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

page: 2
144
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Anybody who remembers knows this anyway but it's good that it's breaking via the media.

The ones who are under the governments control need to be woken up to realize that the government doesn't have their best interests at heart.




posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Hopechest
 




And to be fair here, if anyone needed to be removed it was Saddam and his regime. He had started a war with Iran


He was backed by the USA and other Western allies during the war with Iran...therefore should we not also remove the administrations who assisted him?

As for his treatment of the Kurds and other groups of Iraqis, I found it to be disgusting, but "we" allowed it to happen so would "we" not share some of the guilt?

When I say "we" I mean the governments who participated in these murderous campaigns.


You don't really understand how international politics works. Who is your friend today may very well be your enemy tomorrow. Its just the way the world works. Simply because we supported him at one time in no way means we must be loyal to him no matter what happens in the future.

The US operates from a realism point of view and therefore will use whatever means are available at the time to ensure their security. When situations change our alliances will change to keep that security in place. Regardless of what's happened in the past.

Do we share guild for the Kurds?

Absolutely not. We did not gas them and I'm not sure how you think we let it happen. Did Saddam call us up and tell us his plan and we gave him the OK to do it?

Probably not. Yes we backed out our support after the first war and that was wrong but we had no part in the gassing.
edit on 18-3-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 

Reasons? I think Bush was pursuing the legacy of his Father to finish what Daddy couldn't. Sometimes I think the motivations of these things CAN be that simple...and people sometimes forget, these leaders are human beings too. Same weaknesses, emotional issues and character flaws as the grocery store clerk or the guy delivering the mail. He had to upstage Daddy. After all.....If you were around and watching in 2001 after Bush won, I'd remarked at the time, he was building a War Cabinet by the choices of people. Long before 9/11, of course..he was in a frame of mind for war. I think BUSH intended the Iraq war from a time before he even took Office. 9/11 just threw a wrench OR made it even easier...depending on how one sees it.

Cheney, Wolfowitz and a couple other policy leaders for the war? I think they just had visions of grand battles, great victories and a place with their name in a history book as the grand victors where all had failed before. Ignorance, Hubris and Vanity. Again..It's a real simple explanation but I think we really over-think motivations sometimes. These guys CAN be that simple minded, IMO.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 




You don't really understand how international politics works.


With all due respect you really need to rethink that statement as your posts in this thread indicate it is YOU who does not understand how international politics work.



Who is your friend today may very well be your enemy tomorrow. Its just the way the world works. Simply because we supported him at one time in no way means we must be loyal to him no matter what happens in the future.


I know this already, but it does not make it right. Not agreeing with something does not mean I do not understand how it works. These are people's lives we are playing with here, it's not all a strategic game as you make it sound to be, unless you are one of the global elite who profit from these wars.



The US operates from a realism point of view and therefore will use whatever means are available at the time to ensure their security. When situations change our alliances will change to keep that security in place. Regardless of what's happened in the past.


No, the US operates from an Imperialism point of view therefore they will use whatever means necessary at the time to justify their murderous campaigns. They lie to their citizens so their young line up for the slaughter while being under the influence of the lies that were told to create the "conflict".

As for alliances, I partially agree with you on your outlook but it still does not make it right and disagreeing with it still does not mean I do not know how world politics work. Alliances are usually fake and always serve a purpose. I find it quite deceptive in the way that Western nations use these alliances as it is strictly for profit and advancement of their agenda, not for the protection of their own citizens.



Do we share guild for the Kurds?

Absolutely not. We did not gas them and I'm not sure how you think we let it happen. Did Saddam call us up and tell us his plan and we gave him the OK to do it?

Probably not. Yes we backed out our support after the first war and that was wrong but we had no part in the gassing.


I am assuming you meant guilt and not guild, going on that assumption...US forces had every chance to stop that slaughter and just left them there to die. Sure they didn't take part in that massacre but they were certainly held complicity by omission. The Kurds were begging for their help yet the US forces simply ignored their requests due to the orders they were given...they were just doing their job right?...so were the Nazis.

