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 Regenmacher
Considering the Telegraph is publishing this article they must think it has some merit, or has the Telegraph become a tabloid rag?
Originally posted by Full Metal
Of course you don't like Scott Ritter, he thinks for himself and doesn't worship the ground Bush walks on.
According to the CIA's Duelfer's Report Iraq:
§ HAD NO WMD’s.
§ “had no . . . strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions” ended.
§ Iraq failed “to acquire long range Iraq’s nuclear program ended in 1991 following the Gulf War.
§ “Iraq unilaterally destroyed is undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.”
§ In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent product systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.”
For example, in his address to the nation Bush said the intelligence “leaves no doubt that . . . Iraq . . . continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
Originally posted by aimlessly
I'm sick of this anti war bull crap. Since when does a country NOT have a right to protect itself? Saddam needed to be put out of power, for OUR good not just the Iraqi's that can't stand up for themselves and control their own destiny.....
Originally posted by aimlessly
I'm sick of this anti war bull crap. Since when does a country NOT have a right to protect itself? Saddam needed to be put out of power, for OUR good not just the Iraqi's that can't stand up for themselves and control their own destiny.....
As far as Syria and Iran goes, same thing....In case your not aware, they are THREATS to the US and most of the rest of the world. Whether you believe they have WMD's or not they still host and encourage extreme radical's who have no other thought than destroying the "non holy" and pushing the ideals of radical islam..... I'm not converting.
Originally posted by djohnsto77
Originally posted by Full Metal
Of course you don't like Scott Ritter, he thinks for himself and doesn't worship the ground Bush walks on.
Thinks for himself? Really? I thought he was bought and paid for by Saddam Hussein:
powerlineblog.com...
Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
true to an extent...
as agent smith pointed out
it cannot be a direct comparison unless we remove one huge variable...
the Holocaust...
take the holocaust away, and you have a very appropriate analogy.
you see the same propagandized hate of a cuture (jew/arab)
you see the same illegal methods of influence upon a country (attack)
you see the same false patriotism/fascism that results from the buildup to war.
BUT... that would also be true of most wars, and most military attacks since WW2 also...
Originally posted by aimlessly
So, let's say we didn't go into Iraq. We turn a blind eye to the middle east, as we have for soooooooo many years, what do you think would be happening now?
Do you think the rose colored glasses that many like to wear will keep the peace?
Personally i feel that this war was a long time coming. Yes it's for oil, yes it's for freedom, yes it is for just purging the world of some really sick pukes that only understand warfare. They don't understand diplomacy, let's sit down and talk out our differences, right. That will happen.