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.

 

The Truth!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:52 AM
link   
How can you guys say Saddam had no WMD? What do you think he did to the Kurds? Fire a couple laughing gas missiles that caused thousands of them to contort so violently from laughter that they spontaneously broke their own spines and choked in their own bile?

Good god, yes they haven't found a bonafide WMD *yet* in a land that is 437,072 sq km, of which ~52,000 sq km is arable and ~80,000 sq km is livable (the rest is a huge dust storm of a desert). They also haven't managed to find one single Usama Bin Laden, surely he too must be made up and never existed!!

On the other side of the coin all you smart, able, technologically savvy folks, living in the freedom democracy provides to you here and around the world still haven't shown the world one single tangeable peice of UFO evidence, yet THOSE ARE REAL according to 90% of the readership here.

Mother of love... This thred's themesong

[edit on 6-9-2004 by CatHerder]




posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:09 AM
link   
They did use WMDs against the Kurds. But the point is there were no WMDs in 2003 when they were spose to be able to lanch there WMDs in 45 minutes. If the job had been done properly in 1991 we wouldnt even be having this debate.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:45 AM
link   


This is the same guy who is smart enough to take control of the "most powerful nation" on the globe? Oh wait... Bush isn't "in charge" he's a puppet for a more secret society who pulls the strings on everything in the world, and they keep it a secret from all of us, except the hysterical lunitic fringe, but they cant keep a secret about planting a few 55 gallon drums of chemicals. O K !



as for pizza i like cheese only. it isnt a matter of being able to plant the contraband. they probably could pull it off with no problems. however the risks would out way the benifits. there is nothing to gain from getting us to believe there were really WMD. we already have control of the country. right now it is a matter of successfully controlling the countless iligal corperate transactions taking place there. i bet we are giving them some great deals! by the way i am anything but hysterical. O K !



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:52 AM
link   
But Bush is stupid enough to Lie and get caught in the lie on a world stage?

This is the same guy who is smart enough to take control of the "most powerful nation" on the globe? Oh wait... Bush isn't "in charge" he's a puppet for a more secret society who pulls the strings on everything in the world, and they keep it a secret from all of us, except the hysterical lunitic fringe, but they cant keep a secret about planting a few 55 gallon drums of chemicals. O K !


What else do you want on your pizza?

Do you have any proof to back up your wild accusation other wise it makes me



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 07:40 AM
link   

On the other side of the coin all you smart, able, technologically savvy folks, living in the freedom democracy provides to you here and around the world still haven't shown the world one single tangeable peice of UFO evidence, yet THOSE ARE REAL according to 90% of the readership here.


The above is a good argument. But the point is not that Saddam did not have WMD. He did. The point is that his WMD was not of the range to threat USA. He did have gas mustard (which was used against the Kurds), and that's it. There is no other proven WMD...no nukes, no long range missiles, nothing.

The reason to invade Iraq is that Iraq is in a very important geographical location that, if controlled, will give a great advantage to USA. Iraq is to the south of the Caspian oil reserves, at the east of Arabian oil reserves, at the west of Pakistan (don't forget that the Pakis got nukes - imagine an islamic dictatorship with nukes!), close to China and to former USSR...it also provides a counter threat to Iran and Syria regarding Israel. It short, it is a very important geopolitical spot to leave alone.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Do you have any proof to back up your wild accusation other wise it makes me


Was sarcasm..... not an accusation.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I agree. The area is pivotal for control. As it is, the only islamic democratic nation in the world is turkey, its in the area but its not a good example, they have problems of their own. So, you're left with israel which almost every islamic and arabic state hates.... I think the US government wanted to set an example of democracy in an arabic/islamic state.... to show its not just an american ideal.

I dont like Bush, I think he is incompetent, and a super conservative (im canadian... go figure). However, Saddam needed to be removed, period. That alone constitutes justification for war, or at least backing war.

They would never plant WMD's to save their own asses, because then some one like Richard Clarke would blow the whistle. Don't you guys get it? The only way 3 people can keep a secret is if 2 of them are dead. If the world found out they tried to plant them, wow even little bushy in the whitehouse knows that would be catastrophic.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Crow
Russian Intelligence never said Iraq had WMD's.

So are you saying that the Russian president lied? Why? I watched the interview myself and here is the link to the news report. www.cnn.com... the thing I found most interesting is that the media covered it and then promptly back paged it.


kix

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Bush is an Idiot..I think I dont have to prove it (I see it everyday in Lettermans!)

