Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

WMD's were found in IRAQ.

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Iam not discussing Bush nor Bush decisions but the our intel sources back that time had vital information about the presence of WMD in iraq. The decision to advance into iraq were too late and all intel sources dryed before the first us soldier set foot on iraq soil.

Our guess is that the WMD were transported to syria. We have sat intel and other sources but cant proof anything. Guess why / where Syria gain enough intel to create there own nuclear plant, the one that isreal bombed away a few months.

Current situation Iran, Syria, Pakistan, India, Israel are WMD countries.




posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SRTkid86
 




especially since this article is from 2003, when they were twisting stuff around the hardest so that they could get all americans in line with the war.


You said it.
Propaganda machine.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by SRTkid86
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


why does it matter who sold him weapons 25 years ago???
oh, it's just another way of implanting anti-american rhetoric in this thread.

go you!


Why does it matter?? If I sell you drugs and make money off that sale, would it matter if I later came back and judged you for the fact that you bought my dope?? Would it matter if I calle dthe cops and had you arrested for being nothing more than my customer??


Even War isnt more than normal commercial business. We sell them weapons, we attack them and destroy there infrastructor, we send companies to rebuild them. Old story - different weapons. The same Cesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Bush Sr. did...



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 




sorry if there was any confusion in my post, but i didn't mean it to come across like i was giving new information. only saying that the time in which this article came out, was a time in which things were being spun the hardest by the MSM



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
you apparently are under the impression that the ONLY reason we invaded iraq was because of WMDs. that was just a lie told so that we could get in there.

he was a brutal dictator who not only slaughtered his own people, but his neighbors. and buried them in mass graves very similar to Hitler.

i understand that we sold him the weapons with one hand, and punched him in the nose with the other, but that is besides the point. we weren't only there to get his "WMDs" we were, and are there to free the iraqi people, whom most a very happy that we are there, helping them to attain a better civilization.

now things aren't quite going as planned, and a lot of that stems from Iran supplying insurgents weapons. this is proven when mahmoud ahmedenajad (sp?) essentially said they were going to turn the heat up on us, and very soon after there were more insurgent attacks.

these problem stem far deeper than just iraq and AG. i don't necassarily agree with being at war, simply because it is a constant hemorhage on out society. but i can certainly agree with the intent of us being there. i don't think they set this war up solely for oil, I think that is something that cheney saw a opportunity in (to make a # load of money through KBR, and Haliburton) and tok advantage of. if anything Bush is a man who stands by his words and his convictions, i can at very least give him some respect for that. he is a misguided sole, but i don't believe he is the bogey man that all of you make him out to be.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I wonder how many WMD's we have????



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lokey13
I wonder how many WMD's we have????


enough to blow the world 3 x times. But currently not willing to use them until the bad boys do. Tragicially - than its too late and we all going to hell.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
If those WMDs were useable and deadly etc, why weren't they used against the invading American army?

It's a lot better than firing an AK and then chucking your shoes once your ammo runs out.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by unnamedninja
If those WMDs were useable and deadly etc, why weren't they used against the invading American army?

It's a lot better than firing an AK and then chucking your shoes once your ammo runs out.


You need knowhow and the people who are willing to give the command. The second Gulf War was nearly without any force. Republic Garde surrender 1k wise, Saddam fled and digged himself into a earthhole. Do you except such generals to execute a command that might killed 10.000+ of there own people.

And dont forget. Saddam got a 6 month warning before the invasion. They made a deal with syria and moved all the weapons.

And look to the USA. They have plenty WMD. When did we used the last one? Yeah right. Hiroshima an Nagasaki 1945

[edit on 18-7-2008 by emergencyresponseteam]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Everyone knows we gave Iraq chemical weapons to fight Iran, back in the 80's.

There were WMD's in Iraq, but they said "made in U.S.A" on the side.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by downtown436
Everyone knows we gave Iraq chemical weapons to fight Iran, back in the 80's.

There were WMD's in Iraq, but they said "made in U.S.A" on the side.


So Russia and China gave Weapons to Iran. Dont blame just one side of the coin.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to hey chemical wepons we all knew he had...aka the gasing of the kurds in the north.these were not the wepons bush was refering to,he was more in the lines of a dirty bomb or a nuke,wich there were non found.now please dont get excited,check this uh seria,iran,egypt,all have chem wepons in there stock pile, this thred is moot,and the reson there couldnt have been one planted is because an analsis of the radioactive materil would show who made it and and in what time frame it was made...booya weave been hoodwink by the lame duck bushpost by DaleGribble
 



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by emergencyresponseteam
 


i dion't think it had anything to do with Hussein not being willing to kill 10,000+ of this own people, he would do that on damn near a daily basis when he was in power.

they didn't use any because they didn't have any VIABLE ones... in other words, what they had was run down, worn out and degraded checmicle weapons, most of which were damn near 10 years past their shelf life.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


it doesn't matter who supplied the weapons to him. we sold them to him with a very clear intent in mind, he stepped out of hismind and got blinded by power, and started to use it on his own people, and the Kurds.

he was a brutal dictator who wouldn't have hesitate, if he had the chance, to anihilate anyone that disagreed with his regime.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by DaleGribble
 


What exactly is your intention here, is it to paint your president as something other than what he is, on the basis of the OP, it suggests that there was "real evidence" of WMD's and I mean REAL evidence, there wasn't and isn't, just some clapped out long abandoned munitions which were NOT WMD's. Why can't you live with that fact Dale, is it because deep down you really know the invasion of Iraq was under the cloak of LIES, and all the squeezing and picking by Bush worshipers like yourself wont change that.
The US invaded a sovereign nation, and butchered it's people.
They did it out of GREED !!!
You're saying some ancient military detritus warranted that invasion. Shame on you sir

"There are none so blind as those who will not see"



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
you apparently are under the impression that the ONLY reason we invaded iraq was because of WMDs. that was just a lie told so that we could get in there.

he was a brutal dictator who not only slaughtered his own people, but his neighbors. and buried them in mass graves very similar to Hitler.


