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.

 

Iraq Dossier

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101
"Yes, he and I have had several heated discussions here. My problem is not with his opinions, it's with the fact that he presents them as fact. He never has any information to back them up! He expects us to just believe him blindly because he"says it's so". When you point out the falicy of his posts, or the lack of proof, he resorts to personal attacks and misdirection to try to discredit you. Very juvenile. Unforunatly, my sense of humor does me in some times, and what I think is a funny retort to one of his slashes gets me slapped by someone who has no idea what has transpired in the past. "


...actually I think you just have an unhealthy obsession with me.


Wow. Could I possibly ask for a more graphic example as to why Loopy gets the amount of flames he does? Not an intelligent response, but an attempt at an insult. Not a very GOOD attempt, mind you, but an attempt all the same...how sad. So, the very few of you who gave me crap for flaming thing festering bunghole, take heed. He brings it on himself.




posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fry2
LIES!!!! It's all American propaganda!!! I won't believe it until I see a statement signed in Kofi Annans blood!!!!

And then I want it brought to trial in a world court of only Arab nations and, and, and,

ahh never mind, I guess it's hard to be Lupe



ROTFLMAO @ Fry2



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 08:23 AM
link   
let us take a moment to reflect on the nature of contradiction and hypocrisy:

"Not an intelligent response, but an attempt at an insult."

"flaming thing festering bunghole, take heed. He brings it on himself."

I really think you need to calm down before you have an embolism or something...

[Edited on 11-12-2002 by Lupe_101]



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101


I really think you need to calm down before you have an embolism or something...

[Edited on 11-12-2002 by Lupe_101]


Loopy, really, I appreciate your obvious interest in my health, but your characterizations are way off base. (Again, an attempt to discredit with the incorrect notion that I am some sort of ranting maniac or something)

Please, please, don't worry about my health. While your sincere (sic) concern about me is "oh, so touching", it is totally unnecessary. Please, turn your attention to your own (mental) heath concerns.

"And we thank you for your support..."



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I don't meen to continue this any longer than necessary but if you look back through your posts you do indeed come accross as a ranting maniac.
In fact I think its fair to say that if you do a quick tally over 50% (and thats being generous) of your contributions on this board at present are maniacle rants. usually directed at me.

I'm sure you must have more to offer than that.
why don't you swallow your pride, take this as a sincere suggestion that you buck up your posts and post something of worth.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101
I don't meen to continue this any longer than necessary but if you look back through your posts you do indeed come accross as a ranting maniac.
In fact I think its fair to say that if you do a quick tally over 50% (and thats being generous) of your contributions on this board at present are maniacle rants. usually directed at me.

I'm sure you must have more to offer than that.
why don't you swallow your pride, take this as a sincere suggestion that you buck up your posts and post something of worth.


Loopy, as 99.9% or your posts are utter balderdash, I can't take anything you post as sincere. Your defination of "maniacle rants" is any post that disagree with something you have written. Sorry, not buying it, and neither is anyone else...



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:50 AM
link   
fine. whatever. have a nice rant, I'm off to find an actual discussion.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
A-R,Are we entitled to a link from a reputable media outlet or are we to accept what you are saying as fact.


PS,I do not suffer from Lupes' short term memory loss.Where you been recently A-R?


JB, here's one little tidbit I found...a quote from a Fox News story...

"Two copies of the Iraqi documents were delivered to U.N. headquarters in New York late Sunday, one to the Security Council and the other to the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission."

The whole article can be viewed here...

www.foxnews.com...

I'm still looking for more, as I know this will be immeadiatly flamed as "American news service bias"...



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101
fine. whatever. have a nice rant, I'm off to find an actual discussion.



As usual, no substance...just the "ranting" dodge...



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 11:14 AM
link   
ok, lets have some discussion. i'm sick of AR and lupe just slanging at each other.

from the article AR posted up:

"The White House dismissed Iraq's accusation that it altered the documents. Specialists at the CIA and other U.S. agencies began poring over the 12,000-page declaration, in which Baghdad is supposed to "tell all" about its chemical, biological and nuclear programs. American officials said much of the material appeared to be recycled versions of earlier documents."

now this is what pisses me off. the purpose of this report is NOT for the CIA to have something to read besides The Two Towers. its for the weapons inspectors and similar organisations. the point of the weapons inspectors it to have an INDEPENDENT body to look into iraq. the CIA, NSA, etc are NOT independent and as such have no business reading the document at this stage.

- qo.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by quiet one
the point of the weapons inspectors it to have an INDEPENDENT body to look into iraq. the CIA, NSA, etc are NOT independent and as such have no business reading the document at this stage.
- qo.


And the obvious, cogent logic of that statement will be flamed/refuted in
3...2...1.......



