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.

 

They chose to reject a proposal that may have prevented the war

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2003 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Read this:
"U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441"
Link:
usinfo.state.gov...

Excerpt:
"Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material...."


Funny thing about that resolution, Hadley and Bartlett, didn't know what to say when they were questioned about the failure of the British government to disclose proof of WMDs to the UN as required by this very thing. They also couldn't give a straight answer as to why we didn't insist upon Britain's observance of this part of the resolution. Especially since we were using both the British intelligence and Saddam's failure to obey UN resolution 1441 to justify our invasion of Iraq. The following is from a` press conference about the Presidents false claims in his State of the Union address that Saddam bought 550 tons of uranium from Africa. Their explanation starts off pretty believable, but once the questioning begins they both turned into Porky Pig.

Press Briefing on Iraq WMD and SOTU Speech
The Roosevelt Room
3:45 P.M. EDT

Q Can I follow up one thing on the British intelligence? And tell me if I'm wrong. According to 1441, Article 10, if there is solid intelligence on nukes, aren't you required to share that with the IAEA? And, if so, why haven't the British done that?

MR. BARTLETT: I can't speak on behalf of the British government.

Q Well, am I wrong? Is that not -- I mean --

MR. HADLEY: I'm sorry, I had to read a note passed to me, and I didn't hear you. Could I ask you to repeat the question?

Q Fourteen forty-one, Article 10, part of it says that any government with information relating to Saddam's pursuit of nuclear weapons is required to provide that information to the IAEA. So it seems odd that the British wouldn't do that, having signed off on 1441, and, yet, sort of tap this intelligence that they're not sharing with anyone else.

MR. BARTLETT: Again, we can't speak on behalf of the British government.

Q Well, wouldn't we press them? I mean, they're your partner is this coalition and --

MR. HADLEY: Think -- we ought to -- you may want to look back at 1441. My guess is -- and you'd have to examine it -- but one possible explanation is that a lot of that was to get information to UNMOVIC and IAEA in order to make the inspection regime successful. And it was asking all countries to share intelligence with IAEA and UNMOVIC to support the effort which we were, at that point, in terms of conducting a vigorous inspection regime. So I think that's probably the context. And you can decide whether you think this discussion about efforts to acquire in Niger would help an effort to find WMD in Iraq. That's the only -- you know, that's a guess. You might want to go back and take a look at it and see if I'm -- but that's a possible explanation. That's the best I can do. I don't have the document in front of me.
This is from the very same source that you used,
www.whitehouse.gov...
I posted it earlier in my other reply as well.


the freakin' list goes on as to why the UN "was satisfied with the amount of Iraqi compliances"....just ask Kofi how much money he lost out of the US going to war with Iraq......

If the UN was siding with France and Germany, for personal profit or benefits, then why did we cite information from their inspectors reports and use their resolutions to assist in justifying the war? Wouldn't it have been unreliable or a conflict of interest to use information from a council that was so unsympathetic to the threat Saddam's regime posed to the USA"?



The administration said this in response to those "overtures":
"President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours"
www.whitehouse.gov...
And Iraq said:
"Aide: Saddam Behind Last-Ditch Attempt To Stop War
Purported Deal Said To Have Crumbled When U.S. Demanded Saddam Step Down"

Link:
www.wftv.com...

Making "deals" with Saddam is like making "deals" with a snake.......

While I appreciate the attempt to corroborate your statements, if you are going to question the integrity of my sources, at least have the courtesy to go to the actual source of the interview to show me up. This link you provided is no more or less valid than anything I gave. The original interview was done with ABC news and this is the link to the whole interview: abcnews.go.com...
Possible Deal Aborted?
Claim: U.S. Government Spurned Peace Talks Before the War With Iraq
By Brian Ross and Chris Vlasto
ABCNEWS.com
Nov. 5� A possible negotiated peace deal was laid out in a heavily guarded compound in Baghdad in the days before the war, ABCNEWS has been told, but a top former Pentagon adviser says he was ordered not to pursue the deal.



