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.

 

WMD's were found in IRAQ.

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by adrenochrome
 


You mean the aluminum tubes used for enriching Uranium?


I think this is the wrong Forum for Project Camelot stuff.




posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by mind is the universe
 


Got anything intelligent to add to this topic. I suspect you would have posted proof that statement was wrong if you had any. If you are saying those shells never existed, cough up the proof?

What's your opinion of Saddam by the way? Love him, hate him; what? Was he a good man? Was he and his kid's right in how they treated people? Did the hundreds of thousands they killed and tortured deserve what happened to them? How would you have removed him if you had to decide?



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SavageHenry
Geez and McCain and Ghram try to say were "delusional"

What was found in IRAQ is not WMD... They were ALL degraded munitions found in remote pockets.. half buried by time in swamps and so forth from over 15 years ago!




but see now heres the thing, phospherous, and mustard gas shells from WWI, yes, world war one, are still active and have the ability to blow you into so many tiny pieces you wouldnt be able to fill a condom. Live ordinances are live ordinances, it doesnt matter if thier 80 years old or 15 years old they still have active material and are even more dangerous due to the fact that rust and weather have damaged discharge mechanisims making them even more dangerous than shells that are fresh off the munitions lot. You can easily extract the material and duplicate it. Now I'm not saying that they did or had the intention of doing so but it is something to think about.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Heres the other thing that many people dont understand. When we say WMDs everyone automatically thinks of giant nuclear cruise missles or ICBMs. The reality is what we are looking for in Iraq amounts to the size of a cell phone in a desert. We are literally looking for a needle in a haystack people. You can have enough nuclear material in a cell phone of depleated plutonium to wipe out an area as large as the state of Ohio. Food for thought.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by newgeneric

As far as I'm concerned, until they find weapons that could wipe other countries completely off the map...they have not found weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION.

Chemical weapons cause death and destruction for a small surrounding area. Nuclear weapons cause MASS DESTRUCTION.

Let me repeat...weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION have not been found...


You may think this semantics newgeneric, but they are called WMD for a reason-- Not weapons of national destruction. WMD are nuclear, yes, but not exclusively nuclear. Biological agents, chemical compounds can and do and HAVE created mass destruction -- profound loss of life. God forbid some whackamole tries to turn Ebola or Marburg loose on the population. VHF have the potential to make an atomic blast look minor in comparison in regard to loss of life. I believe that is the true potential of WMD...... it's not property destruction, it's lives. Look at the horror that was done by Saddam upon the Kurds -- chemical compounds. Do you think you could convince them that that was not WMD? We, as a world have been fortunate in that people that contemplate using biological agents are frequently not wanting to die with their victims, so they are rarely used as a weapon, anthrax excluded. It's frightening how simple it can be to create some chemical compounds, and I think the buried mobile labs that were found in Iraq were evidence of that. Yes, similar compounds CAN be used in pest control. I've never known a PCO to bury their equipment, and have never heard of such. I think the reason it was not made a big deal of when they were discovered, and why the media chose to spin it as a "possible pest control lab" is because at that point the Allied troops and governments were hopeful of finding MORE.

yes, we were lead to believe that fissionable nuclear materials were present in Iraq, and none were found. I do believe that all those that went in there believed -- based upon intel -- that they were there. It's possible they were, but having found none, we have to accept the possibility also that they were not there.

Not busting your chops, just clarifying the meaning and intent of WMD. It doesn't matter much the condition of the WMD that WAS found; it was not known at the time if it was "degraded" or "unusable". It's real easy for us to look back upon it now and say it was a fraud, but the FACT is they WERE found. I believe this was the intent of the OP, to state this idea, and I think Dale was successful.

Now, we can dissect the MO and intent of the U.S. and other countries, debate the outcome and the possible flawed intel, the reasons and the possible hidden agendas/conspiracies ALL day long, but the purpose of this thread, as I understand it, has been fulfilled.

Cheers



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by mind is the universe
 


Got anything intelligent to add to this topic. I suspect you would have posted proof that statement was wrong if you had any. If you are saying those shells never existed, cough up the proof?

What's your opinion of Saddam by the way? Love him, hate him; what? Was he a good man? Was he and his kid's right in how they treated people? Did the hundreds of thousands they killed and tortured deserve what happened to them? How would you have removed him if you had to decide?



You didn't answer my question on the previous page.

