It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 05:33 PM
Let me get straight to my question without any other information.

Why didn't the US government plant WMD in Iraq to prove to Americans that there were in fact WMDs there?

I think they wanted to test the public to see how we would react if so many years have passed by and so many lives lost and yet no WMD were found in Iraq which was one of the main reasons why the Bush administration got us involved there. Possibly, the people in power wanted us to riot and escalate things to another level so that they can declare some other law and control us even further. But, since they've realized that many people are apathetic to the whole Iraq situation, they decide to do things right out in the open since they are aware of our "not give a damn" attitude.

What do you ladies and gentlemen of ATS think? I'm not stating that I support or even believe such thought, just putting an idea out there.


posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 07:07 PM
Any thoughts my fellow brothers and sisters?

posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 07:19 PM
Well Sadaam actually did have WMDs but not the nukes. He used chemical weapons on the Kurds in the 80s which are a classification of WMDs. He was also actively trying start an extensive biological weapons program and a nuke program.

here is a link for more info

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 11:50 AM
This is the thing that has always gotten me. When people say that "Bush lied" I always ask them the same thing you ask.

If the US went there knowing that they would find no WMDs, why wouldn't they have planted weapons there? Heck, they wouldn't have even needed go that far. They could have had a few loyal generals "report" that the weapons had been found and destroyed.

My opinion:

Did we go to Iraq on a lie? No
Did we go on a mistake? Yes
Is the world a better place without Saddam in it? Probably
In hindsight, should we have gone to Iraq at all? Probably not.

BUT... Perhaps there was a bigger reason to go than any of us know or will ever find out. The US/UN will now have a permanent place in the middle east. Maybe that was the real goal? Who knows.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 12:27 PM
Two words for you.

"Independent verification"

To plant the stuff, and claim it was there all along, would need to be verified by the IAEA.

Nukes have fingerprints - styles, types of detonators, source of the fissile materials etc. It is not easy to "spoof" an independent nuke.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 10:42 PM
reply to post by neformore

Interesting, I was not aware of that.

But I'm sure they knew that sooner or later they will be caught in a lie, so why still use the WMD excuse? I pondered about this for a little bit, and possibly they know that majority of people in America are apathetic.

Thanks for your reply.


log in