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.

 

ATS: WMD of Iraq Found?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I think they have found the WMD long ago and are just holding out untill the can find out who helped them get it and helped produced them.




posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I served ina army unit assigned in Kirkuk. In the early days of the war, we were sent to explore a power plant, make sure it was clear and see if it could be tunred back on. (part of our hearts and minds campain). Well enroute and close to it, we past thru a huge oen feild for sheep. ALL the sheep looked healthy, but were all lying on their sides...dead. No appearnt reson for them to be dead. but they were. We poked around somemore and found missles in big holes and in the open. They were like 25 feet long and we notice some were oozing stuff out by the nose cone. I called higher and within 30 min spooks and civies were crawling over the site and told us to leave. fortunately, I snaped some pics. Also, the pic of the warhead earlier posted....I think I discovered it. It was at the Kirkuk government building, which we took and I found a weapon stash and there were I believe 4 of those warheads.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Careful Jimboorder. I expect some here will be calling you a liar soon...

I found your post interesting and we appreciate your service and your input. I don't doubt you at all.

Thanks!



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
You beat me to the punch. Can you post those pics?



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Yes, there has been WMD found in Iraq, Yes, the Bush admistration is letting j.f.Kerry hang himself. Yes, there waiting to time the release of the information for a time that is strategically appropriate. Yes, Bush has said all along that there 'were' or might still be WMD's in Iraq and that we "will" find them.

And no this will not hurt Bush by witholding the "evidence" of the WMD found. Because he will say, I have been telling you that they were there, the media wants to say they weren't or there not, they want to say that this military action in Iraq was not justified. Well to the American public, I must apologize, I must apologize for withholding the truth from you. You see over the last 6 months your courageous sons and daughters have been figthing hard in Iraq, and there has been some loss of life. And my heart goes out to every family and every American Family that I know has been affected by this war. But let me tell you America, I was elected to defend this great nation, to protect our rights and our way of life, to rid the world of an evil, man, who enjoyed crushing the lives and hopes of his own people. Well to America and to the free people of Iraq, rejoyce that you live in a world free from this madman. We have found Saddam's numerous stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the components for those weapons. Here is Defense Secratary Rumsfield who will go over what we found and when we found it.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
"Nothing beens found"?
Suspected chemical warhead found in Kirkuk
You've tried this link multiple times in the past, Seekerof, and I even debunked this one months ago. Link below.

www.cnn.com...


U.S. tests for possible chemical weapons

NPR said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were “ready to fire."

Marines reportedly find cyanide, mustard agents in Euphrates


You must be refering to "sufficient quantities" to appease, maybe?

"Nothing" is an absolute and that "absolute" is bogus.


seekerof
Neither of these other two claims have had any substantiating follow up to determine if they were real. They're bogus propoganda until proven otherwise and they've had months to prove them real.

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimboorder
I served ina army unit assigned in Kirkuk.

fortunately, I snaped some pics. Also, the pic of the warhead earlier posted....I think I discovered it. It was at the Kirkuk government building, which we took and I found a weapon stash and there were I believe 4 of those warheads.


Jimbo, thanx for the first hand info. many members of this board often let their desires and facts intertwine. If you could post some of those pictures, it'd certainly add some credibilty to the argument. Nevertheless, your first hand experience is still much more credible than the itiotic speculation by the members of Hussien's fanclub that we have to hear from daily.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Heelstone, you 'debunked it' and yet did not grasp what I was and have been saying all along. It matter'd not to me that the warhead(s) had no chemicals in them, what matter'd was that Saddam was NOT supposed to have the warheads period! And if he was not supposed to have them, why did he have them and for what purpose?
Work that one for me will ya?


"bogus propoganda" is something that those who have opposed this war from day one have been chanting...its subjective.....again, the point being is that the above sources are not and were not the only mainstream sources that carried the news that those banned chemicals were being dumped into the Euphrates.

"Substantial follow-up" implies what? You are not satisfied with the information given? Seems to me that the articles are quite self-evident and damning within themselves. Your pleas for "no substantial follow-up" are irrelevant. There are multiples of stories reported in the news media, cited and given daily, that are not given "substantial followup"...go figure.



seekerof

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Does sound like a legitimate possibility.

But you have to wonder how it'd make Bush look. If he waited that long to use it as a re-election tool, what does that say about him?


What does it say? It says he is no different than any other politician who hordes things in his/her back pocket until the appropriate time. It is just one more reminder of the need for an overhaul of our political system.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Heelstone, you 'debunked it' and yet did not grasp what I was and have been saying all along. It matter'd not to me that the warhead(s) had no chemicals in them, what matter'd was that Saddam was NOT supposed to have the warheads period!
Work that one for me will ya?



seekerof
You are pushing the limits of semantics regarding what Saddam was supposed to have with regards to the justification for resolution 1441 which caused this invasion. As has been said before on here, you are truly the spinmaster of ATS.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Semantics my arse....dude, even the French said that 1441 was enough justification for the US to take out Saddam. You need me to find that? I also quoted that from a previous past article.

