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.


OP/ED: Claims that Iraq 'Ended Nuclear Aims in 1991'

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 06:56 PM
Jafar Dhia Jafar, who ran the nuclear program for just about 25 years, has said that Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs were destroyed after the first Gulf War and never reactivated.

So much for the claim that the U.S. was going to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein was trying to restart his nuclear program.
He said that everything was destroyed, such that the programme could not be restarted at the time - and that it never restarted.

"There was no capability," he said. "There was no chemical or biological or any of what are called weapons of mass destruction." Some materials were never accounted for, giving weapons inspectors reason to believe that there were still some weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Mr Jafar also says the British government's assertion that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger is false.

He said Iraq already had a supply of uranium purchased there in the 1980s.

"We had 500 tons of yellow cake [uranium] in Baghdad so why would we get more?" he said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Could they be hiding something more, or is this the absolute truth?

Maybe George should have looking into this a bit more before invading Iraq and removing the 'weapons of mass destruction'

If he knew this now, maybe he would of second thought his decision to go into Iraq, and kill off American citizens. Maybe this intelligence could have saved lives; maybe it all could have not happened at all.

Mr. Jafar could be blamed personally as it was his evasive behavior and failure of not coming clean that caused them to believe that Iraq might possible be hiding something.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Valhall]

posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 08:25 PM
Yea, so much for that imminent threat deal too. Well, now that the 9/11 fervor is subsiding, we can try justifying it another way, like going to war to keep our SUVs running.

I bet you haven't heard this is awhile, "No Blood For Oil."

posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 08:31 PM
Yeah i heard about this briefly on the news earlier.

I personaly dont know what to believe anymore, so whether that is true or not, i cant really decide.

But if it is true- Bush n Co must be a little worried about backlash.

posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 08:55 PM
The backlast would be devistating...

Could even cost an election.

posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 10:43 AM
I can't believe that anyone ever bought this BS lie that our government used as an excuse to invade Iraq. The whole thing was about the oil from the get-go. They even told us that they were going to do it but the congress and American people wouldn't go for invading Iraq so the Bush family arranged 9/11 with their Saudi friends. This whole war on terror boils down to 3 simple things:

1. Oil and the piplelines that the taliban resisted against
2. Restoring the heroin trade in Afghanistan
3. Making billion$ off innocent peoples loss of life

I am ashamed to be an American.

posted on Aug, 12 2004 @ 03:33 PM
Its all about the oil.

Now look what is happening to us, we can barely afford to drive our cars.

posted on Aug, 20 2004 @ 07:00 PM
It is short sighted to claim that Iraq was all about the oil. There were many other reasons for the war. Some include removing Saddam Hussein from power, a show of force from America, a (failed?) attempt to gain support, taking the focus off the failure to capture Binladen, and support jobs and armourers through the war. So no, Iraq was not all about the oil, but that doesn't mean it was any less wrong.

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 02:39 PM
wow so there was no weapons after all. that a relief now I know that there was no nuclear weapons.

new topics

top topics


log in