Iraq is the Creation of the West

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2003 @ 05:53 AM
link   
To have a smoking gun, you must first have a gun.
Iraq has that or HAS HAD one before.

Secondly, you must have a trigger man.
In this case, Saddam has his finger ready.

Thirdly, and most importantly, you must have BULLETS!



But where would Saddam get bullets?
From companies all across the world willing to sacrifice there homeland for a dollar or two.

Nearly all of Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear programs have been supplied through companies that ARE NOT IN IRAQ.

I posted this thread awhile back to prove that:xmb.abovetopsecret.com...

Back in 1998 during the Clinton Era, another report was released that contained companies NOT IN IRAQ that supplied Saddam with everything he needed to build these weapons. Scott Ritter, the former U.N. inspector has confirmed this numerous times.

-Regarding the Gulf War Sydrome-

It is believed by victims of the Gulf War Sydrome that because of coalition bombing during the first Gulf War, chemicals were released in the air which soldiers came into contact with resulting in the Sydrome.

In a report by Richard Roth on CNN's Diplomatic Liscense, a gulf war syndrome victim has filed a lawsuit against companies that supplied IRAQ with these chemicals.

In searching for the truth, look at the source first.
Iraq obtained everything it needed from companies OUTSIDE Iraq.

Like buying drugs, you shouldn't just arrest the BUYER, you should also arrest the DEALER.


DCarter




posted on Jan, 20 2003 @ 06:30 AM
link   
I must disagree with their hypothesis on how we got the "Gulf War syndrom"...it was not bombing, because if that were the case a LOT of Iraqis would have the sickness as well, which they don't...here's an actually plausable explaination.

The western deserts of Iraq are VAST and BARREN (less than 1 person per square mile, even per square 100 miles) and we crossed those deserts, to a good extent.

What seems more likely, is that saddam either placed behind his retreating troops and in front of our advancing, or just laced the desert in areas that might be crossed, with the chemicals.

Probably the latter since it is not hard to know where armor is going to go in a desert, since armor can only traverse certain "ground types" in the desert. They can only traverse hard//compacted sand...if they try to cross soft or uncompacted sand the tanks will Sink into the sand, even though a person or car could cross it normally, they are so heavy.

That was how they defeated rommel
giving him allied map plans that were thought of to be "stolen" from a British officer who bravely gave his life to allow the plans to be "stolen" and so Rommel thought that battle grounds would be this "hard sand" but it wasn't and his armor promptly sank some as far as up to the turrets


Either way, as our armor advances it kicks up a horrindous amount of dust, and thus the chemical, which in turn, laces the following infantry with the chemical, anyone not taking extreme precautions, or if it was "dusty chemicals" it would have afflicted them. This method could also account for low flying Apache helicopters of which some pilot//gunners have also been afflicted.

People need to stop putting everything on what we do...and face it, Saddam is not an idiot, he can be dangerous.

Also the extreme amount of dispersal by kicking the dust into the air, probably would explain why the symptoms are many and sometimes violent, but not particularly lethal or not always a problem.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 20 2003 @ 10:36 PM
link   
The Gulf War wasn't the point FreeMason.
Nice theory but a victim of the Syndrome is more aware of what went on because he was there.

My apologies to you for my mistake in posting that part.

My point.again...

Iraq did not make those chemicals and get those warheads from inside Iraq.

They came from companies that are NOT IN IRAQ.

If those companies would not have sold all the ingredients to Saddam....WE WOULD NEVER BE HERE DISCUSSING THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!

Like buying drugs, you should not only arrest and prosecute the buyer, but the DEALER also.

The problem never arose from Saddam building and manufacturing these weapons. The whole entire standoff is a product of stupidity and arrogance from the companies that supply this man. Knowing the fact that he has tried to build weapons before should automatically be a redlight.

The State Department is in a hussy about Boeing selling space technology to China or Japan (whomever it was.)
Sure. Why not.

There's that double standard again.
Ha! Whatever.

DCZZz



posted on Jan, 20 2003 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I know that the people who have the syndrom were there, which is why it's not really my theory, but theirs...I know plenty of people who were there, some whom were tank commanders in the gulf, others whom were in infantry...and we all agree. That that was how the chemical was spread.

And I know it's not really relevant to the topic, but it is a peice of information that should be shared, Saddam hit us there and covering it up or blaming it on the US only makes us look like the bad guy, when it was Saddam the whole time.

As for where he got the stuff, yeah it was from outside sources, no debate there, but if I buy fertilizer and then blow up a building with it, do you hang the fertilizer sales man too?

You can make some DAMN powerful bombs out of the stuff you usually have under your sink, so you can't fully hold responsible most companies that sold stuff to Iraq. Who could be held responsible are companies that knowingly sold stuff that they knew would be used as weapons. But it still seems a bit deviant of the true path.

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 20 2003 @ 11:02 PM
link   


but if I buy fertilizer and then blow up a building with it, do you hang the fertilizer sales man too?


Are you the leader of country that is considered a threat? If your not we could care less who you bought from.

Phillips 66 sold chemicals to Iraq that later showed up in the 1998 report. When asked why they sold chemicals that had the power to do harm, there response was something to the effect of: "if used properly, the chemicals cannot harm others."

How do they, any company, including those who sold to Saddam, determine whether or not the pruduct will be used properly?

Take for example your fertilizer you bought. You build a bomb.
You get caught but like Saddam your still free.
Do you think that company is gonna sell you fertilizer again knowing that you made a BOMB out of the last bag you bought.
Maybe they will. If commonsense kicks in they will use the right to refuse service to anyone. Especially someone who is making weapons out of there products. That makes them look stupider than you my freind.

EX.


DCAR



  exclusive video


new topics
 
0

log in

join