Firstly my opinion of him, was that hes just a puppet to do what the elites always wanted him to do. Be a dictator, do the work, then the elites overthrow him.

Secondly. I said exactly what I said, because the media protray him to be what suits best at the particular time of such. The same way its suit George W. Bush to be protrayed as dumb by the media when hes obviously not. Saddam was merely a puppet given the power and opportunites to all the destruction he ever wanted to do. Most of the weapons were given to him, by the American government. America has WMDs too. Sells arms to dictators, so I guess you should use your intellegence now


George Senior could of killed him if he wanted too, back in the gulf era. He didn't. My point on been good or bad, makes alot of sense


To George he was good, as business was been done (Saddam was a bad man regardless)
To George he was bad suddenly, when Saddam didn't want to do any business with him. Meanwhile Saddam was killing people, during the business, and after the business. Did the American Government really give a flying sushi of the people been killed.... Give me a break.

It was business, so In George Senior's eyes he was good, and when there was no busniess then he was automatically bad.

The Iraq war and Saddam put their, was all part of the control and planning to create the war we are in today.

Finally another war was not the answer to just remove Saddam. The UN were in the process of dealing with this matter carefully. He was heavily sanctioned. Saddam was very weak shortly before America attacked. Saddam was not a threat to America either. The way it has been handled over the last 8 years was absurd. George Bush just wanted his head on his plate to get the oil. This exactly how this war has been handled. There were talks, no proper plan or anything sensible to achieve. But the American government behave like a bunch of bullies with an agenda. That is bottom line here.



[edit on 18-7-2008 by mind is the universe]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Well said Blaine. I also believe that several convoys of materials left Iraq prior to the engagement, but cannot prove it. I don't think anyone can prove it. Certainly the flyovers that were shown on TV demonstrate there was a lot of activity headed toward Syria.

I appreciate your posting these visceral images. I think it's beneficial for folks to be reminded of the monster than Saddam was. If any of those photos are upsetting to people, then it has done its job.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


That is exactly what they were, enrichment tubes. Iran has presented photographic evidence of having several in combination with their centrifuges for "peaceful energy". Yah.

Can I get a 2% share of that bridge you have for sale? I think you may have a buyer.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
America has WMDs too, I'm just saying like.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdr92487
Heres the other thing that many people dont understand. When we say WMDs everyone automatically thinks of giant nuclear cruise missles or ICBMs. The reality is what we are looking for in Iraq amounts to the size of a cell phone in a desert. We are literally looking for a needle in a haystack people. You can have enough nuclear material in a cell phone of depleated plutonium to wipe out an area as large as the state of Ohio. Food for thought.


Except for the last sentence, I completely agree. The actual quantity necessary for critical mass would make a hell of a huge cellphone, and that would be one nuclear weapon, still not enough to wipe out Ohio. If that were biological material, though, I think that would be fairly accurate.

Perhaps I misunderstood though....... reading your last sentence again, maybe you're comparing looking for a cellphone in a desert, and I'm taking the size and mass literally.


Cheers



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mind is the universe
 


I've been hearing this for years. Just one question, and this isn't a challenge to you -- we're all just talking here, working out ideas --

Where is the oil? How it the world could any country think that by knocking off the government head that they could then, what, seize the oil, ship it back to the US and allied nations? Do you really believe this, or has it just sounded good over the years. I'm really curious.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by mind is the universe
 


yes, of course they do. No question about that, and between you and I [and readers] the U.S. probably has way more WMD than either of us are comfortable with. In a perfect world, with bluebirds and Disney daisys, everyone would demil all their WMD, and the world could breathe a little easier in the coming years. MY truth is, nobody, not the US, not Russia, not China, nobody can be trusted to do that. Russia and the US took offline many of their nukes years ago, or so it was reported.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Your still calling them nondescript WMD's just like they did though.

If they knew then couldnt they just have plastered "Chemical Weapons" on every news channel? This was all right after 911, so technically there are WMD's in every city in the world, airliners.
And now after how many years, lives, and dollars spent in Iraq over these chemical weapons...now they are positioning troops on Pakistani borders, to go after more tali-ban.
If they found the rich dictator Sadaam so fast...Im sure they had huge amounts of intell and knew every move the sadaam regime was planning.

But it conveniently turned into an insurgant war...WMD's are then not the issue.. who in their right mind would try to defend these people at this point?



