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.


MI6 and CIA were told before invasion that Iraq had no active WMD

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Hopechest

Whether the stated reason was truthful or not is sort of irrelevant.
I agree with taking him out but I think it should of been done in a completely different manner that didn't put the burden of cost on us.
Aren't you Precious!

800,000 Innocent Iraqies
7000 Coalition Forces

But the Lies to start the war were (how did you put it) "Sort of Irrelevant"

And the COST OF THE WAR, is what upset you?

(needs repeating) Arent you Precious.

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:58 PM
reply to post by Tw0Sides

That's what we have now.. People defending and legitimizing the "goodness" of the war.

They critique the war on practical grounds and not moral, thereby defending the "good intentions" of the war.

I'm not criticizing that poster specifically but that is the technique employed now in retrospect.
edit on 18-3-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 08:03 PM

Originally posted by alienreality
You know, the most inhumane and sickening thing about this whole dirty affair with all the lies, done to prop up political positions and such, is the fact that they did this at the expense of peoples kids in the military.. Sending people to die in a false war just to make a profit of political power or money..

Yes, and even those soldiers had doubts about what they were being asked to do. Though they would not have known about "Curveball" they did know that stuff they destroyed were not mobile chemical units or worse, but listening posts full of computers however, there were similarities to what "Curveball" described as mobile chemical units or worse. There was a good American documentary on that just recently, and I don't think that even "Curveball" is such a wallyburger, and he does have his own responsibility for all those war deaths, one way or another.

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 08:50 PM

Originally posted by nwtrucker
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

Considering the U.S. gave Saddam the anthrax seed and the chemical weapons. That they used them on the Kurds, killing, what 100's of thousands? There is some reason to believe Saddam's minister??

He had em, he used em and he refused open U.N. inspection.

You must be a kidding. Everything is a conspiracy....yah right.

Would you like to support that claim that the United States supplied Chemical and Biological weapons to Iraq? To my knowledge, that would be the first time in our nation's history for that having been done. Even ENGLAND doesn't get WMD from us. They've made their own, like everyone else.

There are A LOT of factors involved for why no major world power in their right MIND would give WMD warheads to another nation. Any other nation. Not LEAST of which being ....If Saddam had gone and used one covertly to try and set us'd carry all the markers which weapons experts use to determine what area of the world and specifically what nation a weapon came from.

There's a lot more, but that's a primary reason. I've heard people since 1991 saying the U.S. gave him the weapons...and I've yet to ever see ANYTHING like proof. Not stories or general supposition. Actual source material type proof. Never seen any...and I doubt I ever will.

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 08:57 PM

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

Interesting information to add to the stack..but I have a question. Why would they have believed these guys? They were in a position they were about to lose if we invaded (We sacked the WHOLE Government and authority structure and that was a predictable move for us). Aside from the fact, other "high level sources" who the public later learned were fabricating little trolls ...also said they did exist. Also Saddam's henchmen saying it. Who to believe?

I supported the invasion at the time because I believed Bush and TPTB must have more information. There must be plenty in the "Classified" stack the public simply wasn't seeing to make it all logical and right. In discovering over the years since how unfounded that hope and faith had been, I'll be the first to nominate Cheney in particular, but Bush as well, for a seat in a Witness chair and their very own Defendants table. Not international (This is America...not the UN.. Global Courts can stick it) but U.S. accounting for what happened.

^^^ having said that, so someone doesn't claim I'm some shill for Bush or whatever... This just seems opportunistic of the BBC. We invaded Iraq, ostensibly, on the intelligence and data derived by insiders of the Saddam regime...but then we were supposed to call it off because OTHER insiders of the same regime said it wasn't so? Err...

There is fire beneath the smoke for people like the BBC to find..Indeed. I think this is fluff and poor journalism though. Just my opinion.

No WMD in Iraq. Lied and said there was.

Countless lives lost. Countless injured.

$800 billion wasted.

Thousands of dead Kurds and wards of Iranian victims from the battlefield are the hard physical evidence that Saddam DID, at one time at least, have quite a healthy development of Chemical weapons running. Just as Libya had a very advanced WMD program...and far MORE advanced than anyone suspected, to read the technical papers on what they voluntarily handed over to Western powers after Iraq was invaded.