There is a good chance that the gases used on those Kurds actually came from the USA, but it could have certainly come from a different supplier as many nations supplied Iraq with these poisons.

Ok, now I will admit I have dabbled a bit off topic but I just wanted to point out a few things regarding your post.
edit on 3/18/2013 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
And to be fair here, if anyone needed to be removed it was Saddam and his regime. He had started a war with Iran, he tried to invade Kuwait, he gassed over 5000 of his own people, he was continuing a policy of torture of political enemies...the list is very long of his crimes.

Whether the stated reason was truthful or not is sort of irrelevant. You have to look at what factors are required before the world community should take action to remove someone in power. 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.


oh?
have you ever researched the Iraninan genocide of the kurds ( not to mention Iranians under the US INSTALLED AND SUPPORTED SHAW?
obviously not

here for your perusal:

Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Did Iran gas the Kurds? Claims of Saddam's Genocide Far from Proven
www.mediamonitors.net...

From Media Monitors:

What Happened at Halabja?

The only verified Kurdish civilian deaths from chemical weapons occurred in the Iraqi village of Halabja, near the Iran border, where at least several hundred people died from gas poisoning in mid-March, 1988.

We know that Iran overran the village and its small garrison of Iraqi troops; what is contested is who was responsible for the deaths--Iran or Iraq--and how large the death toll was.
The best evidence is a 1990 report by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.[2] Marine Corps document FMFRP 3-203, "Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War," dated December 10, 1990.

iran-persia.blogspot.ca...
9includes link to reference doc in above quote}

why is apologists for the most heinous of international crimes of this huge magnitude always seem to just quote the party line?

just like the recent admission that the US special forces blew up all the oil wells not Saddam:
cheney's company and friends made large off of that didn't they?

makes one wonder who else got paid


ps eta
what the apologists support:

Iran
Especially under Reza Shah Pahlavi (1925941), Iran undertook a policy of forcible Persianization of the Kurds through linguicide and ethnocide as well as war, killing, jail, and deportations. As early as 1923, speaking Kurdish had been banned in schools and other state institutions, and by the mid-1930s, a total ban on the language and culture was imposed. Under the Pahlavi dynasty (1925979)

www.enotes.com...
edit on 18-3-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


have you ever researched the Iraninan genocide of the kurds ( not to mention Iranians under the US INSTALLED AND SUPPORTED SHAW?
obviously not


I read your material and it raises the question? What does it have to to with Saddam needing removed? You're making the case for Obama to act against Iran and showing BOTH nations were terrible..but it does nothing to bolster any defense of the madman in Iraq. (For the record..I'm 100% against action against Iran unless they attack first..and SO OBVIOUSLY...even their own allies don't doubt what happened)

I'd also note a HUGE difference between Iraq and Iran. Iraq was a cult of personality with a Government and whole system designed around and to service one man. Woe be anyone who disagreed with that one man for there was no appeal in Saddam's Iraq. Iran, on the other hand, is a structure we'd be more familiar with. It's no Western Democracy but it's FAR from seeing power concentrated in a single pair of hands...

That matters in saying Saddam's removal (If it could have come from Iraqis and/or without a war) would have largely ended the problem. Saddam may have had a replacement..but doubtful. He did what most tyrants do and killed everyone capable of replacing him along the way. Job Security.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   


I know this already, but it does not make it right. Not agreeing with something does not mean I do not understand how it works. These are people's lives we are playing with here, it's not all a strategic game as you make it sound to be, unless you are one of the global elite who profit from these wars.


What does right have to do with it?

Absolutely nothing. The world doesn't operate on the premise of what's right and wrong and if you try to understand it in those terms you will end up constantly frustrated. And yes, all of international politics is a strategic game. That's why when political scientist try to understand it they do so under the title of "game theory."

