hunt of the 21st century. Adding in useless statements of "evil" for justification of military action is a great method to dispell wrongdoing in the minds of the religious who otherwise should be opposed to things like the killing of other humans.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 07:46 AM
link   
He is a ridiculous and appallingly dangerous man grasping at straws to justify the actions of this corrupt, soul-less administration. They've all been proven to be liars and extremists and they have to continue down the reprehensible path of dishonesty they started. Otherwise, the whole house of cards will fall.

I heard Condoleeza Rice speaking with Diane Sawyer this morning and as usual was appalled by her absolute lack of honesty. She straight up lied as usual. I do not know how these people can look themselves in the mirror. She sits there and says 2+2=6 - You know it, I know it and the world knows it.. stare, smile, obfuscate.. It's chilling. They're taking this straight outta the Nazis handbook, folks. Tell the big lie long enough and people will believe it. They can go rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 08:11 AM
link   
You know I approved of the decision to invade Iraq and I still do. WMD's were never my number one reason for the invasion however. I was more interested in removing Sadaam from power because of iron fist that he held over his people. The torture prison that was full of kids should be enough for anyone to say yeah this fruitcake needs to be shown the door.

The thing about the WMD's that gets me is that Clinton used that same reason for running bombing raids in Iraq during his term. What bothers me is can our intel really be this bad? If we don't know for sure who has what and we just think we know then who knows might be planning a sneak attack.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal
You know I approved of the decision to invade Iraq and I still do. WMD's were never my number one reason for the invasion however. I was more interested in removing Sadaam from power because of iron fist that he held over his people. The torture prison that was full of kids should be enough for anyone to say yeah this fruitcake needs to be shown the door.

The thing about the WMD's that gets me is that Clinton used that same reason for running bombing raids in Iraq during his term. What bothers me is can our intel really be this bad? If we don't know for sure who has what and we just think we know then who knows might be planning a sneak attack.


The correct intel was not bad. Cheney and Rumsfeld had their little yes men in the Office of Special Plans cherry-pick the info they wanted and they used the poison word of defectors who had their own agendas. The CIA wouldn't accept it. If they take someone's word, it has to be corroborated with at least one or two other witnesses. It is NOT the CIA's fault. But this administration is doing everything in their power to blame it on them. It's very disgusting and I hope the CIA (for once) comes back and puts BUSHCO in it's place. This just goes to show how inept and ignorant this administration is. You don't set up the CIA. You just don't.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:24 AM
link   
What you all fail to realize about David Kay's little revelation is that it was planned by Bush. I think the weapons are there and I think they know exactly where they are. Kay's little speech is nothing more than a little temp for the democrats to jump fully on the anti-war band wagon. Once they fully embrace this ideology, the weapons will be found and there will be enough to scare the hell out of every voting American. This is all political strategy in my opinion. Its just a hunch and we'll soon see if its true or not.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   
If the weapons were there, they would have certainly been found and trumpeted by now.

There is nothing there.

Saddam was playing the big bluff to scare neighboring countries. Nothing more.

The emperer has no clothes.

And I'm NOT a Democrat saying this.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Well, I am a democrat and I recognize this for the political trickery it is. If this was all just recenly (via Bush) made up, I might buy it but we have had information on it for better than a decade. Bill and Hillary Clinton both warned of WMD and Saddam as did weapons inspectors from the UN. Something just isn't right about this sudden revelation that there weren't any. If the 04 election goes off without it happening, I'll admit to being wrong but lets at least leave it as a possibility.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
Well, I am a democrat and I recognize this for the political trickery it is. If this was all just recenly (via Bush) made up, I might buy it but we have had information on it for better than a decade. Bill and Hillary Clinton both warned of WMD and Saddam as did weapons inspectors from the UN. Something just isn't right about this sudden revelation that there weren't any. If the 04 election goes off without it happening, I'll admit to being wrong but lets at least leave it as a possibility.


This is NOT sudden. I repeat. NO SURPRISE. NOTHING NEW. NADA.