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time

Originally posted by quiet one
the point of the weapons inspectors it to have an INDEPENDENT body to look into iraq. the CIA, NSA, etc are NOT independent and as such have no business reading the document at this stage.
- qo.



And the obvious, cogent logic of that statement will be flamed/refuted in
3...2...1.......



Sorry, I don't see the logic here. Would you not want the people who know the most about the subject to read the information? If the US government is not allowed to have the information, they will then have due cause to follow the course of action they deem necessary to fulfill the goal of disarming Iraq. The CIA has better intellegence than anyone. They will be able to cohearantly analize the documentation. Who else whould you have look at it, someone who has no stake in the situation??? There will be more than one body looking at this stuff. Relax and give the system tim eto work.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Sorry, I don't see the logic here. Would you not want the people who know the most about the subject to read the information? If the US government is not allowed to have the information, they will then have due cause to follow the course of action they deem necessary to fulfill the goal of disarming Iraq. The CIA has better intellegence than anyone. They will be able to cohearantly analize the documentation. Who else whould you have look at it, someone who has no stake in the situation??? There will be more than one body looking at this stuff. Relax and give the system tim eto work.


i'm perfectly happy for the CIA to read the information, however, what are we trying to acheive? we are trying to ascertain whether iraq has any weapons of mass destruction. that can only be legitimately done by the independent weapons inspectors. no one else. contrary to one of your claims they would NOT "have due cause to follow the course of action they deem necessary to fulfill the goal of disarming Iraq." a clear procedure has been set out by the UN. that procedure does not include the CIA, nor should it. independence must be assured. as for claiming - or at least inferring - that the weapons inspectors do not have a stake in the iraqi crisis, what sort of nonsense is that? its their JOB to do this, how much more of a stake do you want? they are just as threatened by WMDs as you are.

"There will be more than one body looking at this stuff."
yes indeed their will, but i argue that only relevant bodies should be allowed to have access to the document at this stage. in fact, if i had my way i would not have released it to the security council at all until much later. why? to assure independence, and to show that the information is being handled sensitively. the inspectors have been accused of being spies for the US in the past, handing over a document to the USG is just going to annoy iraq. what's the point in that? aren't we supposed to be civilised? this move is insensitive at best, and outright provocative at worst.

- qo.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by quiet one

i'm perfectly happy for the CIA to read the information, however, what are we trying to acheive? we are trying to ascertain whether iraq has any weapons of mass destruction. that can only be legitimately done by the independent weapons inspectors. no one else. contrary to one of your claims they would NOT "have due cause to follow the course of action they deem necessary to fulfill the goal of disarming Iraq." a clear procedure has been set out by the UN. that procedure does not include the CIA, nor should it. independence must be assured. as for claiming - or at least inferring - that the weapons inspectors do not have a stake in the iraqi crisis, what sort of nonsense is that? its their JOB to do this, how much more of a stake do you want? they are just as threatened by WMDs as you are.

"There will be more than one body looking at this stuff."
yes indeed their will, but i argue that only relevant bodies should be allowed to have access to the document at this stage. in fact, if i had my way i would not have released it to the security council at all until much later. why? to assure independence, and to show that the information is being handled sensitively. the inspectors have been accused of being spies for the US in the past, handing over a document to the USG is just going to annoy iraq. what's the point in that? aren't we supposed to be civilised? this move is insensitive at best, and outright provocative at worst.

- qo.


Well, obviously you are NOT ìperfectly happy for the CIA to read the informationî, or you wouldnít be protesting it so vehemently. And who is to say who which is a relevant body? You? Just because you distrust the CIA, or any other organization, does not mean they should not have access to it. I distrust the UN! Especially the security council, where one of the permanent members can veto any and everything the rest decide upon, for what ever reason they see fit. Absolute power to corrupt absolutely, to coin an old phrase.

In addition, the CIA, FBI, NAS, UCLA, E I E I O, will have no power to influence the UN any way. They simply have information copies of the documentation.

Assure independence? The security council is PART of the un, and it is THEY and the secretary general that Hans Blix reports to! Who do you think is going to make whatever decision the UN makes? The security council! Keeping the information from them is simply ridiculous. And I never said that the inspectors did not have a stake in this, you are putting words in my mouth. The inspectors themselves will not be determining the content of the Iraqie documents, it is Hans Blix and his staff in New York who will do this. The inspectors in Iraq are simply information and sample gatherers.

As far as the USís right to follow itís own course, sorry, Charlie, the UN does not dictate US policy. We have the right to do whatever we deem necessary to preserve our way of life, and to protect our selves and our allies.