Bush IS a Liar, do you remember his father "NO NEW TAXES READ MI LIPS" GUESS WHAT?

Like Father like Son.

If you are too blind to see or to remember the Great Resession ef 1991 sorry , you deserve GWB....

Just one thing you should consider:

4 years ago most USA people could travel and be treated quite well, fast forward to Athens 2004 the US delegation was booed at the entrance to the stadium and the Iraki was cheered only second to the locals.....

That is PR and the US has the greatest idiot working the world PR, alienating the world and doing everything to destroy the good image of the US.

Think about it.....and we would not plant the WMD on irak too risky, a political suicide and those susbtances are very dangerous, just think of transporting those and having a mishap on a ship r while on transit......WMD.......

One last thging the country with most WMD is the US and the oines that gave Saddam the WMD is the US ......so thats really a political paradoxical joke.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
4 years ago most USA people could travel and be treated quite well, fast forward to Athens 2004 the US delegation was booed at the entrance to the stadium and the Iraki was cheered only second to the locals.....

I was just wondering if you think that peer pressure is really a valid argument to drive foreign policy? And if so should that be a driving decision maker in other areas of governmental policy?

Originally posted by kix
Think about it.....and we would not plant the WMD on irak too risky, a political suicide and those susbtances are very dangerous, just think of transporting those and having a mishap on a ship r while on transit......WMD.......

And being branded a liar wouldn’t be political suicide…..seeing as how you pointed out that his father was branded a liar and ultimately politically died….as for transportation the US military and DOE transport nuclear materials on a day to day basis. Often times for training, so were would this enhanced risk of danger come from. The military on a day to day basis also moves and monitors the national stockpile of chem./bio weapons which they are in the process of destroying.


[edit on 6-9-2004 by keholmes]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by looking4clues

Originally posted by xpert11
Do you have any proof to back up your wild accusation other wise it makes me


Was sarcasm..... not an accusation.

Ok sorry my fault.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by The Crow
Russian Intelligence never said Iraq had WMD's.

So are you saying that the Russian president lied? Why? I watched the interview myself and here is the link to the news report. www.cnn.com... the thing I found most interesting is that the media covered it and then promptly back paged it.



Russia proved right on Iraq WMD

"Russia's UN ambassador said late on Monday his country was never sure Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, despite assertions from former US arms inspector David Kay that "we were almost all wrong."

Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov, at his annual meeting with the press, said Russian officials repeatedly maintained they did not have enough information.

"We said that we don't have information which would prove that the WMD, weapons of mass destruction, programmes remain in Iraq."

Russia never said Iraq had WMD. Period.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 06:23 AM
link   
It is my understanding that chemical/biological munitions have quite a limited lifespan so any chem/bio WMD he used on the kurds would be long past it's sell by date by now. Bringing that up as proof of presently held weapons is no proof at all.

This is quite a good link about this:

www.wsws.org...

(edited to include link)

[edit on 7-9-2004 by Chris McGee]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by looking4clues
All of you out there so desperate to push Blame for Terror on America and its conspiratorial agenda, I say to you; Why did they stop and welcome the easily avoidable ridicule over WMD, that could have easily been planted in Iraq to justify the invasion?

Why would Bush devise a sinister plot only to let it fall part and risk losing his re-election?

Why didn't they plant the WMD? Could be that Bush just didn't give a crap and hoped that the U.S. constituency would forgive/forget about it, as half of them currently are doing. It could also be that the U.S. is so desperate to secure Iraqi oil fields that cover up was secondary to securing the oil. After all, Bush is a puppet who is spouting somebody else's lies about Iraq. Bush is taking the fall for those lies now and Kerry will likely be taking the fall for the next set of lies to come.

Fact is that Bush, the administration, and large sections of our government are criminals and incompetents. Dumb criminals screw up, and thats what happened here. We just had the two biggest investigations of the 21st century (9/11 and Senate Iraq) come to this conclusion. At least the incompetent part. Its also obviously criminal, but they won't say it.

If you want to take it into a broader and further reaching conspiracy, this caught in a lie stunt was done to destroy U.S. credibility to make way for an easier transition to an overt New World Order scheme. Make everybody on earth hate their current governments by showing them as lying scum and a new replacement would be far more welcomed.

