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.

 

Saddam may have been developing the ability to develop a WMD program

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   
I would say read the book Mr. Satyr!
Its in black and white....you do read words and books, right?
You can blow this as you wish, but in your continued denial, make sure that you constitute your denial, in regards to Mr. Clarke's claims, in black and white, k?
You can call my claims bogus or BS for all I care, but how about call Mr. Clarke, and the previous administrations findings as BS and bogus also.........



seekerof




posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I'm not buying his book. Sorry. To sell such info is stupid. If he wants people to know the truth, why charge for a book? That should be your first clue that it may be biased, or just another manipulation of the truth.

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   
lol, what will they say next...you could say that anybody "may have been developing the ability to develop..." lmao! This is completely absurd! Those Bush supporters will jump on any opportunity to mislead the american public in the hopes of gaining support for their tyrannical world conquests....



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Seekerof I don't need Mr Clarke to tell me the Bush Admin are full of BS, I said it long before he mentioned it and I'll be saying it long after. How you think that by showing him saying Saddam was developing WMD is proving you right it beyond me? I'm guessing your logic is that if anyone is going to belive Clarke on Bush lying then we have to believe him on this, right?

Sorry pal, but for people like me it makes no difference what he said, we believed it long before, so trying to make him look like a spokes-person for the Anti-War people is just plain wrong. I understand your intentions here are probably towards people who are backing Clarke, but if this is so then make that clear and not insult the intelligence of people like me and others on this board that have not needed, nor wanted to, use Clarke to prove our points. Thank you.

By the way, if you are developing to develop by why of developing the ability to develop WMD, is that still a crime?


[EDITED FOR TYPO]

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by John Nada]



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Seekerof, I agree with you, i think there is ample evidence for us to have gone against Iraq, we have reports even from before this administration that Iraq was getting "trigger happy once more" and most probably had wmd breaking the ban that was imposed to Iraq after the Gulf war.

I remember when Bush gave an ultimatum to Saddam, to let the weapons inspectors go into all those factories they were denied entrance. Saddam said no addamantly, he then retracted the same day Bush gave his speech that our forces were going to start attacking. Saddam said at that moment... "ok, we can talk now, the inspectors can come in now" (Something like that).... C'mon, you don't have to be that smart to realize that Saddam was probably buying time to move most his wmd, we also did find some of the chemical wmd and some missiles that broke the treaty. We even found some mobile chemical factories and containers where chemicals used for wmd are stored. It was obvious that Saddam's loyal forces did not have enough time to hide or destroy all of the evidence because of what we found.

There were reports a few weeks or so after the war started that we had taken satellite pictures of convoys heading to Syria from Iraq. Satellite images often take time to be read because unless we know exactly where what we are looking for is, we have to inspect every one of the satellite images.

Once again probably all those people that want to bash this, or any other, administration and want to cry out that the US government is completly corrupt will say this is bs.

The fact is that even during the Clinton administration we had reports of Iraq being a threat, but Clinton was too busy giving it to Monica to be bothered about this, even after the USS Cole was attacked, something that in past years other US presidents would have considered as an act of war, Clinton did next to nothing.

Only those people that are complaining all the time about how bad their lives is and that is all the fault of the current administration, or any administration we happen to be in keep saying that this is all made up to cover up the real reasons of the administration for going to war....



Syria Storing Iraq's WMDs

By Bill Gertz
Washington Times | October 29, 2003

Iraqi military officers destroyed or hid chemical, biological and nuclear weapons goods in the weeks before the war, the nation's top satellite spy director said yesterday.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, said vehicle traffic photographed by U.S. spy satellites indicated that material and documents related to the arms programs were shipped to Syria.

Other goods probably were sent throughout Iraq in small quantities and documents probably were stashed in the homes of weapons scientists, Gen. Clapper told defense reporters at a breakfast.

Gen. Clapper said he is not surprised that U.S. and allied forces have not found weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq because "it's a big place."


Excerpt taken from.

www.frontpagemag.com...

I still remember hearing other reports of intelligence officials, some of which were civilian, stating that they had pictures of convoys leaving from Iraq and crossing the border of Syria.

We also did have some reports of some convoys we spotted trying to make it to the border of Syria being destroyed by the coalition.

We were able to discover one of these because of a cell phone communication we intercepted. We also followed this target because the conversation in the communication led us to believe that Saddam or one of his sons was in this specific convoy. The US then did DNA testing of one of the corpses which was believed to be that Of Saddam.

As we have recently learned he was not in that convoy, the convoy was probably a ruse to deflect the attention of the allied forces from where Saddam was being hidden.



The DRUDGE Report links to this story at:

www.observer.co.uk...

DNA tests after missiles strike 'Saddam convoy'

Human remains removed after US Hellfire missiles target source of dictator's satellite phone call

Jason Burke in Baghdad
Sunday June 22, 2003
The Observer

American specialists were carrying out DNA tests last night on human remains believed by US military sources to be those of Saddam Hussein and one of his sons, The Observer can reveal.
The remains were retrieved from a convoy of vehicles struck last week by US forces following 'firm' information that the former Iraqi leader and members of his family were travelling in the Western Desert near Syria.