Then why not ask his own people what they think and stop putting words in our mouth? I thought he was a good dictator. He built schools, hospitals, made a better health care system, and etc. But you are too lost in the MSM to realize what his own people thought.



i understand that we sold him the weapons with one hand, and punched him in the nose with the other, but that is besides the point. we weren't only there to get his "WMDs" we were, and are there to free the iraqi people, whom most a very happy that we are there, helping them to attain a better civilization.


Putting words in our mouths.



now things aren't quite going as planned, and a lot of that stems from Iran supplying insurgents weapons. this is proven when mahmoud ahmedenajad (sp?) essentially said they were going to turn the heat up on us, and very soon after there were more insurgent attacks.


And could it have been the money supplied by the US themselves to Taliban that are buying these terrorists fancy weapons?


he United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies.


CATO



these problem stem far deeper than just iraq and AG. i don't necassarily agree with being at war, simply because it is a constant hemorhage on out society. but i can certainly agree with the intent of us being there. i don't think they set this war up solely for oil, I think that is something that cheney saw a opportunity in (to make a # load of money through KBR, and Haliburton) and tok advantage of. if anything Bush is a man who stands by his words and his convictions, i can at very least give him some respect for that. he is a misguided sole, but i don't believe he is the bogey man that all of you make him out to be.


You are right God bless G.W. If the war was more then just oil then your leaders would have respected Saddam when he kicked out the big name oil companies. Why let them back in with full power? The top had a good chance to make money even if it bankrupted their nation and they took it. I am ashamed you did not have the nerve to stand up and prevent them from taking your money!



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by emergencyresponseteam
 


The main difference here is, US doesn't use WMDs because everyone would hate their guts even more than they do now. And Iraq didn't use their WMDs because theirs no longer worked. Why do you think Saddam ran into hiding in the first place? Because his WMDS sucked. As for killing his own people, we know he didnt care about that. And it wouldn't have even been neccessary. The tanks that rolled into Basra didn't just magically appear there, the US did set up camp in a bunch of places that could easily have been bombed with these WMDS.

The BBC reported on those chemical weapons when they were found, and the BBC I can tell you, will basically repeat like a parrot anything the American media says. But in this case they couldn't really cover up the truth of it, that what was found was a bunch of manky old jars which were no longer dangerous. You guys were probably fed a very dodgy story about how each of these jars was extremely dangerous though, and how Mr Bush had been completely vindicated.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SRTkid86
you apparently are under the impression that the ONLY reason we invaded iraq was because of WMDs. that was just a lie told so that we could get in there.

he was a brutal dictator who not only slaughtered his own people, but his neighbors. and buried them in mass graves very similar to Hitler.

i understand that we sold him the weapons with one hand, and punched him in the nose with the other, but that is besides the point. we weren't only there to get his "WMDs" we were, and are there to free the iraqi people, whom most a very happy that we are there, helping them to attain a better civilization.

now things aren't quite going as planned, and a lot of that stems from Iran supplying insurgents weapons. this is proven when mahmoud ahmedenajad (sp?) essentially said they were going to turn the heat up on us, and very soon after there were more insurgent attacks.

these problem stem far deeper than just iraq and AG. i don't necassarily agree with being at war, simply because it is a constant hemorhage on out society. but i can certainly agree with the intent of us being there. i don't think they set this war up solely for oil, I think that is something that cheney saw a opportunity in (to make a # load of money through KBR, and Haliburton) and tok advantage of. if anything Bush is a man who stands by his words and his convictions, i can at very least give him some respect for that. he is a misguided sole, but i don't believe he is the bogey man that all of you make him out to be.


Better civilization ???!!! Are you for real, my god, I can't believe you think that, who are the US to impose their take on civilization on any other nation anyway ?? What gives the US that right, I'll tell you: Brutal Force and then more Brutal Force and then more and more, maybe the intention was that when all the Iraqi's were dead they could be considered free, in a Christian spiritual kind of way or in a fundamentalist Islamist kind of way, both add up to the same thing, and if you support one you are inadvertently supporting the other.

Sad, sad, sad.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
We used the WMD excuse to invade because WMD's were specifically prohibited by the UN resolutions, in hope to build a coalition.

Iraq was basically "on probation" since gulf war 1, the inspectors were like probation oficers, looking for empty beer bottles or pot seeds. Maybe even taking urine samples.

They should have sent him to rehab! haha

Anyway, he obviously violated his probation, and was not being totaly transparent. That should have been the reason. We should have said " listen, let the inspectors inspect, wherever and whenever they want, and BE transparent, or else the Marines will be up your ass inspecting. Got that? No weapons for you, and we better not even think you are even thinking about it"

And if the nonsense continued, we go in to make sure.

And we are right now 100% sure that Iraq has NO WMD's. NONE. And no intentions of getting any.


AND the REAL reason, for anyone that is interested, is that long term strategy called for dealing with Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Every President since Carter tries to make ME peace his legacy, and it can't be done without dealing with these 3.

ANd logically Iraq would be first. Iran is next. Syria may come to it's senses when it's their turn.

And something much closer to peace than what we have now will be the result.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


What part of Iraq did you say you were from?
How long did you live there?
Were you born there?
What was your job while you were there?
Do you really truly believe that Iraq was better off with Sadam than now? I don’t want to put words in your mouth I would like to hear what you have to say.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join