A point often overlooked by many people is that much of the world community did not want to go to war with Iraq. As such, Saddam was giving terms to avoid a war, quite a few months if I remember correctly. The US could not have invaded if Saddam would have accepted these conditions.

Is it right or fair that one nation forces its will upon another to demand concessions?

Probably not but it is reality. Its been this way throughout history. When your a smaller nation facing off against a more powerful one you either get destroyed or you play the game and live to fight another day, hopefully gaining allies or strength in the process.

Point is that Saddam could still be in power today if he had made different choices. Was it right?

Irrelevant.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Danbones
 


have you ever researched the Iraninan genocide of the kurds ( not to mention Iranians under the US INSTALLED AND SUPPORTED SHAW?
obviously not


I read your material and it raises the question? What does it have to to with Saddam needing removed? You're making the case for Obama to act against Iran and showing BOTH nations were terrible..but it does nothing to bolster any defense of the madman in Iraq. (For the record..I'm 100% against action against Iran unless they attack first..and SO OBVIOUSLY...even their own allies don't doubt what happened)

I'd also note a HUGE difference between Iraq and Iran. Iraq was a cult of personality with a Government and whole system designed around and to service one man. Woe be anyone who disagreed with that one man for there was no appeal in Saddam's Iraq. Iran, on the other hand, is a structure we'd be more familiar with. It's no Western Democracy but it's FAR from seeing power concentrated in a single pair of hands...

That matters in saying Saddam's removal (If it could have come from Iraqis and/or without a war) would have largely ended the problem. Saddam may have had a replacement..but doubtful. He did what most tyrants do and killed everyone capable of replacing him along the way. Job Security.


what does it have to do with the removal of someone elses sovreign government?

As I said
the US installed and supported shaw was one of the most evil leaders ever
he committed genocide all around ( to the kurds ) and it was OK

gee, the US has been infinitly more evil then saddam ever was, as has been the british empire
where is the regime change there?

and no WMDs?
wow


oh yeah, after there was no WMDs, they said look at the way they treat woman in IRAQ, remeber that?
then it came out one third of the women in the US army have been raped and the majority above that are not reported
Even if its tacit support, thats what you are supporting here W
a double standard you could drive a humvee through

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



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 




What does right have to do with it?


It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Until you are capable of accepting that fact I am unsure if I can address the remainder of your post as it would be a waste of my time and yours as well.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by PW229
We'll never see Bush, Cheney, Blair, Rumsfeld etc in the Hague.

I still remember almost 1 million British people marching on London to say "NO" to war and still we went. Follow the money...


The government can go to what ever war they like legal or not as long as the soldiers dont mind.

As most of the soldiers say: We have a job to do.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by Hopechest
 




What does right have to do with it?


It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Until you are capable of accepting that fact I am unsure if I can address the remainder of your post as it would be a waste of my time and yours as well.


Countries do not operate on the premise of what is right or wrong. They operate on the premise of security. Whatever it takes to maintain that security (whatever version they decide to follow) is what they consider right. You can not attribute morals to that.

Was it right for the US and the Soviet Union to fight proxy wars instead of battling each other? Millions died yet there was no nuclear war.

Was that right?

Do you see the problem with your reasoning yet?



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


gee, the US has been infinitly more evil then saddam ever was, as has been the british empire
where is the regime chenge there?


Well.. I think we may part company on this, right there. I'm wide open to admitting and even helping to explore new issues my nation and Government has which needs looked at and accounted for. The U.S. Government has done some NASTY NASTY stuff over the years. There is NO question on that. I don't excuse ..or try to make new excuses for it. It's what has to be exposed at some point before the nation can move forward without the ghosts of the past dogging us, every step. (Some ghosts are still in office and need retired too)

Having said that, where can you come up with the idea that the US was far more evil than Saddam? Specifically, by examples, what do you mean? You're familiar with the massacre of the Kurds with Chem weapons I presume? (without pointing to OTHER bad behavior to justify that atrocity, please) Where did the US do the same or even similar in modern times?