Military sources told The Observer that the strikes, involving an undisclosed number of Hellfire missiles, were launched against the convoy last Wednesday after the interception of a satellite telephone conversation involving either Saddam or his sons.

The operation, which has not yet been disclosed by the Pentagon, involved the United States air force and ground troops of the Third Armoured Cavalry Regiment based around Ramadi, a major town 70 miles west of Baghdad.

Despite previously unfounded US claims that Saddam had been killed during the bombing of Baghdad before the invasion by America and Britain, the sources indicated that they were cautiously optimistic that they had finally killed the target they described as 'the top man'.


Excerpts taken from.
www.findmall.com...

No matter what the administration bashers say the facts are that Saddam was buying time for a reason. He didn't want the weapons inspectors in several of his factories for one reason alone. I do not think he would deny them entry and inspection of those factories if those factories were not making weapons that broke the ban that was impossed to him in years past.



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
John Nada:


By the way, if you are developing to develop by why of developing the ability to develop WMD, is that still a crime?


Are you explicitly saying that Saddam didn't have WMD, at anytime? Clarify your stance. Furthermore, you saying that Saddam didn't have WMD because, let me guess, they haven't been found in quantities to appease?
Explain that to the previous three administration.
Explain that to both Congress and the Senate.
Explain that to the Kurds.
Explain that to the UK, Germany, France, Russia, Spain, Israel, Iran, the UN, and a host of others that had documentation saying that he/Iraq did.......!

Anything else you want to spin?
You can laugh cause they haven't been found yet. I laugh because ALL the major nations, prior to the second Iraq war, including the UN, had documentation stating, showing, and indicating otherwise. BTW, whose responsibility was it to make sure that those documented amounts were wrong or incorrect?

Evidence that is lacking in not or does not necessarily constitute lack of evidence.


seekerof



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
seekerof...we've been through this several times...I guess repetition really is required for developing minds. HAD is a lot different than HAS. All of those weapons that he HAD were confiscated or destroyed...when you can find any evidence of these weapons still being there, then fine...but so far these are just unsubstantiated bs claims to justify Bush and his war...really, just enough with this, it is getting very tiring. Maybe admit that you were wrong, and look like less of a fool in the long run...you're not tricking anybody, at least those who can think logically.


[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek
Maybe admit that you were wrong, and look like less of a fool in the long run...you're not tricking anybody, at least those who can think logically.



Oh $hit No you didnt!! LMAO!!


Id have to agree with you on that one Shoktek. Im sorry seeker but he's right.



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   
errr...Seekerof, I was making fun of the topic title. *sheesh* Anyway, if you want to get into all that all I really have to say is this...

You keep on saying that documents show that he had WMD just prior to the war e.t.c. However, we argue that after all the bull of the government saying "we know where they are", and from going to "actual" WMD to WMD "making programs", imminent to not e.t.c. We say they're lying and until they find them we will continue to believe they are lying.

Why? Because we never believed they existed long before they even went in there, we're not just saying it for our health now, having a good laugh at Republicans just because they haven't been found since they went there. We didn't believe from the get go. It's amazing how much it's been spinned, now it's like "Why don't you like what we're doing in Iraq" and people like me are like "we didn't want to happen in the first bloody place!!!!". We KNEW they were lying, and the longer WMD aren't found we are proved more right by this rationel.

Now, with everyday that passes and no WMD found, we are proved more and more right. Yet you disagree, and point to these documents. We however think these are BS or taken out of context e.t.c.

I guess my point is, why should your evidence be taken anymore seriously than ours (or rather the lack of evidence of WMD
)?

I think the the funny thing here is that it's a bit of a stand off, and neither of our sides can be fully proved until they are found (if). As long as they are not found we are right and your documents don't mean squat, and if they were found you would blow us away. Personally I wont trust anything, including documents from ANY nation from ANY government. I could get my nan to type them up, it doesn't make them anymore true.

Anyway, this is a discussion I didn't really want to have with anyone at 1.30 am, but I'm just trying to put your mind at rest. I guess time will tell, but really Seekerof, you should no I have not political persuasion or agenda by now...

Oh, and thanks for responding to my original request. I mean, that's all you should've been responding to really and you didn't. It was an honest request I wanted you to clear up, and from your response it seems you would rather pick a fight with me over something completely different to what I wanted discussed. Anyway, Thank you.

Sorry for this mess of a post, I'm tired.



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada
I think the the funny thing here is that it's a bit of a stand off, and neither of our sides can be fully proved until they are found (if). As long as they are not found we are right and your documents don't mean squat, and if they were found you would blow us away. Personally I wont trust anything, including documents from ANY nation from ANY government. I could get my nan to type them up, it doesn't make them anymore true.


Exactly...this is difficult to understand for some people, I suppose. For the simple minded:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument: No WMD in Iraq.
Evidence: We've been there a long time, none have been found, our leaders are starting to blame it on intelligence and starting to admit they were wrong.

Argument: WMD in Iraq.
Evidence: Unreliable sources on the internet run propaganda articles based on no facts, that are designed to make people insinuate that WMDs may exist in Iraq...