I be the so-called 'spinmeister' all I need to be, word play is the name of the game that is not exclusive to those who opposed the war.....spin that.


seekerof



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Semantics my arse....dude, even the French said that 1441 was enough justification for the US to take out Saddam. You need me to find that? I also quoted that from a previous past article.


Here you go:
Bush and Blair made secret pact for Iraq war.

At a lunch in the White House on January 13 last year, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, an adviser to the president, Jacques Chirac, and Jean-David Levitte, the French ambassador in Washington, put the deal to Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser.

In an effort to avoid a bitter US-French row, the French officials suggested that if the US was intent on war, it should not seek the second resolution....

Instead, the two said that the first resolution on Iraq, 1441, passed the previous year, provided enough legal cover for war and that France would keep quiet if the US went to war on that basis.

The deal would suit the French by maintaining its "good cop" status in the Arab world and safeguarding Franco-US relations.

France 'sought secret UN deal' in bid to avert row

Damn right, word play is the name of the game, and has been the name of the game for politicians and world leaders for hundreds if not thousands of years.


seekerof

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:42 PM
link   
These handfulls of discoverys in Iraq could hardly be classed as the imenent threat that our trustworthy leaders made it out to be.. 'Weapons of mass destruction could be deployed within 40 minutes.." A few chemical warheads? It's great that Saddam is gone, but they lie . . .



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   
You spinning this subject now has completely confused your stance on it. This really is the last time I reply to any WMD post you may make as now you are simply going at a devil's advocate route to justify your position despite the glaring lack of evidence otherwise. Why bother discussing it further with you once you take such a position? Its an old subject anyway and at this point, I'm dropping it to avoid having you create any further confusing and ridiculous remarks about it.

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Show me where Bush used "immenent threat" as a central claim for his actions against Iraq....


seekerof



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03


"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03


Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03


"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03


"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03


"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03


"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02



"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02


"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02


"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02


"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02


"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02

www.americanprogress.org...

related
Are Bush and Blair Breaking the Law? Times article
www.globalpolicy.org...

Bush and Blair Lied About WMDs in Iraq

"Blair even said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that could be used within 45 minutes of a military order. "
Wouldn't that be classed as an imminent threat?

www.laboreducator.org...




[Edited on 4/28/2004 by earthtone]



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by heelstone
You spinning this subject now has completely confused your stance on it. This really is the last time I reply to any WMD post you may make as now you are simply going at a devil's advocate route to justify your position despite the glaring lack of evidence otherwise. Why bother discussing it further with you once you take such a position? Its an old subject anyway and at this point, I'm dropping it to avoid having you create any further confusing and ridiculous remarks about it.

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by heelstone]



What?! And no response to what the French said. Despite the 'victorious' shrills of those who cry "no evidence", "no nothing to be found", the search is still on and out of a reported 160+ known weapons sites, the Coalition has only roughly checked a third and yet, people cry no evidence? Huh?
Lack of evidence does not imply that there is no evidence.
Your contiuned participation on the issue of WMD is of utmost import to me?



seekerof



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Let me help you clarify your stance there earthtone:
The Imminence Myth

What the Bush administration really said about the threat from Iraq.


And here, even from those who seriously question this war:
Sorting out the "imminent threat" debate

....debate has raged over the phrase "imminent threat." Many liberal critics have asserted that a central claim in President Bush's case for war in Iraq was that Iraq posed an "imminent threat." They argue that it's now clear that no such threat existed, and thus the President's argument has been revealed as deceptive or illegitimate. Conservatives retort that Bush never actually used the phrase and in fact specifically used language indicating that the threat was not imminent on several occasions.

As a factual matter, conservatives are largely correct and liberal critics and journalists are guilty of cheap shots or lazy reporting. However, the evidence is not completely clear and both sides are guilty of distorting this complex situation for political gain. Specifically, while there's some evidence indicating the Bush administration did portray Iraq as an imminent threat, there's much more that it did not. Those attempting to assert that the White House called Iraq an imminent threat are ignoring significant information to the contrary. Similarly, those who say the Bush administration never used the phrase or implied as much are ignoring important, though isolated, evidence.




seekerof



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Does language really make a difference here Seekerof? Both Bush and Blair portrayed an 'imminent threat' , does it matter how they say it? Spin Spin Spin



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Your right earthtone....spin, spin, spin.
I asked a question, you countered with your 'spin' and I countered with my 'spin'.
Yet, as par, I am labeled with the continued label of 'spin, spin, spin" and, as from heelstone, "spinmeister"?


No problem, will have to add that to my sub-title...in fact, let me do that right now....brb.




seekerof



new topics




 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join