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.
Originally posted by works4dhs
1) the Saddam regime was known to posess and even use WsMD (on it's own citizens). it is theoretically possible that at the time of the 2nd Gulf War he had no major quantities, but there is no doubt he posessed them in the past, and had the resources to renew their production.
consider; we have had no fatal terror attacks in the US since 09/12/01. thanx to Pres Bush and all the uniformed folks keeping us safe.
Originally posted by OrionHunterX
Originally posted by byteshertz
The Iraq war:
•Initial reason for invasion: The United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies. After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical, and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion.
•Aim: stop Saddam Hussein from obtaining weapons of mass destruction
While I 'appreciate' your efforts in trying to rile the US of A and the United Kingdom, your analysis is skewered where you have mentioned that the reason for the invasion of Iraq was the destruction of WMDs that Iraq allegedly possessed.
Firstly, this reason as we all know now, is beyond belief and outrageous to say the least! Even if Iraq possessed WMDs, did they pose any threat to the US of A or Britain? NO! They are so far displaced in time and space that it would have taken Saddam at least another 50 years to have had an offensive capability to threaten mainland America/UK with state of the art delivery systems. I guess you are now aware of what they actually possessed when the US and UK went to war. Nix!
And then, do not be under the misplaced perception that this war was all about destruction of alleged WMDs ready to strike Western targets within an hour as Blair claimed and had repeatedly made when arguing the case for war. And then, just days before sending troops into action, Blair no longer believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes. So why did he opt to join the coalition to attack Iraq? What was the real reason for the war?
Therefore, this war was nothing about WMDs. It was about OIL. Period!
Bush decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, six months before September 11th, and the official reason was to improve Western access to Iraqi oil.
"President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains
a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets
from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to
the US 'military intervention' is necessary."
In other words, this war had nothing to do with 9/11, or terrorism, WMDs, human rights, or any of the factors that the US government would like you to believe are the true motives for war. It was all about oil.
I thought you knew?
More here if you’re interested.
[edit on 9-8-2010 by OrionHunterX]
Originally posted by SeaWind
Do you have more info on this?
SeaWind
THE company once headed by US Vice-President Dick Cheney is set to be a big corporate winner in the event of a war with Iraq that ended in US victory. Experts estimate Iraq's existing fields could pump up to 12m barrels a day, a fivefold increase over current output and a potential gold mine for any multinational oil company involved in reconstruction.
www.thisislondon.co.uk...
Five companies have been invited to bid for contracts to put Iraq's infrastructure back together after a decade of sanctions and the expected US-led war.
Among the five is a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil and construction giant run by US Vice President Dick Cheney for five years till 2000.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) told the AFP news agency that the five were part of a "limited selection process" intended to speed up contracting given the "urgent nature or the unique nature of the work".
news.bbc.co.uk...
Originally posted by Say_It_Already
Who's the first country leaders around the world call when they are invaded by Islamic terrorist? America.
Originally posted by Say_It_Already
As to how somehow if you post a link on ATS it's supposed to be taken as FACT!
Originally posted by works4dhs
1) the Saddam regime was known to posess and even use WsMD (on it's own citizens). it is theoretically possible that at the time of the 2nd Gulf War he had no major quantities, but there is no doubt he posessed them in the past, and had the resources to renew their production. Every major intel operation in the world (CIA, Mi6, whatever they call the KGB now, Mossad) was convinced of their existence. At least one General in the Iraqi army was so sure he posessed them he was planning to deploy them!
and of course there are stories that the WsMD did exist and were hidden or secretly transported (to Syria).
there is a theory that Saddam disposed of all his WsMD and wanted the UN and the world to think he still posessed them. (remember, the UN & Hans Blix' job was to verify the disposal, and there was not sufficient evidence that they were disposed of).
2) the Taliban regime in Afghanistan openly allowed al-Qaeda to operate. without the Talis al-Qaeda, while still operating, is severely hampered. and many of the terrorists blowing up stuff in Afghanistan were planning on blowing stuff up in the US by now.
hindsight is 20/20.
consider; we have had no fatal terror attacks in the US since 09/12/01. thanx to Pres Bush and all the uniformed folks keeping us safe.
Originally posted by franspeakfree
"I would like to add:
Where do you think the so called 'terrorists' are getting their weapons from? I mean these 'terrorists' are supposed to be a group of mismananged individuals fighting with a few guns. However, they seem to be doing a very good job in keeping the troops from doing anything.
ITS SIMPLE LET ME SPELL IT OUT - T.h.e s.a.m.e p.e.o.p.l.e w.h.o.m a.r.e p.r.o.f.i.t.i.n.g f.r.o.m t.h.e w.a.r a.r.e s.u.p.p.l.y.i.n.g t.h.e.m!
This is why I have no respect from anyone that grabs a gun in order to kill another human being, the dumbed down sheeple are being sold a dummy on a daily basis! "
I couldn't agree more. All governments are protection rackets. As Leo Tolstoy said, "where there is the law there is injustice".
[edit on 9-8-2010 by Deuteronomy 23:13]
Originally posted by OrionHunterX
Originally posted by SeaWind
Do you have more info on this?
SeaWind
Sure!
THE company once headed by US Vice-President Dick Cheney is set to be a big corporate winner in the event of a war with Iraq that ended in US victory. Experts estimate Iraq's existing fields could pump up to 12m barrels a day, a fivefold increase over current output and a potential gold mine for any multinational oil company involved in reconstruction.
www.thisislondon.co.uk...
Five companies have been invited to bid for contracts to put Iraq's infrastructure back together after a decade of sanctions and the expected US-led war.
Among the five is a subsidiary of Halliburton, the oil and construction giant run by US Vice President Dick Cheney for five years till 2000.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) told the AFP news agency that the five were part of a "limited selection process" intended to speed up contracting given the "urgent nature or the unique nature of the work".
news.bbc.co.uk...
"limited selection process" intended to speed up contracting given the "urgent nature or the unique nature of the work"???
Bullcrap! There was never a transparent process. The big ones landed the deals which were given on a platter. And the skunks laughed all the way to the bank! WMDs? Human rights? Al Qaeda? Geeez!
Check out this link...
www.thedebate.org...
Originally posted by earl call
The fact of war is that whomever has the biggest guns wins...