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.

 

In His Own Words - Bush On Saddam's WMD

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   
World watcher, i said police force. What i didn't say was the iron fistof saddam. the prior police force kicked in doors and arrested anti-saddam people. That makes it a good police force though huh? And there army was so great that all surrendered to us, on many occasions as soon as they saw us. They must have loved their army huh? so no, we're really not rebuilding those are we?




posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by medic
World watcher, i said police force. What i didn't say was the iron fistof saddam. the prior police force kicked in doors and arrested anti-saddam people. That makes it a good police force though huh? And there army was so great that all surrendered to us, on many occasions as soon as they saw us. They must have loved their army huh? so no, we're really not rebuilding those are we?


Americans are kicking in far more doors, and we have been there such a short time.

The police force was respected more than our soldiers. They did not have to hide in bases at night. They went home.

There were no suicide bombers before we invaded.

They did not need armor in the streets. They did not do many of the things we are because they were Iraqis.

That is one thing we will never be.

The army knew they stood no chance against us. They is a difference between fighting when you have a chance, and dying at the hands of an overwhelming force.

I must say one good thing about Saddam. He was better than us at keeping security. Never will we do as well as him in this regard because we are not Iraqs.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by medic
Manual sims game? what are you talking about? what, we're playing them because we're helping them? Which is it? we're helping them or we aren't? you can't have both.

It's funny how some people can turn killing and controlling into "help". Do you ever remember any Iraqis asking us to "save" them? No? That's because it never happened. Can't you just picture a bunch of Iraqis with the little diamond shaped things hovering over their heads? I sure can. Make them work, make them go to school, make them vote, make them rebuild their police force, make them rebuild their military, make them fix their oil pipelines, make them repair their world trade, make them build an American like gov't, make them happy to be Americans.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Starting with WorldWatcher, who claims we have merely caused more problems for the Iraqi people, I ask what they are? They no longer have to live with the fear of their children going to cruel prisons, or their women being raped or their men being run through plastic shredders. Their utilities are in better shape now than before the war. If they care to work and fight for it, they can now taste and enjoy freedom, although I do not believe they will keep it, to be frank.
But the fact is, we did not go in to liberate the people, that noise was merely propaganda created to get the tree-huggers and bleeding hearts to embrace the war.

The war was about Hussein and his chemical and biological weapons, his ties to terrorist groups, and their mutual hatred for the West. We all know Hussein had unconventional weapons and had used them in the past. We now also know he was training the bad guys on how to use the unconventional weapons. We know that these bad guys actually plan bad things for people in places such as, I don't know, New York City, for example?
The real question should be, "Why is it that all these years, violation after violation of the agreements that stopped the war the first go around, Hussein was allowed to do whatever he pleased and the war never was resumed, as it should have been?
Could it possibly have been because of the countries that were making big bucks under the table with Hussein would not allow it? Seems to me the suspicious eyes are being turned the wrong way.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   
"I must say one good thing about Saddam. He was better than us at keeping security. Never will we do as well as him in this regard because we are not Iraqs."

Absolutely Arch. Well said!
Surely the Iraqi people have no more fear of Saddam's rule, being tortured or mutilated, or having to worry about ending up in an unmarked mass grave. Never will the Iraqi people be subjugated to chemical attacks or outright mass murderings. Yes, indeed, Saddam's methods of rule were quite persuasive.....



regards
seekerof



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Ok your on here. If your so anti-war then why don't you get a picket and go to the white house and tell them how you feel? And do you know why Americans kick in doors? Its because they have weapons in there houses they problem plan on using. Not just against us, but anyone else here. Im in Baghdad I talk to Iraqis on a daily basis. When you get thrown in jail for 6 months because you have a satellite at your home thats just ridiculous, and when you walking by his palace you couldn't look at it or you would be arrested.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   
But thats right we've all been to iraq and seen first hand how everything is right?



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   
who claims we have merely caused more problems for the Iraqi people, I ask what they are?

Many claim this, and the complaints are countless.

They no longer have to live with the fear of their children going to cruel prisons

We are imprisoning people for nothing ourselves.

or their women being raped

There are claims of hundreds of rapes by American soldiers.

or their men being run through plastic shredders.

Yes, we just beat, and electrocute them into commas.

Their utilities are in better shape now than before the war.

No they are not. Millions are still without power at the level before the invasion.

If they care to work and fight for it, they can now taste and enjoy freedom, although I do not believe they will keep it, to be frank.

Where is there freedom under an occupational puppet regime?

But the fact is, we did not go in to liberate the people, that noise was merely propaganda created to get the tree-huggers and bleeding hearts to embrace the war.

Nice to see someone pro-war admit it.

The war was about Hussein and his chemical and biological weapons, his ties to terrorist groups, and their mutual hatred for the West.

No WMD have been found, no evidence of terrorist ties has been found, and so what if they hated us? What would you expect after the years of bombing and the sanctions?

We all know Hussein had unconventional weapons and had used them in the past.

So what? That was the distant past.

We now also know he was training the bad guys on how to use the unconventional weapons.

Link please. I think this is untrue. He would have to actually have had some unconventional weapomns for this to be true.

We know that these bad guys actually plan bad things for people in places such as, I don't know, New York City, for example?

Any evidece of these plans? Why have they waited so long to execute them?

The real question should be, "Why is it that all these years, violation after violation of the agreements that stopped the war the first go around, Hussein was allowed to do whatever he pleased and the war never was resumed, as it should have been?

because the UN charter does not permit it. The purpose of the UN is to stop war. Read the charter sometime.