Oh my, and look....no use of leftist, anti-war, propagandamatrix or other "propagandist" nonsense.....


1. The Washington Post is a legitimate news source, and the information from their site can be verified elsewhere, quite easily.

2. The only reason I used the Propaganda Matrix link was because they had it available for free. I don't have a subscription to news.independent.co.uk...
and would have had to buy the story just so that you could read the same thing from the actual news site.
Propagandamatrix is a very truthful, straight forward site and just because it reports news you don't believe, doesn't mean they are lying. I always verify that there is at least one other source to a story, if I fear the information may be untrue. If you can provide valid information, not just excuses from the Bush gang, that refutes the information I referenced, I will be more than happy to check it out.
If you really want to know where PropagandaMatrix gets it's news, take a look at: propagandamatrix.com...
It might cause you to rethink you're rude remarks about the integrity of the information I posted thru there.

3. The only other source of information I have used, is the Whitehouse speech transcripts, from their site. The same one you used.


[Edited on 9-11-2003 by jezebel]



posted on Nov, 9 2003 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Britman, I think the silly war to steal oil crap has gone beyond plausability, and I think most would agree.

I would also like to point out that your insinuation that America wants to slap the Arabs around to show them who is boss is extremely insulting. There is more reason for the war on terror than just to pimp-slap the Arabs around, and I believe that unless you just came out of a coma yesterday, you should know this.


TC, the act that you still believe the garbage of the Bush admin and the justifcations for this disguating affair insulting, my fellow American.


I find that our govornment was hellbent on taking over the country that we rejected all pleas for peace and partial surrender, that we even bothered going over and hypocritically removed the regime that we funded, supported, and bolstered for how long.

This war is an insult, a joke, a moral tradgedy and utter humiliation. There were bigger fish to fry, we went after a small one, because he sat on huge reserves of oil, we have united traditional enemies together in jihad against us, and have now caused, what was once a snobbish universal dislike of the US, to grow into a Unilateral world wide hatred of us that is forming new alliances against us to take us down.

It is shameful, most of all, to think that Americans think all of the above are GOOD things.

I shall skulk in the corner in shame.


best thing I've heard somebody say on this subject. I dont need to comment about the war, it's all here.



posted on Nov, 9 2003 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
I just voted for you AGAIN for TWATS... THIS is EXACTLY the type of TRUTH that must be put up in order to quell the propaganda espoused by those who seek to destroy us.

For someone to beleive otherwise is fine with me, I don't care what anyone beleives, a line is crossed when they start "selling" the bunk to others. It reminds me of the evangelists that try to cram their religious beleifs down your throat. I always tell them to piss off too.


PEACE...
m...


You are very rude and if you're descriptions are true of anyone it is yourself. I am not trying to "sell" anything. I found some information that I thought might be of interest or worthy of honest discussion to others, so I shared it. You are a big boy and I have no desire to brainwash you with false propaganda. I have provided legitimate sources for all of my assertions, and it is up to whomever decides to read them, to make up their own minds as to what to believe.

So far, you have been reciting the "Bu#e" explanations but you have not offered anything of substance. What are your statements founded on? I get the feeling, that if it was a Democrat in office, you would have no problem believing he was part of a "conspiracy".

I don't claim a political title. I follow my conscience and base my beliefs on the information my personal research and the research provided by others reveals.

Do not suppose yourself to be superior, just because you think you are right. I don't consider myself superior to you, just because I think I'm right. We are all people, living on the same planet, and we are all equal. Our ability to think for ourselves and follow our own heart, is what makes being human so great.

We can discuss ideas and share information. There's something to learn from everyone around us. We also teach something to everyone around us, usually without even realizing it.

Sir Winston Churchill once said, "True genius resides in the capacity for evaluation of uncertain, hazardous, and conflicting information."