This was known BEFORE THE INVASION. How long are you people going to buy this crap? Even in the face of Paul Wolfowitz saying straight out "WE DECIDED IT WAS THE BEST CASE TO MAKE SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD SUPPORT THE INVASION." If you still want to cling to your illusions in the face of one of the invasion's architect's TELLING you they LIED, go right ahead. Stay in the dark.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
One cannot tell the difference between light and dark with their eyes closed. To assume there never were WMDs in Iraq is to discount over a decade of evidence and credit Mr. Hussien with a degree of sanity and morality I don't believe he posses. Its not that I amwilling to support BUsh, its that I don't trust Hussien. The revelation that we haven't found the weapons hasn't lead me to question their existence only their current location and possesor and that one little aspect of this is what most are missing and its the lack of that demisnion of thinking that keeps us in danger. Just because they aren't where we thought they were, that means they don't exist? How 1 deminsional thinking is that? This allow hundreds of possibilities and scenerios and if we redicule Bush on anything, it should now be this uncertainty for I do believe someone dropped the ball where it lands is a dangerous situation. It isn't that I'm not willing to admit there are no WMDs that is the danger, its that you aren't willing to admit there might be..somewhere. You have no clue for sure. You're just spouting a one-demensional observation in a three-demisional scenario.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 11:53 AM
link   
there is no doubt saddam once had wmd in iraq. the us govt supplied them to him. according to this, the cia trained, supplied, funded, and used him to oust the tyrant who held iraq before he did.

www.ericblumrich.com...

(im not sure that all of this info is accurate, so correct me if im wrong)



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Wait til we get around to Evil evolutionary theory.

I'm betting on a new Creationist/Evolution trial soon.

Was Bush descended from Monkies?

Or did God create him like he is ?



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I'd like to invite someone to prove to me that the administration lied about anything or purposely lied to justify the war.

No opinions or anger needed though, there's enough in this posting area already.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Uranium from Africa.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Actually, Saddam did make attempts to buy Uranium from Africa according to British sources who still say their info was credible. The US chose to strike this from the official case because it wasn't supported by the required references. That in no way means it didn't happen. In my personal opinion, if Saddam wanted to see your ass, he'd rip it out through your throat so seeking fuel for a nuclear bomb isn't far fetched at all. The British still maintain their report was correct and say the source is still very credible. ...but no one mentions that part of it anymore.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Very interesting so why doesn't Bush believe it.Why have people been rubuked for it's inclusion in last years State of the Union Address.

Here's another.

Mobile weapons labs.



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
One cannot tell the difference between light and dark with their eyes closed.

I suggest you open them up.

To assume there never were WMDs in Iraq is to discount over a decade of evidence and credit Mr. Hussien with a degree of sanity and morality I don't believe he posses.

No one has suggested he NEVER had them. They were destroyed by the mid-90's. The United States was one of Saddam's biggest supplier. So your comment there falls flat on its face.

Its not that I amwilling to support BUsh, its that I don't trust Hussien.

Nobody does.

The revelation that we haven't found the weapons hasn't lead me to question their existence only their current location and possesor and that one little aspect of this is what most are missing and its the lack of that demisnion of thinking that keeps us in danger.

I sincerely suggest you stop paying attention to the mainstream media and find some serious sources. You're gonna be in the dark a long, long time if you don't.

Just because they aren't where we thought they were,

Where YOU thought... I and alot of others knew how full of shyte this administration is. WE did not believe it.

that means they don't exist?

Go do some research on the shelf life of chem/bio weapons. They do not last nearly as long as BushCo would like you to believe.

How 1 deminsional thinking is that? This allow hundreds of possibilities and scenerios and if we redicule Bush on anything, it should now be this uncertainty for I do believe someone dropped the ball where it lands is a dangerous situation. It isn't that I'm not willing to admit there are no WMDs that is the danger, its that you aren't willing to admit there might be..somewhere. You have no clue for sure. You're just spouting a one-demensional observation in a three-demisional scenario.

You know what, you don't have a clue, partner. Sorry. But you simply don't.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join