I have no clue when Saddam dumped his weapons. Obviously well before Bush sent in the troops. I haven't heard anyone else with more than guess work and wild theories say with any certainty either. He had them and he had them in 1991. If anyone can find the 60 minutes episode, they had a special after the 1991 war about the bunkers blown ...with video of the inside of them....which at the time, people were claiming caused Gulf War Syndome by the accidental exposure of destroying them.

He didn't have any by the time the US got there the second time. So....Where did they go? Good question...but to suggest he never had them is to ignore thousands of bodies that died from his Chemical attacks.

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

In my reply to you in the last page I provided proof of those claims. Maybe you haven't gotten around to writing a response...

"US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.
As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.
The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.
They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.
The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act."

Hopefully that's enough proof for you. If I need to find the actual State Department docs for anyone, let me know. I figured that's enough.
edit on 18-3-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:11 PM
What EXACTLY did the United States GIVE to Iraq anyway?
Is there any intell on that?

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:14 PM
"On November 1, 1983, a full month before Mr Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad, Secretary of State George Shultz was officially informed that the CIA had discovered Iraqi troops were resorting to 'almost daily use of chemical weapons' against the Iranians.
Nevertheless, Mr Rumsfeld arranged for the Iraqis to receive billions of pounds in loans to buy weapons and CIA Director William Casey used a Chilean front company to supply Iraq with cluster bombs.
According to the Washington Post, a Senate committee investigating the relationship between the US and Iraq discovered that in the mid-1980s - following the Rumsfeld visit - dozens of biological agents were shipped to Iraq under licence from the Commerce Department.
They included anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare programme.
The newspaper says: 'The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare.'
At the time of his meeting with Saddam, Mr Rumsfeld was working for Searle - a company which dealt only in medicinal pharmaceuticals."

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:18 PM
David Kelly.
Valerie Plame
Jessica Lynch

What idiot still believes anything about Iraq?

We went in for weapons of mass destruction that never existed. We never had intelligence of these weapons existing.

Do you think the USA would send 150,000 men and women face first into a biological war?

I hope they hang for their crimes and I hope Bill Orielly as the new age 'Goebbels' hangs with them.

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by PatriotGames2

Just a FYI, neither anthrax nor bubonic plague are viral. They're bacterial. Big difference and it makes the source questionable.

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by lynxpilot

Haha, okay... Kinda splitting hairs now aren't we?

Whatever the category, anthrax at the very least has been touted vigorously as an extremely dangerous bacteria that can be weaponized. They've scared the crap out of most of us using the anthrax threat... But now it comes out we sold it to someone and it's not that bad because it ain't viral?

Is that right?

Not sure why it discredits the source. I see they call them viruses but this is based on our governments own records in case you didn't see that. We're talking biological and chemical weapons here.. I think anthrax and bubonic fit, at least in my eyes...
edit on 18-3-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-3-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:44 PM
reply to post by PatriotGames2

They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.

You're quoting a media source that is quoting ANOTHER media source. They're referring to declassified State Department Documents...That would be source material and not media rumor or story telling... Got a link to the source material and not what the media claims it says? Call me skeptical..but we all spend hours on here bashing the MSM....but on what would be one of the most important stories in recent history, they are now 100% credible to refute accepted events? Umm... Not based on that sourcing they aren't.

Also... Rumsfeld said? This is the same Rumsfeld no one here believes if he says the sky is blue..right? I'll hold anything else until (or unless...since I've not heard of these before) I actually see and then read, specifically for wording and context, what they are saying indicates this.

The truth is out there ....but it's not in the pages of the Telegraph or New York Times...let alone the Washington Post. Dig deeper are my sentiments. That's far from enough to hang THIS large an accusation and re-write of history on, IMO.

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:48 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I totally agree with you about the media. But it's not me who needs to do the digging, I've read the source material. I can go find the docs for you but something tells me it'll be something else you'll need after that.

If you really care about the truth, which Rabbit I believe you do after reading many of your posts, YOU will do the necessary digging and put forth the effort.

I tell my friends all the time, "The truth is out there but it will not be given to you, you must find it".

I've done that.

And to be fair, the "official narrative" of events suggests that many of Iraqs weapons did not come from the US and in fact the US stopped shipments of certain chemical weapons to Iraq. But due to the documents and piecing together I have done, this was standard show for the public while more nefarious things were going on.