If people stopped thinking about how wrong everyone else is, long enough to listen to what they are saying, maybe things would start to change for the better.



posted on Nov, 10 2003 @ 12:19 PM
link   
If there was any way at all to avoid killing civilians and soldiers and spending billions on bombs and air sorties, I would like to think my government would take any chance they could to avoid it.

But not Bush.

What I find SO hilarious is everybody's so-called proof that Saddam was hiding WMDs.

-"Well, he was, and he was lying when he said he wasn't."
-"But they haven't been found."
-"We just haven't found them YET."
-"What if there's none?"
-"Impossible. He had some, and if he said he didn't he was lying."
-"Where's your proof that he was lying?"
-"My proof is in the WMD's."
-"The ones that haven't been found yet."
-"Exactly."
-"Er, okay, who's on first?"



NO PROOF OF WMD'S HAVE BEEN FOUND. After a 30$ million dollar committee, led by David Kay FOUND NOTHING, there are still those who claim that they're still out there.

Does anyone know the half-life of sarin gas? Anthrax? Mustard gas?

Does anyone realize that 12 years of sanctions and 12 years of daily bombings across the No Fly Zone made Iraq into a Third World Country?

The bottom line is: If this war was fought to protect America, and Iraq was willing to make concessions to avert AMERICAN loss of life as well as Iraqi, it should have been INVESTIGATED instead of dismissed.

And fyi, you can't FORCE democracy on a country. They have the RIGHT to self-determination and if they determine they want a secular Islamic government, THEY CAN. It's called freedom.

People ought to fix their own messes in their own country before they go messing with other people's.

jako



posted on Nov, 10 2003 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Now creepy Richard Perle is cawing that they didn't accept the deal because, you know, it was, like, a total TRAP! Haha!

www.reuters.com...

""There were a number of governments that were trying to broker something with the Iraqis," Perle said. "So this was not credible, this offline approach, indirect as it was."

The Bush administration has been accused by Democrats of being overeager to go to war with Iraq, ignoring possible diplomatic avenues to peace including that conveyed through Perle and exaggerating the threat from Iraq.

The offer that came to Perle was to allow the United States to inspect for weapons of mass destruction, which the Iraqis said they did not have, and to turn over a top al Qaeda operative who was in Iraqi custody.

Perle said it also included oil concessions and he thought it was part of an effort to use that offer to discredit U.S. intentions.

"This was a trap," Perle said. "I think it was clearly a trap. It was intended to discredit the administration's policy, it was intended to discredit our effort to liberate Iraq."


LOL, intended to discredit the administrations policy of what? Carpet-bombing?


jako



posted on Nov, 10 2003 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Why does this argument resurface every week or so around here?

There is only one possible explanation for it and that is the left thinks it is their smoking gun and if only they can break this' they will get back on track or something.

Face the facts people, Joe America does not want to see his country become weaker despite your bleeding heart protestations to the contrary.



posted on Nov, 10 2003 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
Why does this argument resurface every week or so around here?

There is only one possible explanation for it and that is the left thinks it is their smoking gun and if only they can break this' they will get back on track or something.

What is our smoking gun? The documented evidence that our administration lied to get us into a war? Why is this so hard to believe? It's not like they haven't done this to us before. It has been acknowledged by both the Navy Court and the Army Board that "numerous pieces of information came to our State, War, and Navy Departments in all of their Top ranks indicating precisely the intentions of the Japanese including the probable exact hour and date of the attack" www.geocities.com...

Have you READ anything that those of us who've researched this have written? We don't need to "break this" to "get back on track". I can't speak for anyone else, but my reasons for pursuing this issue are based on my desire for the whole country to "get back on track", not so that Bush can be replaced by a Democrat. It doesn't matter what political flag you fly. If you are American and think that our administration honestly gives a rat's @ss about anyone or anything other than themselves and their interests, YOU NEED TO WAKE UP!! It's been a century since anyone running this country has been concerned with the well-being of the people they are supposed to be serving. (Unless, of course, there was a chance to benefit their personal interests as well.)