[edit on 7-9-2004 by heelstone]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CatHerder
How can you guys say Saddam had no WMD? What do you think he did to the Kurds? Fire a couple laughing gas missiles that caused thousands of them to contort so violently from laughter that they spontaneously broke their own spines and choked in their own bile?

Good god, yes they haven't found a bonafide WMD *yet* in a land that is 437,072 sq km, of which ~52,000 sq km is arable and ~80,000 sq km is livable (the rest is a huge dust storm of a desert). They also haven't managed to find one single Usama Bin Laden, surely he too must be made up and never existed!!

On the other side of the coin all you smart, able, technologically savvy folks, living in the freedom democracy provides to you here and around the world still haven't shown the world one single tangeable peice of UFO evidence, yet THOSE ARE REAL according to 90% of the readership here.

Mother of love... This thred's themesong

Do you buy into any conspiracies? If not, why do you frequent a conspiracy message board? To antagonize its readership?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Crow
………. Bush was lying to the American people when he said Iraq has WMD's. …….


Originally posted by The Crow
Russian Intelligence never said Iraq had WMD's.

The Crow

My bad I accidentally erased parts of my post this should make more sense……. as for WMDs lying is determined by intent not content, thank you though because you have reminded me to teach that subtlety to my 6 year olds. Other nations beside Russia have agreed that Iraq had WMD…the Russians only said they weren’t sure, that’s a long way from none. The president also gave the reason for Iraq, that it was an imminent threat to America that would be reason enough…. So are you saying that the Russian president lied? Why? I watched the interview myself and here is the link to the news report. www.cnn.com... the thing I found most interesting is that the media covered it and then promptly back paged it.

But, in response to your later post, do you have a reputable source besides the propagandist aljazeera



[edit on 7-9-2004 by keholmes]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
It is my understanding that chemical/biological munitions have quite a limited lifespan so any chem/bio WMD he used on the kurds would be long past it's sell by date by now. ......

So seeing as how the government currently is trying to dispose of it's chem./bio weapon stockpile.....all of them decades older than Saddams would you be opposed to just dumping them into American rivers?


[edit on 7-9-2004 by keholmes]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 12:20 AM
link   
for every american blunder there is someone to spotlight. see look at this guy it was his fault now shut up people! in a very minute example the abu grab deal was looking bad for Rumsfeild but hey look at this dumb girl in these pictures lets just cast the media spotlight on her yeah that will solve the problem. sure enough has anything really changed? does incarcerating that poor girl fix anything? nothing at all. but that is the least of the US govt worries at this point. just look at Iraq and how the Oil pipelines are being sabatoged so frequently. I am certain it is taking every ounce of effort to secure all the chaos ensueing there. does any one have a figure on how many succesful oil field/pipeline attacks there have been? Just think if CNN/FOX/MSNBC spent half as much time dwelling on this, then all of that pretend geewiz your all dumb if you think this is actual informative news. It really makes me sick.





posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by keholmes
[So seeing as how the government currently is trying to dispose of it's chem./bio weapon stockpile.....all of them decades older than Saddams would you be opposed to just dumping them into American rivers?


The chemicals (in Saddam's gear) would still be harmful to the environment and potentially toxic but 90% will no longer be lethal and will not dissipate in the correct manner. The american WMD which you are referring to are of a MUCH higher quality/tech level than those supposedly possessed by Saddam and will consequently last a much longer time. If you read the link you will see that Saddam actually used most of his WMD in the 8 year long war with Iran and the 'WMD' bush monkey was referring was actually precursor agents and dual use chemical stocks. For example, someone who has chlorine for use in their swimming pool, according to the tree swinger, has chemical weapons since the chlorine could potentially be weaponised.

(edited to make clearer)

[edit on 8-9-2004 by Chris McGee]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Chris McGee
My point was that regardless of how much higher quality our weapons are if they had “quite” a short lifetime then they have had decades longer to deteriorate…and even if higher quality would be the argument for them to be safe which they are not, even 10% is enough to kill a lot of people. As for the rest of your argument you seem to be supporting the wrong position because what you listed would be very easy to conceal in a country the size of Iraq. And where did this socialist website get all that information about were and when Iraq used its weapons ……and with a rustling of the waistband of some underwear…pop outcomes some more information.


[edit on 8-9-2004 by keholmes]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join