Could it possibly have been because of the countries that were making big bucks under the table with Hussein would not allow it?

The UN votes of all nations represented the will of the people. Only in America, and England was there a majority, and now that it is becoming clear the motives were all lies the numbers are falling.

Seems to me the suspicious eyes are being turned the wrong way.

It is turned to us because we have invaded. There is no longer suspicions because it is a reality. Do the monitary motives apply to us as well?

Why does Haliburton get no-bid contreacts with guarenteed profit? That is unheard of in the industry. Iraqi's would never have agreed to that.

Suspicion is on our motives. Bush clearly told lie after lie. Now he is backing down, and pulling a bait-n-switch. WMD are being exchanged for Liberty.

But of course there is no liberty for Iraq until we leave.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Hey AA i like your signature. You haven't failed either, you're just finding 10,000 ways to say things that really don't make sense. Like how saddam was better. lol. Yeah, go to his trial. fight for him.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Surely the Iraqi people have no more fear of Saddam's rule, being tortured or mutilated, or having to worry about ending up in an unmarked mass grave. Never will the Iraqi people be subjugated to chemical attacks or outright mass murderings. Yes, indeed, Saddam's methods of rule were quite persuasive.....




Saddam never used chemical weapons on Iraqis. The incident in question happened during the war with Iran, and it was the Iranians who gassed the Kurds. Even the US army war college says so. The people died from gas that Saddam never produced, but Iran did.

Even if it were true that it was Iraqis who did this it happened during a war. The target would have been invading soldiers, not citizens.

It would not have happen because Saddam said "Gas the Kurds!".



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
BTW: In THEIR Own Words....for those who seem to think that BUSH was the only one talking this or believing this....

"On WMD's -- what did the Democrats say?"
Link:
www.townhall.com...

"If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People"
LInk:
www.rightwingnews.com...


The WMD reasoning was taken and attributed to this:

"The Intelligence on Iraq's WMD"
Link:
www.meib.org...

But as par, its more "pathetic liars knowing that its lying" from those paticular "strugglers at ATS" type hype.



regards
seekerof



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Everyone keeps talking about these cruel things Saddam did to his people. I admit, they were cruel acts. However can anyone give me recent cases? Weren't all these things done atleast 10 years ago.

everything I have heard committed was in the past. THE PAST. just like how individuals are allowed to put things in their past, isn't a leader of a country allowed to do the same? Sometimes with age, people do change. I am just trying to say, there were other ways to go about removing Saddam besides going to war and risking the lives of Americans. The whole point of the statements Archangel posted were that justification isn't there.

Now to these Iraqis. What most Americans fail to understand is the mindset of these people. They do not have the same dreams and aspirations as we do. They do not care or put value into the same things we do. Given some will, and I do feel they should have the right to leave the country and go live somewhere else where those values matter. Has anyone ever lived in a country that was not a democracy? You learn to live quite happily without rubbing your govt the wrong way. Those people who were persecuted, did commit some sort of crime...be it a crime we don't understand (and against Saddam) had to face a penalty.

Just think of it this way. There are millions of Arab Muslims who live with very strict laws, things that we would never allow. They have been doing so for an extremely long time. They believe in different things. They value different things. They should be the ones to change things in their country. Islam is a strict religion and many muslims feel that their government should be strict, it help enforce their core beliefs. Who are we to decide if they need liberating????

Like I tried to say before, there were other ways to help the Iraqi's get rid of Saddam other than declaring war and bombing the country.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
"Saddam never used chemical weapons on Iraqis"

You are grossly mistaken and there is a number of threads discussing this on and at ATS already. The ATS 'search' function, I believe, is still working adequately.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 1-2-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Break down Seekerof, break it down.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by medic
Hey AA i like your signature. You haven't failed either, you're just finding 10,000 ways to say things that really don't make sense. Like how saddam was better. lol. Yeah, go to his trial. fight for him.



I could care less about Saddam.

But since you are comparing him to America I must point out that he was not quite as bad as the media protrayed him.

I agree that Saddam was evil. But that is not reason for an invasion.

And if Saddam was so evil why do you compare us to him, or use anything he did as justification for us doing it?

"Saddam did this, so it is OK for us to do this"?????

Nothing that he did in the past justifies what we are doing today.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Medic, people say what they need to say to survive.

You say whatever the people in control want to hear.

But what about the opinions of those who protest daily in Iraq? You tell me of those who tell you how grateful they are but what about those who tell you to go away?



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Again, the so-called "justifications" for the US going to war against Iraq, have been and were discussed multiple times on multiple threads on and in ATS. You are asking questions that have been addressed in those threads or discussed to detail.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 1-2-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I dont believe that Bush caught Saddam i think he's lying. He would do anything to win the election.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
"Saddam never used chemical weapons on Iraqis"

You are grossly mistaken and there is a number of threads discussing this on and at ATS already. The ATS 'search' function, I believe, is still working adequately.



Report Suppressed: Iran Gassed Kurds, Not Iraq

US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds.


SOURCE


If you don't care for the source there are plenty others. I have been in plenty of debates about this issue, and the results were not what you claim they were here. To me it is clear that the gassing happened as a consequece of a battle, and was done by the Iranians.



posted on Feb, 1 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by AD5673
I dont believe that Bush caught Saddam i think he's lying. He would do anything to win the election.


Now this is totally ridiculous. I need a cigarette break



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join