Face the facts people, Joe America does not want to see his country become weaker despite your bleeding heart protestations to the contrary.


How does attacking a country, that wasn't even a real threat to us, make us weak? Less than a year before 9/11, which Saddam WAS NOT involved with, Colin Powell had this to say at an interview in Egypt:
www.state.gov...

Secretary Colin L. Powell
Cairo, Egypt (Ittihadiya Palace)
February 24, 2001

QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?
SECRETARY POWELL:
...We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction...And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."
QUESTION: (summarized) Minister Moussa, how big a threat is Iraq right now? It seems that the Secretary is trying to have it both ways. Either the country has been diminished by ten years of sanctions or it's still threat that we have to worry about.
SECRETARY POWELL: May I just add a p.s. that if I was a Kuwaiti and I heard leaders in Baghdad claiming that Kuwait is still a part of Iraq and it's going to be included in the flag and the seal, if I knew they were continuing to try to find weapons of mass destruction, I would have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at. They are being aimed at Arabs, not at the United States or at others. Yes, I think we should...he has to be contained until he realizes the errors of his ways.

Your statement actually illustrates one of the reasons so many people are against this war. It's a schoolyard pissing contest between a bunch of irrational children.



posted on Nov, 11 2003 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Hey Moku, how have ya been? hadn't seen ya in a while. thought your sect had been activated or something. I see your propaghanda writers have been hard at work.

Does anyone else notice that all this anti-US/pro Hussein crap comes out in waves? Its like you all get your orders and the copy/paste button gets a workout. All that work in hopes of what? That someone in the US will hate their government..hey..mission accomplished.. Hate our country and want to hand over our liberties and fall under Muslim rule?..don't think so, slick so peddle that crap somewhere else.

Damn you bunch of Hussien sympathizers. That son of a bitch would see you shredded alive for his amusment. The bottom line is, Iraq did not comply, was soundly defeated and nothing any of you bleeding heart sypathizers write on this board has a hope in hell of bringing him back. So, copy/paste your damn brains out! What good does it do? None. Its useless. It makes no difference.



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
Does anyone else notice that all this anti-US/pro Hussein crap comes out in waves? Its like you all get your orders and the copy/paste button gets a workout.

The last time I checked, one of the required elements of an intelligent debate is the ability to back up your argument with valid facts and sources. The information that has been copied/pasted in this and other threads, has been in an effort to demonstrate the validity of the argument, so that it could not be blown off as unfounded or merely opinion. The sources are included to encourage those who disagree to research the information for themselves. That is not how propaganda works. Propaganda gives one sided information and claims to be using facts, but rarely gives valid sources for people to research independently. Those who insult and classify people who have a sincere interest in determining what is true and what is not as "anti-US/pro Hussein" are nothing short of programmed "yes-men".

All that work in hopes of what? ... Hate our country and want to hand over our liberties and fall under Muslim rule?..don't think so, slick so peddle that crap somewhere else.

Who has been the biggest threat to our liberties? (Hint, its' not the Muslims.)
It is the current administration that has stolen more of our Constitutional liberties than any President in history. They slipped through the Patriot Act, and as a result, they have essentially dismantled the Constitution. I feel far more threatened by those in charge here, than by any Muslim terrorist group.

Damn you bunch of Hussein sympathizers. That son of a bitch would see you shredded alive for his amusement. The bottom line is, Iraq did not comply, was soundly defeated and nothing any of you bleeding heart sympathizers write on this board has a hope in hell of bringing him back.

Why does being in opposition to the war make me a Hussein sympathizer? I have no sympathy for Saddam or his regime. He was a tyrant and should have been "taken care of" a long time ago.