(If you want to go back to the 1800's, we'll do that with other nations too...and the U.S. still comes out looking average to the norm at worst for the times. Bad times all over in some ways)

I just don't quite understand the position some take where the United States is, above all others it seems, the worst thing to ever grace the face of this Earth. Who is #2, then? When the U.S. is gone, in some people's wishes...who is the next worst in that thinking? The Russians? Chinese? Hmmm.... 10's of millions of civilians executed in both nations ..and all in that same recent history of the 20th, not 19th century.

** I have to jump off for classes...but I happen to be in a course where we're studying direct source material from a man that worked the investigation, personally and on site, for the Kurdish massacre. I may be able to get some interesting material in support if anyone doubts it happened or how it happened.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
This is in breaking news?
What next, man lands on moon, well maybe that one could go in a few places on ATS from what I've seen.

They didn't need telling about the lack of WMDs before the invasion, just a quick look at who they'd sold them to would have told them that



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
It doesn't matter who gassed who - only who does the blaming of it benefit?

First Iraq - the sheeple of the US/World were told how they did this as a pretext and justification to launch military action

Next - Iran. When they decide to step up the PR campaign to sell any military action against Iran, I'm sure the blame will be placed on them



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


the amazing situation is the hot air those despicable senators can come up with when they claim they have been lied to, stained dress from pres. clinton, bengrazzi, etc.

but when lied about the golf of tonkin, the babies thrown on the floor in a kuwait hospital, weapons of mass destruction, these kill hundreds of thousands but are not investigated.

we are ruled by scoundrels, the only conclusion one can come up with.

and then we hear about, why did the germens not say anything about the nazi?

from living in the usa, the answer must be, as long as they are my criminals it's ok.

as to the uk and others, it's easier to go along with the usa, than to stand for what's right.

hail to the emperor!



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


You have been lied to and unfortunately have fallen for the propaganda which you have been fed.



Countries do not operate on the premise of what is right or wrong. They operate on the premise of security.


You are wrong, most countries operate on their strategic interests which are profit and domination, not the actual security of their citizens as in reality the only global threat at the moment is the NATO war machine who pretty much does what ever USA, UK, and Israel tells them to.

Please tell me how the invasion of Iraq improved the domestic security of Americans or the Brits?



Whatever it takes to maintain that security (whatever version they decide to follow) is what they consider right.


Once again, there were no threats against their security. The only threats were the false claims made by our governments and their state sponsored media.



You can not attribute morals to that.


That's the problem with people like you, morals can be attributed to that, and should be attributed to everything. Until the world starts acting on morality versus greed and blood lust we will always be at war.



Was it right for the US and the Soviet Union to fight proxy wars instead of battling each other? Millions died yet there was no nuclear war.

Was that right?


Millions died by proxy during the cold war?

There were various wars during the cold war such as Korea and Vietnam, but these were not fought by proxy due to the cold war.

I won't go too far off topic about the cold war, but it was pretty obvious that it was put in place to justify gigantic military defense budgets and to put the fear of the newest badest bogeyman into the citizens of various nations.

And no, it was not right.



Do you see the problem with your reasoning yet?


There is no problem with my reasoning, do you see the problem with yours yet?
edit on 3/18/2013 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by moonrunner
This is in breaking news?
What next, man lands on moon, well maybe that one could go in a few places on ATS from what I've seen.

They didn't need telling about the lack of WMDs before the invasion, just a quick look at who they'd sold them to would have told them that


This is breaking news due to the fact that the article discusses "fresh evidence" that will be revealed on a BBC programme this evening.


A special BBC Panorama programme tonight will reveal how British and US intelligence agencies were informed by top sources months before the invasion that Iraq had no active WMD programme, and that the information was not passed to subsequent inquiries.


SInce the article came out today and the evidence is alleged to be "fresh" it certainly falls within the BAN forum guidelines. If you believe this is in the incorrect forum please contact a moderator.