As far as the public is concerned though, it is clear the US government had no problem with Iraq using chemical weapons on Iran because of strategic interests at that time. The US continued to back Iraq despite their usage of these weapons because they viewed Iran as the bigger threat. The Kurds were a different story of course. A Kurds life must be worth more.
edit on 18-3-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-3-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:19 PM
"The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.'"

The Riegle Report - U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the Gulf War

From the introduction: "In October 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has Senate oversight responsibility for the Export Administration Act (EAA), held an inquiry into the U.S. export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. inspectors identified many U.S. - manufactured items exported pursuant to licenses issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce that were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs."

Let me welcome all those in attendance this morning.

This is a very important hearing and we'll take whatever time we need today to pursue all of the issues that Members want to raise. Of course, we have a follow-on hearing later in the afternoon.

I'm going to give an opening statement that summarizes what brings us to this hearing this morning. Then I'm going to call on Senator D'Amato and other Members in the order in which they've arrived.

I also want to acknowledge the presence in the room of some of our Gulf War veterans who are suffering from the Gulf War Syndrome. I appreciate very much both their service to this country and their attendance the morning.

Back in 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which is the Committee which has Senate oversight for the Export Administration Act, held an inquiry into the United States export policy to Iraq prior to the Persian Gulf War. During that hearing it was learned that U.N. inspectors had identified many United States-manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and missile delivery system development programs.

The Committee has worked to ensure since that time that this will not happen again and the Export Administration Act legislation we reported out yesterday by a 19 to nothing bipartisan vote is an illustration of that.

edit on 18-3-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

S&F for this .. however..

this was clearly on CNN a month before 9/11...saw it personally .. even a doc is floating around from the Internatioal Nuc commision guys.. forget the name stated WAY back then .. that there were NO WMD's

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:34 PM
The Reagan and Bush administrations’ Commerce Departments allow US companies and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to export chemical and biological agents as well as other dual-use items to Iraq, despite the country’s known record of using chemical weapons. According to government regulations, the Commerce Department must send applications for export licenses which involve items related to national security to the appropriate US government agencies for review. Reviewing agencies include the State Department, Department of Defense, Energy Department, and Subgroup on Nuclear Export Coordination. But in many cases, the Commerce Department either does not send national security-related applications to these agencies for review, or if it does, it overrides a review agency’s recommendation not to grant a license, allowing the item to be exported anyway. [TIMMERMAN, 1991, PP. 202, 410; JENTLESON, 1994, PP. 79] According to two Senate Committee Reports that will be completed in 1994, one on May 25 and another on October 7, dual-use chemical and biological agents exported to Iraq from the US significantly contributed to the country’s weapons arsenal. The initial May report will say the agents “were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction” and the October report will reveal that the “microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program.” The 1994 investigation also determines that other exports such as plans and equipment also contributed significantly to Iraq’s military capabilities. “UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and established] that these items were used to further Iraq’s chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development program,” Donald Riegle, the chairman of the committee, will explain. He also says that between January 1985 and August 1990, the “executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq.” [US CONGRESS, 5/25/1994; US CONGRESS, 5/25/1994; US CONGRESS, 10/7/1994; COUNTERPUNCH, 8/20/2002; SUNDAY HERALD (GLASGOW), 9/8/2002; LONDON TIMES, 12/31/2002]
edit on 18-3-2013 by PatriotGames2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:43 PM
It would have been very unwise to invade them if they actually did have WMD. This should show any “rogue nation” or remaining “axis or evil” member that the best defence against aggression is to not try to abide by UN rules and prove they don't have WMD or are building them but to build them and have a real and tangible deterrence against aggression. It's the only way to protect yourself against these fanatics sadly.
edit on 18-3-2013 by Strakha because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:53 PM
Also rest in peace David Kelly for telling us the truth despite the risk of doing it. His "suicide" after telling the truth was questionable at best. Rest in peace every last soul who died in this Zionist war whether they be British, American, Iraqi or anyone else.

posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 12:01 AM
iirc, pre-OIF, IAEA inspectors were denied access and detained.

otoh, Hans Blick has a weird background himself.

posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 12:04 AM
Very good posts and information. I sure don't have anything to add on the topic of blame. What does it matter anyway, who is to blame? I remember the Viet Nam war era very well. I thought for sure we learned a lesson from that, but no, we went on to two simultaneous wars. And, already we want to forget the tens of thousands of wounded veterans who will need lifetime medical care with the same old excuse of budget cuts.

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in