That doesn't make it OK for our government to lie to us and use an UNRELATED tragedy (i.e., 9/11) to manipulate the American public, in order to wage a war for his own personal reasons.
It's not HIS girls over there risking their lives for their country. Hell, he didn't even have the balls to do it, himself in Vietnam. That "police action" was supposedly to protect people from a tyrant as well.
He cannot account for a year of service in the Air Force, and lost his eligibility to fly because he refused to comply with a direct order. Yet he has the right to send other American's children and spouses off to risk their lives?

Doesn't it bother you that our soldiers are dying as a result of Bush's false claims of imminent danger?

Can you give an indisputable reason for why they started the war in the first place?

I know that it was to remove Saddam, but why?

So, copy/paste your damn brains out! What good does it do? None. Its useless. It makes no difference.

This, unfortunately, is the only thing you've said that is true. It is also the reason that I'm giving up on this board for a while.

If I want to bang my head against a brick wall, I can do it just as easily with the people in my own town, and without half of the headache I've gotten around here lately.
The people around here used to be interested in more than just the usual, mindless, dribble. As of late, the only thing many people are interested in, is blindly insulting anyone who doesn't share their opinions, even though they don't offer anything to support those opinions.

So, I give up! It's not worth my time or effort, to try and discuss the issues that concern me, like an adult, with those who act like children.
I am not running in fear of being put in my place. I'm running in fear of shooting my self in the head out of frustration.

Hopefully, one day you'll learn what it means to think for yourselves. Until that time, have a nice life.



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Hey, good choice there. You can't change the past. Hussein is gone and tough as that may to accept, sometimes we just have to push that old fiend , denial aside and work towards other goals.

I don't follow Bush, in fact I'm not even a member of the same party and no one has had more criticism of him than I about pandering to the UN and selling out our soveriegnty to them and the CFR and all the rest of the NWO factions while Hussein was given ample time to scurry off with his grab bag of goodies ...and thats gonna bite us in the ass one day, mark my words. I woudn't be surpised to find out that Hussien made a deal with Bush just like I wasn't suprised to find out that on the morning of September 10th, 2001, the Bin-Laden family was secretly flown out of the US. Oh, I though all air traffic had been grounded. Guess its who ya know.

But all this crap which I know doesn't make me want to side with my enemy. If you don't realize that it is the goal of the Jihad to exterminate all non-muslims on the planet, where the hell have you been? Unless you are one, in which case this argument is mute, then all you need do is ask one. They'll tell you that you will either accept their religion or perish. I think its time we all stopped pretending that we didn't here that. that we haven't heard or read that preached in a mosque, posted on a website, or printed in propaghanda letters. This whole planet faces danger of genocide just as real and just as deadly as it did from Hitler. When its too late, realizing the truth then isn't going to make dying any less painful. So bury your head in the sand and deny what I've told you. Call me immature and refuse to accept all information, just what you pick and choose. If its your intention to sell me that line about Muslims being all nice, warm and cheery and not having any plans to kill us all, then by all means, I think you should give up now. Your wasting your breath and the precious time you and I both have left.



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 09:20 AM
link   
astrocreep: "If its your intention to sell me that line about Muslims being all nice, warm and cheery and not having any plans to kill us all, then by all means, I think you should give up now. Your wasting your breath and the precious time you and I both have left."

A larger percentage of Muslims are "nice, warm and cheery" than Christians. I'd give it 99.5%. You'd know this if you've ever travelled to a predominantly Muslim country.

We Christians have very little to be proud of too, when it comes to slaughtering non-believers.

This War on Terror has less to do with religious dogma than it has to do with global hegemony. Far less. But it makes it easier to sell in the U.S.


jakomo



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 09:35 AM
link   
I couldn't have said it better
, even though I've said it about 6 times in this thread already...

Some people will NEVER be bale to get around their liberal "peace is the only option" attitude. Unfortunately, they tend to take alot of OTHER people with them when they actually influence policy.

Imagine how many MORE Iraqis would have perished had we listened to THIS diaitribe... Imagine how many soldiers would parish in a battle if we actually listened to the PSYOPS of our enemies...