And frankly, I donít give a flying flip if Saddam and his cronies are upset about anything! If he werenít such a murderous piece of Shiite, attacking his neighbors without provocation and using chemical weapons on his own people, he wouldnít be in this pickle to begin with.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 02:49 PM
link   

And frankly, I donít give a flying flip if Saddam and his cronies are upset about anything! If he werenít such a murderous piece of Shiite, attacking his neighbors without provocation and using chemical weapons on his own people, he wouldnít be in this pickle to begin with.


Wait a sec. Do you really know what you are talking about here ? I always hear the same old argument, but what about the Gulf war veterans that are slowly dying ? Isn't that the same ?

Or is it different in a way ? Read this. And it's not a try to make US look bad, it's just reality. Which is being ignored. Egoism, that's what I call it.

www.war-times.org...

if that isn't enough, tell me, I can give you some more links also with pictures. For me it's like this, as long as it's not our family or kids we don't care. Which is also wrong.

www.va.gov... read that too, and you'll maybe understand how serious this is.

Here's a small quote from the article, now what were you saying again ?
Those are impressive numbers while only 148 US soldiers were killed in action. According to the article.


Among U.S. Gulf War veterans, nearly 8,000 Desert Storm vets have died and nearly 200,000 (28 percent) have filed claims for medical and compensation benefits.


[Edited on 11-12-2002 by TigeriS]

[Edited on 11-12-2002 by TigeriS]



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TigeriS

And frankly, I donít give a flying flip if Saddam and his cronies are upset about anything! If he werenít such a murderous piece of Shiite, attacking his neighbors without provocation and using chemical weapons on his own people, he wouldnít be in this pickle to begin with.


Wait a sec. Do you really know what you are talking about here ? I always hear the same old argument, but what about the Gulf war veterans that are slowly dying ? Isn't that the same ?

Or is it different in a way ? Read this. And it's not a try to make US look bad, it's just reality. Which is being ignored. Egoism, that's what I call it.

www.war-times.org...

if that isn't enough, tell me, I can give you some more links also with pictures. For me it's like this, as long as it's not our family or kids we don't care. Which is also wrong.

www.va.gov... read that too, and you'll maybe understand how serious this is.

Here's a small quote from the article, now what were you saying again ?
Those are impressive numbers while only 148 US soldiers were killed in action. According to the article.


Among U.S. Gulf War veterans, nearly 8,000 Desert Storm vets have died and nearly 200,000 (28 percent) have filed claims for medical and compensation benefits.


[Edited on 11-12-2002 by TigeriS]

[Edited on 11-12-2002 by TigeriS]




Do I really know what I am talking about? Yes, I do, but obviously you donít know what I am talking about. The articles you link to have absolutely no bearing on my post at all. First of all, the article you point to in ìWar Timesî is an unproven allegation. ìWar Timesî is an anti war publication printed in San Francisco that will print anything if it advances their cause, regardless of itís source or validity. They are hardly a respectable source of information, about as reliable as "The Weekly World News". The article you point to says that Depleted Uranium is the cause of all the woes of the Iraqi people. Not so. DU is only used in shells that are used against armored vehicles, such as tanks and APCís. These were attacked almost exclusively in the desert, not in populated areas.

The second site you point to is simply the Veterans Administration supplying information to our troops who levy claims for ìGulf War Syndromeî. There is no proof as to the cause of the maladies suffered by some of our troops, but the government continues to track down the reasons why some of them are sick. The quote, which I could not find in the various pages associated with your link, is very misleading, because the context cannot be determined by what you quoted. It is too short. 8,000 troops died from what? What specific claims have those 200,000 GIís made, for what illness or injury? Not all for Gulf War syndrome, I can assure you. How can I make these statements? Because I am a Gulf War Vet, and still on active duty, thatís how. I know literally hundreds and hundreds of soldiers who fought beside me, lost a very good friend, and I still know not one person who has claimed to have GWS, or who has made a claim for same. I do know those who have made claims for other medical compensations, but they are not related to GWS. I'm not saying that the illness doesn't exist, as I'm sure some of my comrads in arms are truly ill. There just isn't enough evidence to place blame anyone, the US or the Iraqi's.

In a nut shell, my post had nothing to do with what you posted. Nothing at all. It had to do with the FACT that Saddam gassed his own citizens in the ë80ís, started a war with his neighbor Iran, and when he failed to gain from that, simply overran Kuwait. He is an animal who needs to be neutered, plain and simple. THAT was what I was talking about. I have no idea where you made the connection to the things you proffered.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 04:55 PM
link   
That explains and gives all the insight I need. Best of luck & Godspeed.



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction

Do I really know what I am talking about? Yes, I do, but obviously you donít know what I am talking about. The articles you link to have absolutely no bearing on my post at all.


Indeed, and as you can see, I've only quoted the last paragraph of your entire post, so that means I was only replying on that paragraph. Maybe I should have been more specific about that.