In your defense, many of us have known this to be true for years regardless of any new evidence that may be presented.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   


You are wrong, most countries operate on their strategic interests which are profit and domination, not the actual security of their citizens as in reality the only global threat at the moment is the NATO war machine who pretty much does what ever USA, UK, and Israel tells them to.


You'll notice that I said "whatever they perceive security to be". A dictator would consider security his ability to remain in power whereas someone like Napolean or Hitler would consider security to be expansionism.




Please tell me how the invasion of Iraq improved the domestic security of Americans or the Brits?


It didn't which was why I was against it. The reasons for their decision is still unknown since none of us were in the room while it was being decided. I can guarantee you this though. The Bush team obviously had a reason for doing it, whether it was a good reason or a bad one, they felt the need to invade and sell it to the American people.




That's the problem with people like you, morals can be attributed to that, and should be attributed to everything. Until the world starts acting on morality versus greed and blood lust we will always be at war.


In a perfect world everything would be decided on a morality basis. We do not live in a perfect world however and people don't always operate according to what is morally right or wrong. You can't understand international politics by holding it to a moral standard. You have to understand that many people and countries operate from different standards.




Millions died by proxy during the cold war?


Millions died in China alone as we instigated the Sino-Soviet split. We encouraged Mao to break from the Soviets at the expense of turning a blind eye to his regime's practices.




There were various wars during the cold war such as Korea and Vietnam, but these were not fought by proxy due to the cold war.


This is one of the most unfactual claims you've made today. Of course it was fought by proxy for the sole purpose of containing the spread of communism. The US was absolutely paranoid about the "Domino Theory" where once you let one country fall the rest of the area will fall also.

It dominated every aspect of foreign policy over multiple presidencies. The Truman doctrine and the Monroe doctrine were born out of this. The Red Scare came out of it....it was the sole driving force of this era.

It had absolutely nothing to do with budgets. Conspiracies are fine but sometimes you need to look at the reality of the world around you. Sometimes that's even more scary than contrived notions about motives.
edit on 18-3-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Kind of makes me wonder if THIS was part of a false-flag op to get the ball rolling. After the WTC event, Bush was going hog wild on the premise that Iraq was behind it, and before all the chips fell, was pushing for an invasion. Even after the hijackers were identified, none of which were Iraqi, they tried to pin the blame on supposed Iraqi intelligence agents talking to the hijackers beforehand. Then the anthrax event in the link, when it failed to incite public support for an invasion of Iraq, it was conveniently blamed on a military researcher who conveniently took his life.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   


And to be fair here, if anyone needed to be removed it was Saddam and his regime. He had started a war with Iran, he tried to invade Kuwait, he gassed over 5000 of his own people, he was continuing a policy of torture of political enemies...the list is very long of his crimes.
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Come on, do you really want to justify invading Iraq because of a dictator our own country supported? So lets invade North Korea and Iran under the same pretenses. The people of Iraq needed to overthrow their own dictator. Revolutions only have a lasting affect when people of these countries overthrow their own governments. It's not the duty of another country thousands of miles away to remove a dictator.

We now have another leader in Iraq by the name of Nouri al-Maliki that has been backed by the U.S.. It's now backfiring and the Sunni, Shi'a and Kurds are still at each other's throats. He's now threatening the Kurd population in Iraq. Removing Sadam did nothing but switch the balance of power in that country.

Lets not lose focus on why we invaded Iraq. Sadam and his sons were ruthless dictators, but the same can be said of many others dictators in the world today. There was a secret agenda to invade Iraq and Sadam was just another scapegoat to justify invading it. A majority of the Sunni population supported Sadam.

You didn't see any large celebration after Sadam's government was toppled. It's also a fact, the video of Sadam's statue being pulled down kicked and spat on was staged for the media.
edit on 18-3-2013 by WeRpeons because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
144
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join