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.
originally posted by: ~Lucidity
As if many, many, many of us didn't already know it was a lie and an illogical argument. There were no WMD. No mass graves. Lies and vapor.
I think they should all be hung like Saddam was. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Giuliani, Blair and all the other criminals who were complicit. In public. And that every family who lost someone on 9/11 and as a result of their war of lies should be paid reparations from the fortunes they made from both.
And the people who believed that any of that or the new lies being told today to make fortunes, who pretend to cower in fear and who instill fear are on notice too.
Iraq had no plans or ability to attack the USA with conventional or chem/bio weapons - the us lied and said they did
Iraq's intentions with regard to the operational use of its biological and chemical weapons have been subject to conflicting presentations by Iraqi authorities. On the one side, it was explained that the biological and chemical weapons were seen by Iraq as a useful means to counter a numerically superior force; on the other, they were presented as a means of last resort for retaliation in the case of a nuclear attack on Baghdad. Certain documentation supports the contention that Iraq was actively planning and had actually deployed its chemical weapons in a pattern corresponding to strategic and offensive use through surprise attack against perceived enemies. The known pattern of deployment of long-range missiles (Al Hussein) supports this contention. Iraq stated to UNSCOM that authority to launch biological and chemical warheads was pre-delegated in the event that Baghdad was hit by nuclear weapons during the Gulf war. This pre-delegation does not exclude the alternative use of such a capability and therefore does not constitute proof of only intentions concerning second use.
originally posted by: BrothermanThings like the "Victory Over America" Palace and other anti west sentiments throughout the region lead me to believe that Saddam was not very friendly to the US.
originally posted by: jed001
i have a friend that does special ops in the middle east and i asked him if there were any WMDs found in Iraq , and he said yes and i know he is not the kind of person to lie a reply to: Kapusta
originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
What was used on the Kurdish people then?
Fairly dust?
No, chemical weapons were used which also were supplied by the US and US companies back in the 80's when the US fully supported Iraq during the Iraqi- Iran war
originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: Aazadan
So maybe he violated them "conditions" by restarting his chemical weapons program and got ousted.
originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: MrWendal
No, chemical weapons were used which also were supplied by the US and US companies back in the 80's when the US fully supported Iraq during the Iraqi- Iran war
He had the capability to create his own chemical weapons by 2000 and probably earlier as well those supplied in the 80s would have been inert by 2003.
originally posted by: crazyewok
Any country with any sort or credible industry could create chemical weapons.
The "ability to create chemical weapons" could be used as a excuse to take out any country that is not kept Pre Industrial.
originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: Aazadan
I've linked sufficient reports above take them or leave them, I don't feel a need to argue about it.