First of all, the article you point to in ìWar Timesî is an unproven allegation. ìWar Timesî is an anti war publication printed in San Francisco that will print anything if it advances their cause, regardless of itís source or validity.


That is the same thing the other side is doing
It only depends on which side you are. Like Iraq is the one to blame for the Anthrax letters. That is the very same thing isn't it ? Maybe not everything they write is valid. But that counts for every source of info.


They are hardly a respectable source of information, about as reliable as "The Weekly World News". The article you point to says that Depleted Uranium is the cause of all the woes of the Iraqi people. Not so.


It's not only DU for the Iraqi people of course, but I am talking about US soldiers, not Iraqi people, they also get sick because of the embargo, chemical factories that were destroyed and many other causes, I know that. So read the informative PDF at va.gov that is very interesting.

They say there is no connection, but facts are telling a different story. Like the link beneath, it's about the balkans. Look at the end of the page first and then go up, you'll see how long they are investigating this, you can also find some scientific info on radioactive materials. But the funny thing is that the more you go up. The more it looks like DU has clearly something to do with soldiers getting sick. Maybe some other materials were used without people knowing it.

www.antenna.nl...

In other words, you can not tell me that DU is not the cause because they don't know for sure yet. It's still work in progress. The fact is that in area's where DU was used people get sick and die or get deformed babies. You can not deny that. You can only say that it's not proven.


DU is only used in shells that are used against armored vehicles, such as tanks and APCís. These were attacked almost exclusively in the desert, not in populated areas.


And also armor in tanks.


The second site you point to is simply the Veterans Administration supplying information to our troops who levy claims for ìGulf War Syndromeî. There is no proof as to the cause of the maladies suffered by some of our troops, but the government continues to track down the reasons why some of them are sick.


You are right, but it has some interesting information about DU. And other chimical or biological exposure to military personel.

www.web-light.nl...

If yo have time, take a look.


The quote, which I could not find in the various pages associated with your link, is very misleading, because the context cannot be determined by what you quoted. It is too short. 8,000 troops died from what? What specific claims have those 200,000 GIís made, for what illness or injury? Not all for Gulf War syndrome, I can assure you. How can I make these statements? Because I am a Gulf War Vet, and still on active duty, thatís how. I know literally hundreds and hundreds of soldiers who fought beside me, lost a very good friend, and I still know not one person who has claimed to have GWS, or who has made a claim for same. I do know those who have made claims for other medical compensations, but they are not related to GWS. I'm not saying that the illness doesn't exist, as I'm sure some of my comrads in arms are truly ill. There just isn't enough evidence to place blame anyone, the US or the Iraqi's.


Well now you say it your self. There's not enough evidence to link anyting. But the fact is that some people get sick. The above link tells that many more soldiers also from other countries are sick. The thing is they've all been in areas where DU was used.


In a nut shell, my post had nothing to do with what you posted. Nothing at all. It had to do with the FACT that Saddam gassed his own citizens in the ë80ís, started a war with his neighbor Iran, and when he failed to gain from that, simply overran Kuwait. He is an animal who needs to be neutered, plain and simple. THAT was what I was talking about. I have no idea where you made the connection to the things you proffered.


Well don't forget US helped him with that war, and provide him gas,weapons and other WMD's. So if he's an animal, the ones who helped him are beasts. US did experiments on it's own citizens without warning.

tis.eh.doe.gov...

If that's also a lie, than I'll stop using the internet.

www.planetark.org...

You know, I do like American peoples, culture and food. But what I hate is the course Bush has taken. A superpower must not do that. It must give a good example and not trying to get everyone under control, because when you do that, you'll get a huge mass of other peoples against you, and then it'll be harder to win. The way things are going today it's close to the end of our civilization, there are other "enemy" countries with WMD's and once it starts there's no end.

Only a few people will survive. I hope you've heard about Rusia thinking about sending troops to Iraq to protect their interests ? Of course they are afraid they'd loose everything they have now after the invasion. There are more countries with their interests also, ignoring that, means upsetting peoples. We all know how fast a friendship can change into enemies.
That is what I am concerned about, The world. Not, US, Iraq or whatever other country.

I'd like to keep my freedom.

[Edited on 12-12-2002 by TigeriS]



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Good lord i have been all wrong in my thougt process..

Lets just have Bout time and Lupe award Sadam Hussien the nobal peace prize..He sounds like a Saint..when you guys are done with him!

I am also a Gulf War vet..and i suffer no illness..

Boomslang



posted on Dec, 11 2002 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TigeriS

Wait a sec. Do you really know what you are talking about here ? I always hear the same old argument, but what about the Gulf war veterans that are slowly dying ? Isn't that the same ?


This has nothing to do at all with the post. Save your anti-US garbage for your friends, if you have them.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join