THat's ALL this "proposal of concessions" was, PSYOPS.

PEACE...
m...



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Springer, reguardless of their propaghanda whitewash, we can be thankful that the reality of the situation is better than some scenerios. It might not be perfect because our president tried to appease every Tom, Dick, and Harry which gave Hussein time to sprirt his programs into hiding but at least he's not is full production and the world now has no doubt that we mean business.



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 11:30 AM
link   
The bottom line is Saddam had plenty of time to avoid war. Had at least 12 years. Also had several chance over the last couple of years to avoid war. There was no need for some backdoor meeting. Hell he could of said "I give up"when Dan Rather interviewed him.

I also wonder about the timing of this info. Why was this not brought out earlier?



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 12:06 PM
link   
The argument is being corrupted.
The anti-war faction keep using the WoMD argument as a weapon by saying that the US had to prove that Iraq had WoMD. This is a total lie.

SADDAM HAD WOMD!!!

Get that through your thick skulls. It's not a figment of anyones imagination. There are thousands of documented Iraqi and Iranian deaths that give proof to the fact.
It wasn't up to the US to prove that he had them. The UN knew that he had them. Everyone knew that he had them!!!!
If he destroyed them at a later date - so what!!! That is not a US problem!!! The UN were the people who demanded documentation and proof of WoMD destruction and not from the US but from Iraq itself!!!

The whole point was that Saddam had to comply with UN Resolutions and prove that he had destroyed them. Is there a single person here that would say that Saddam was complying? If there is, then that person is directly contradicting the UN inspectors!!!! It was nothing to do with the US or Bush. Read it again - THE UN!!!!

The fact that Saddam had WoMD and the fact that he did not comply with the UN's orders mean that any proposal was a joke. He had no right to make any deals. His only way out was to comply with the UN. He didn't do so and that's why he deservedly got his ass kicked out of power.



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Oh, I don't think this was kept secret at all. Its well known that Hussein argued that he was already in compliance several times and that day after day leading up to the war, his regime made several attempts to buy time and stall his removal from power. What we have here is one specific attempt now being heralded as a sincere offer which it was not. Springer is correct about the psy-ops intimidation attempted by Hussein, however, to an old Skull and Bones man like Bush, it wasn't that intimidating. It was made very clear, I thought, toward the end of this 12 year circus that ONLY IMMEDIATE full compliance would stop his removal..and thats not what was offered now was it. Hussein bargained with no bargaining chips. He brought a knife out to a gunfight , as the old saying goes and tried to make us think it would shoot just as well. the funny thing is watching people attempt to credit him with sincerity, compassion and nobility by refering to him as Iraq instead of Hussein which is who we really were fighting. If you're fighting a whole country, you don't bring them food, medicine, shelter and doctors as you go in. The truth is we had people there suffering because of him. ( None of these jokers on here were so its easy to sit back and argue the bastard should have been allowed to remain while you're sitting in Starbucks sipping a friggin latte. ) The other truth is that Hussein had plans to include as many in the world in that suffering mass as possible and he worked hard at it..and he still may bring more suffering. My biggest criticism of this and the previous 2 administrations is that he was allowed to escape and flourish.



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I feel saddened by all this vitriol I have just read.

The vehemance in some of these posts is not why I thought this board would be good to join. I thought that it may contain like-minded individuals who could debate without slinging mud.

*Hangs Head*




posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Leveller: "SADDAM HAD WOMD!!! "

Really? When? After or before 1991? Because if he didn't have any left (which is what he claimed), the US can go in and "liberate" any government that has ever committed atrocities against anyone else?

Based on this reasoning, maybe we should re-bomb and re-occupy Japan because they were such dicks during WWII? Invade Italy because of the ancient Roman custom of killing Christians?

Where do you get the FACTS that back up your claim that he currently had WMDs? I'll accept anything from a major news corporation (Reuters, Associated Press, etc).