Now, if someone were being prosecuted under our legal system for possession of illegal arms, they would have to actually "possess" those illegal arms, not HAVE had them or MIGHT have them, but do have them now...we have found no weapons in Iraq, therefore we have no place to make convictions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   
If not now then later. Eventualy those sanctions would have had to be lifted, and Saddam would have gone strait back into full military build up. A man like him doesn't just sit back content with what he has, he always wants more power and control. Ten years down the line we would have been in the same situation as 91, except this time maybe Iraq would have had nuclear weapons. And don't forget the thousands of Iraqis that would have continued to be imprisoned, tortured, and excecuted had this war not taken place.



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEXone
If not now then later. Eventualy those sanctions would have had to be lifted, and Saddam would have gone strait back into full military build up. A man like him doesn't just sit back content with what he has, he always wants more power and control. Ten years down the line we would have been in the same situation as 91, except this time maybe Iraq would have had nuclear weapons. And don't forget the thousands of Iraqis that would have continued to be imprisoned, tortured, and excecuted had this war not taken place.


You can play this game as much as you want..no one is guilty for something that you think they MAY do in the future, this is no argument at all. How can you say how it would have been 10 years down the line...you can not.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

You can play this game as much as you want..no one is guilty for something that you think they MAY do in the future, this is no argument at all. How can you say how it would have been 10 years down the line...you can not.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Shoktek]


Their post has nothing to do with the situation at hand here, you shouldn't have even dignified it with a response, they should already know this.



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   


Maybe admit that you were wrong, and look like less of a fool in the long run...you're not tricking anybody, at least those who can think logically.


He was not wrong, so seeker is tricking people now? So now him and anyone that brings forth "evidence" that they did have wmd and has most probably been moved is working for the government? Give me a break...

You are starting to sound like Mark Hazzlewood, that nut was telling me and others that we were dissinfo agents working for the government because we didn't believe that planet x was passing in 2003.

Face the facts jack, Saddam "REFUSED" to let the weapons inspectors enter factories, and after he was given an ultimatum he still "REFUSED" to let them enter.

Only after Bush made his speech, after a week later, that our forces were already going in did he say "We can negotiate now, I'll let the inspectors search those factories now..."


Oh wait...let me guess, he was trying to buy some time to hide candy and milk that those factories were producing...


[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Muaddib]

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoktek

You can play this game as much as you want..no one is guilty for something that you think they MAY do in the future, this is no argument at all. How can you say how it would have been 10 years down the line...you can not.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Shoktek]


So Saddam never possesed weapons of mass destruction? he never tortured and killed hundreds of thousands of people? he never invaded two of his neighbors?
We arent talking here about some guy who never did anything wrong in his life, we are talking about a proven
brutal dictator with a long list of previous crimes.
Tell the hundreds of thousands of people he killed that he is not guilty, tell their families he deserves to be in power.

I can't predict the future you are right, but Saddam already demonstrated that he was capable of threatning the whole region and our vital interests, and there was absolutely no indication he was going to change his ways.
Simple logic leads one to conclude that Saddam would continue to puirsue his dreams of regional domination as soon as he had the chance.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by TheEXone]



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh wait...let me guess, he was trying to buy some time to hide candy and milk that those factories were producing...


Oh wait...we haven't found jack # in Iraq...end of debate.



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheEXone
I can't predict the future you are right, but Saddam already demonstrated that he was capable of threatning the whole region and our vital interests, and there was absolutely no indication he was going to change his ways.
Simple logic leads one to conclude that Saddam would continue to puirsue his dreams of regional domination as soon as he had the chance.


Hah, I'm certainly not trying to defend saddam...yes, he was a terrible guy, and it is good that he is out of power...but we had reasons for going to war, and those turned out to be false. Other than that, who says we can go over there simply to "help out the Iraqis" because I guarantee you our government doesn't give a damn about them...if we are going to rescue people from oppression and help people now, I could think of many other places to start...what makes Iraq so special and unique that we had to go over there?



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
"Jack #" is defined as what Shoktek?

Analogy, hmmm Shoktek?
Let's say I accused you of grilling hamburgers.
You subsequently DENY it. I then 'bust' into your home and search and find the following:

instructions on cooking hamburgers
ketchup
mayonaise
mustard
lettuce
tomatoes
pickles
hamburger buns
charcoal
a grill
used charcoal in the grill
a refrigerator

Furthermore, I have all your friends and neighbors telling me that you make hamburgers at your home, and that they have seen you do this. Does the fact that I have not found an actual cooked hamburger mean that you don't cook hamburgers?
You then proclaim, in your defense, "Hey! You didn't find the cooked hamburgers, thus your conclusions are bogus, based off the circumstantial evidences that you have....amounts to no proof!" Let's see, they found everything but that darn cooked hamburger, but that constitutes no credible evidences....k.


I'm sure of one thing, "if" the day comes that suffecient amounts are found," the word "spin" will have nothing on what will transpire within this forum and others.....



seekerof



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   
yea...very clever little analogy there, seekerof. Too bad it doesn't help your reasoning in the slightest. No hamburgers is still no hamburgers. Nice try though.



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Your response proves my point....


seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join