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.

 

To all that though there were no WMD's in Iraq

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Come on, guys - don't you find it to be a tad questionable
this stuff is found as the election approaches??

Here's my prediction:

Ben Dover wants Bush to be re-elected because Bush
helps fuel his Jihad. Bin Laden is like, pysched to the max
Bush invaded Iraq. He wants him to continue doing
aggressive things; Bin Laden and his followers feel Bush
is very dumb. This, needless to say, is a perk for the extremists!

Soooo......

Our current administration receives a credible threat
Bin's gonna hit us again in order to *influence the upcoming election*.

(See CNN)

Bush and the boys aren't going to work TOO hard
to stop it....cuz after the attack the gullible US public
will rally around him and forget about how the world hates us,
our soldiers are being annhiliated and Saddam didn't
level the Towers.

I bet anything the upcoming attack will include a WMD
that is *supposently* found in Iraq from this point on.

Betcha the attack occurs in Washington, too, to REALLY
make the public rally around our prez.

Bin Laden is laughing at our gullibility.





posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I believe Saddam had something going on with WMD's, but my beef with this administration is with the pre-war evidence from intelligence. Powell was sent to the UN with satelite images of Saddam's mobile labs (even downplaying the information so not to give away what we can do with satelites), my problem is this, if this administration had this type of technolgy to track these mobile units - why didn't they have better intelligence to track WMD's and locate them?

Me thinks Saddam trucked them out of Iraq or found a big hole, but regardless, the quest to invade based on evidence they should of and easily could had - seems real reckless. To me it's not whether WMD's are found or not, it's how this entire engagement has been handled from the inaccurate forecast of forces needed from Rumsfeld to Dubya's we'll go it alone method. Just an opinion....



posted on Jul, 8 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by sniper068
LOL.........The ink on the story isn't even dry and already the spin has started. The liberals and democrats are living in complete denial.
Bush planted them............Thats original, didnt see that one coming. The democrats and liberals have become truly pathetic, so predictable...
Bush was right, the dems and liberals were wrong, Plain and simple!!!!!!!!!!!!
What exactly was Bush right about? They still have not found the stockpiles of WMDs that Saddam was planning to attack the US with. They have found a few mustard and sarin gas shells that were left over from the first Gulf War, but so far that's it. The radioactive material that the US took, without authorization, was not being collected by Saddam to make WMDs...did you read the above article from armytimes.com? It clearly states:

Wilkes said a huge range of different isotopes were secured in the joint Energy Department and Defense Department operation. They had been used in Iraq for a range of medical and industrial purposes, such as testing oil wells and pipelines.
Uranium is not suitable for making a dirty bomb. But some of the other radioactive material including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium could have been valuable to a terrorist seeking to fashion a terror weapon.

Such a device would not trigger a nuclear explosion, but would use conventional explosives to spread radioactive debris. While few people would probably be killed or seriously affected by the radiation, such an explosion could cause panic, make a section of a city uninhabitable for some time and require cumbersome and expensive cleanup.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   
First of all, we are looking for the weapons now, so who cares it is an election year, and typically you find something only after you search. So to say that they found them because it is an election year is mindless.

And to the extent of what they find is a concept the dems use to down play there actually existance. First the liberals and dems said they didnt exist. Now that they are being shown they do exist, they will play on the timing and quanity and quality.

If the clinton admin had address this problem and acted accordingly when attacks were being carried out then maybe this could have all been avoided. But they didnt and now Bush is being blame for the democrats gross failures.

Clinton was inattentive towards fighting terrorism. It is no stretch to say he spent more money and made more of a concerted effort trying to eliminate Bill Gates than Osama bin Laden.


Bombing of Towers in 93.
Bombing Saudia Arabia 95.
Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia 96.
U.S. embassies in Africa 98.
USS Cole 2000.


jezebel
Who ever said iraq was planning to use WMD against America anyway ??
The fact that he posessed them was in violation of the surrender from the first gulf war. The fact that he had ties with osama made that threat even more real. Saddam defied weapons inspectors for twelve years !! He supported terrorism and sought to help bin laden. You only exist today because of brave men and women who do not share your thinking.


[edit on 10-7-2004 by sniper068]



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by sniper068

jezebel
Who ever said iraq was planning to use WMD against America anyway ??

Who? Well, let's see if I can find a few quotes for ya...

Statement by Vice President Richard Cheney
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"With each passing day, Saddam Hussein advances his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and could pass them along to terrorists. If he is allowed to do so, the result could be the deaths not of 3,000 people, as on September 11th, but of 30,000, or 300,000 or more innocent people."

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore."

Statement by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
"Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a month, and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, either use himself, or transfer them to the Al-Qaeda, and somehow the Al-Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States, or an attack on U.S. forces overseas, with a weapon of mass destruction you're not talking about 300, or 3,000 people potentially being killed, but 30,000, or 100,000 . . . human beings."

Statement by President George W. Bush
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."



The fact that he posessed them was in violation of the surrender from the first gulf war. The fact that he had ties with osama made that threat even more real.

The Bush Administration has yet to provide any conclusive evidence proving this claim. Cheney, when given the opportunity to provide proof to the Comission, of the Sadaam/al Quaeda link, didn't produce any evidence. The 9/11 Comission's report found no collaborative relationship between the two:


Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida.

"Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded," the report said. "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred" after bin Laden moved his operations to Afghanistan in 1996, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," it said.

"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq," the report said.
www.sfgate.com.../news/archive/2004/06/16/national0906EDT0522.DTL


You only exist today because of brave men and women who do not share your thinking.

Who are you referring to? The soldiers over in Iraq? Those who are occupying Iraq have nothing to do with my continuing existence in the US. All soldiers are indeed brave and deserve respect, because they are willing to risk their lives for their countries. Just because our soldiers are following their orders to engage the "enemy" in Iraq, doesn't mean that they all agree with what they are doing, or don't "share my thinking".

I exist today because I was lucky enough not to have been in the WTC or on one of the planes that hit the towers on 9/11. Our military did not protect any of the 3000 souls who died in 2001, and since all of our soldiers are being sent overseas, they still won't be able to protect us here at home, should we require it.



[edit on 11-7-2004 by jezebel]



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 04:19 AM
link   
fact is some wmd's have been found,though in small amounts or traces.sadam has had and has used wmd's. good enuogh for me.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 11:37 PM
link   
There are plenty of troops here to protect you. How many attacks have there been on US soil since 9/11? So someone is doing something right!

If you think saddam didn't have WMD you are sadly mistaken. Saddam also had ties with osama. The new york times bashed the Bush Admin about the link between saddam and osama after the 9/11 commission said there was no connection when in fact the new york times had credible evidence disputing the commissions findings. Are you demanding they be scrutinized.

You are given your opinion whether you like it or not. Unless you have first hand experience, you no nothing!!!!



posted on Jul, 12 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I think the reason no large amount of chemical weapons or nuclear bombs was found is simple. Think of it this way say your mom told you that in six months she was going to go in your room and search for pot she thought you had hidden there. After those six months do you really think the pot would still be in there? Maybe if you were a moron there would still be pot in there but chances are it would be gone. Saddam was not a moron by any means not a good man but not stupid either. What did saddam do with his planes during the first gulf war as they were getting destroyed left and right. He flew the ones that remained to Iran as fast as he could. I think the WMDs exist but were long ago moved to places like Syria,Iran and Jordan



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join