"The whole point was that Saddam had to comply with UN Resolutions and prove that he had destroyed them. Is there a single person here that would say that Saddam was complying? If there is, then that person is directly contradicting the UN inspectors!!!! It was nothing to do with the US or Bush. Read it again - THE UN!!!! "

Sorry to call you out on this one, but it's a total lie. Not only did the UN inspectors find nothing, but the Kay Report (by David Kay who was hired by the CIA to search Iraq for WMDs) has also come up empty. And he doesn't have to contend with Saddam's bureaucracy or any tricks, the US is military occupying the ENTIRE country and they STILL can't find anything.

As for your false claim that the UN said they had them, you must have picked that up on Fox TV, because it's a lie.

www.cnn.com...


"In the run-up to the Iraq war, Washington argued that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed an imminent threat and that Saddam's government had close links to al Qaeda -- the terrorist network run by Osama bin Laden.

However Blix told British radio Thursday that Washington and London "over-interpreted" intelligence about Saddam's weapons.

Comparing the two countries to medieval witch-hunters, Blix said the British and U.S. governments convinced themselves Iraq posed a threat based on evidence that was later discredited -- including forged documents about alleged attempts to buy uranium for nuclear weapons.

"In the Middle Ages when people were convinced there were witches they certainly found them. This is a bit risky," Blix said.

A pre-war British dossier on Iraqi weapons "led the reader to the conclusions that are a little further reaching" than was the case, Blix said.

"What in a way stands accused is the culture of spin, the culture of hyping," he said.

"We know advertisers will advertise a refrigerator in terms that we don't quite believe in, but we expect governments to be more serious and have more credibility."

He added that the coalition should have allowed U.N. weapons inspectors to continue working. They were pulled out on March 18 after three months -- two days before the U.S.-led invasion.

In the five months since Saddam's overthrow, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group -- composed of 1,400 scientists, military and intelligence experts -- has failed to uncover any banned weapons.


Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have said the search will take time and that evidence will eventually be uncovered.

"The patience that they require for themselves now was not anything that they wanted to give to us," said Blix. ..

In an interview on Australian radio on Wednesday, Blix said he believed that Iraq had destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago but maintained the appearance it had them to deter a military attack.

Current U.N. chief weapons inspector Demetrius Perricos has echoed his predecessor's comments, telling Reuters it was becoming "more and more difficult to believe stocks (of WMD) were there" in Iraq. "


So they "over-interpreted" Iraq's WMD capabilities.

As in, they lied. Over-interpreted is a diplomatic way of saying they fibbed. This from the lead inspector appointed by the UN to find Iraq's WMD.

But hey, prove me wrong. And when you find incontrivertible evidence of Saddam's WMD, send an email to David Kay, he could obviously use your help...


jakomo



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
Leveller: "SADDAM HAD WOMD!!! "

Really? When? As for your false claim that the UN said they had them, you must have picked that up on Fox TV, because it's a lie.



It's a lie is it?
I don't think so. Neither would the families of the 5000 victims.

news.bbc.co.uk...

"The Kurds of northern Iraq are marking the 15th anniversary of the chemical attack carried out by Iraqi Government forces on the town of Halabja, where at least 5,000 people, many of them women and children, died in a single day.

With another war apparently looming, many Kurds today fear that Saddam Hussein's forces may again lash out at them with chemical weapons in revenge for their opposition to his regime.

Some things may be forgotten over 15 years but not a disaster or atrocity of this magnitude.

Practically everybody in Halabja lost close relatives or friends that day.

Some tried to escape the bombing by sheltering in basements, not knowing that poison gas is heavier than air.

Others tried to flee but were caught in the deadly clouds and died where they fell, mothers clutching their dead babies to them."


Of course, that's not WoMD to someone who doesn't want to ever recognise them as such.



posted on Nov, 12 2003 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Oh look!!! Another 49 instances where Iraq used chemical weapons.

projects.sipri.se...

Iraq never had WoMD?
I laugh in your face.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join