2006-06-13 22:06:13 · 14 answers · asked by Maria Laura B 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Sorry toots, no such place as Irak....however Iraq (pause for effect) does not.
2006-06-13 22:11:45 · answer #1 · answered by georgeh1981 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of all the weapons in the vast soviet arsenal, nothing was more profitable than Avtomat Kalashnikova model of 1947. More commonly known as the AK-47, or Kalashnikov. It's the world's most popular assault rifle. A weapon all fighters love. An elegantly simple 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood. It doesn't break, jam, or overheat. It'll shoot whether it's covered in mud or filled with sand. It's so easy, even a child can use it; and they do. The Soviets put the gun on a coin. Mozambique put it on their flag. Since the end of the Cold War, the Kalashnikov has become the Russian people's greatest export. After that comes vodka, caviar, and suicidal novelists. One thing is for sure, no one was lining up to buy their cars.
2006-06-13 22:11:47 · answer #2 · answered by smokingun 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well does it really matter now.
whether iraq had weapons or mass destruction or not, is a question which will always remain unanswered.
people with vested interests and vielding significant amount of power will always make sure that we never get to find out the real story behind iraq's weapons of mass destruction
2006-06-13 22:41:28 · answer #3 · answered by no_clue 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does America have weapons of mass destruction?
2006-06-13 22:23:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was shown before the war in Iraq that there were no WMDs, but that said, Hussein was less than cooperative with weapons inspectors. If they did exist, I feel that Saddam may have used them against the invading enemy in the USA.
2006-06-13 22:12:06 · answer #5 · answered by Scozbo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
even bush knew befor war that it's impossible that such a poor, 10-year-embargoed country as iraq can have that kind of weapon
story about WMD is just american trick to try to find any reason to attack iraq
iraq don't have even strong military
If they had had, why the US could have defeated them in such a short time
USA is trying to do the same trick to attack iran, and so will they do to other country if they want
Take my word..
2006-06-14 02:32:21 · answer #6 · answered by arifin ceper 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there are no evidence to suggest so, eventhough that was the primary reasons for the US-allied to invade Iraq. Many belived the control of OIL in the Gulf that led to the invasion.
2006-06-13 22:27:55 · answer #7 · answered by araabs 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah. They do now. It is called the United States Marine Corps
2006-06-14 03:14:55 · answer #8 · answered by The Landlord 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They had the technology yes. They had the facilities to produce them yes. The actual weapons, well lets just say would you have felt comfortable if they did?
2006-06-14 01:23:58 · answer #9 · answered by Christopher S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not any more. Iran does, though, as does syria and many other countries. The country that has the most is USA
2006-06-13 22:09:48 · answer #10 · answered by judy_r8 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