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 




Simply, the Bush administration claim of aluminum tubes that could only be used for fissionable material centrifuge refinement for nuclear weapons is directly refuted by the best expert witnesses available, the US Department of Energy and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Their conclusion is that the tubes in question had diameters too small, the tubes were too thick, using aluminum as the material would be “a huge step backwards,” and the surface was anodized that made them impossible to serve this purpose. They also found that the tubes were easily explained for use of conventional weapon manufacturing, as the specifications perfectly matched tubing for that purpose.

(from this document found through Google )

however, the link i already mentioned says that they couldn't be used for rockets either:


The CIA rejected any non-nuclear use for the aluminum tubing. The media learned that the use of the tubing was investigated by the U.S. Army National Ground Intelligence Center. It concluded that the use of this particular high strength aluminum tubing would have been "exquisite," far in advance of what is needed for a MRLS. One knowledgeable expert, however, said that the Ground Intelligence Center did not receive all the information.

(again, from www.iraqwatch.org... )

all i'm saying is, we know what the tubes are NOT, so what are they really for? they must be a big deal, if their first assumption is that they're WMD's...

Stargate materials?



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by mind is the universe

Saddam was a puppet, an eejit, an ally, a terrorist, a nice man, a bad man, a dictator, a weak man, a friend. He had weapons, He had none.


If this was the question you meant? True, but so what? Because we screwed up and created him, we should have left him in power after realizing the mistake? How logical is that I wonder? Logic tells me if we played a part in creating this monster it is our responsibility to get rid of him, as we did.

I think no literate person questions whether of not he at one time had the WMD's. There is a question as to where they were when we went in and where they are now. Also, who has control of them.

If a madman has a WMD and then moves it somewhere else under some other madman's control, is it any less deadly? If you are a possible target, is it wise to forget about it because you don't know where it is?

I'm neither a Bush fan nor a Republican, but I'm not stupid either. There are monsters in the Middle East that must be controlled for the sake of the whole planet. When they had swords and knives is completely different than when they started using WMD's and building them.

I pray our next President is not a wimp who bends over to placate the Liberal nut cases who live in a fantasy world where Saddam was not dangerous. Not everyone is born with the capacity for critical thinking and Party Zealots are as nutty as the Religious Zealots who control much of the Middle East.

Should we buy our heads in the sand while these monsters who strap bombs to their own children flourish with the aid of the naive Peace-niks who think if you smell the flowers the bad man will go away?



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Mailman
 


I don't know if you're speaking to me, Mailman. I don't disagree with anything you said in this post though. Hindsight is a muthah. It certainly would've been nice to have known all the details and the usability of the WMD that was found, but it wasn't known at the time, nor did it really matter. It was there.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SavageHenry
 

Exactly, this report came out a little while after the initial invasion, and was spun faster than a crackhead on a merry-go-round. A few days later, the real report from the U.N. weapons inspector came out, and it was just a bunch of antiquated artillery shells with only a few showing TRACES of Sarin.
The factions are getting nervous, they underestimated the sheep...Carry on good people!

"Fact is our friend, truth is their enemy. "



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminist
reply to post by unnamedninja
 


last I checked we were using white phosphorous in Iraq. Which is a horrible and disgusting chemical weapon!


Thanks leftwing b/s.. Sorry been in the forces for 12 years. We did not USE any "active" shells. Phosphrous is standard in all armed forces around the word. Thus "uranium" shells are a urban legend. What is the benefit of a uranium loaded shell? Tell me please? Is it more penetrationable? no... is it more reliable? no... Tanks use uranium shells for the laser-guided system but honestly in Gulf WAR 2 we only shot around 2k. Saddam shot around 90k during the Iran / Irak affair and they where "ASWELL" uranium loaded.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
reply to post by mind is the universe
 


I've been hearing this for years. Just one question, and this isn't a challenge to you -- we're all just talking here, working out ideas --

Where is the oil? How it the world could any country think that by knocking off the government head that they could then, what, seize the oil, ship it back to the US and allied nations? Do you really believe this, or has it just sounded good over the years. I'm really curious.


I don't quite fully understand what your really asking me? Forgive me for that.

But are you saying, that I think that America are taking the oil.

YES. Why would they waste 2 trillion dollars on just bombing Iraq, when for all we know, just dropping bombs for distraction, so the oil companies get in and take it. The fact you just ask the question, startles me. lol. Its not rocket science.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
BTW

One Question.

If the USA found WMD.... how wouldnt scream out loud that the WMD is placed by the us government? Wouldnt you?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join