Did Saddam have WMD when we invaded Iraq?

Question

It seems that fifty percent of Americans believe that Saddam had WMD when we invaded. What do you think?

Answer 1

There were never any WMDs in Iraq after the first Gulf war (1991). The only reason why so many people believe there were is because Fox News (specifically: Hannity and Colmes) reported findings of WMDs every single day for a couple of years, only to renounce the findings a couple of hours later.

Answer 2

I can't wait to hear how all the nutcase conservatives actually say "Saddam had them, but Syria has them now". What a line of bull crap. Or the Conservative lame excuse of "Saddam has them and we found them, it's that serin and mustard gas. Yeah that's it we were talking about the mustard and serin gas for invading". Serin gas has a shelf life of 1 month and these things were really old. Also the mustard gas was WW1 vintage stuff and that crap was no good. even the Bush administration laughs at the crap. But I bet you'll hear Conservatives bring it up. Plus When we first invaded most people believed he did have WMD's. I mean Bushed conned us into invading Iraq by using SCARE TACTICS. Bush SCARED us into believing Saddam was going to give his so called WMD's to terrorist's. So just like Hitler conned his country so did Bush.

It wasn't until we got there and didn't find a thing did we realize we were conned.

Answer 3

the survey was right! Half the people in this country are so brainwashed that this country may not survive much longer.
I would like to suggest that all the FOX viewers tune into another news network, at least once a week, to find out what is actually going on in the world.
Don't you think that the other countries that refused to join our coalition, France, Germany, et al, would be as worried about wmd as we are?
All politicians lie: Clinton got impeached over a BJ in the oval office. No one died.
Bush lied about wmd and didn't get impeached. 2500, and counting, died.
I consider myself an independent, but until I start earning at least a million a year and can afford to buy myself a current Republican politician, I'm voting for a change.

Answer 4

Look at it this way. WMDs are Weapons of Mass Destruction. Wepons are used in wars. Wepons of Mass Destruction are used either when the enemy is incapable of retaliating with equal force or are used when all is being lost.

The possession of WMDs is declaring that in the event of war even if the enemy is stronger it will suffer great damage. And closer the country or organization gets to destruction the more probable their use becomes.

If Iraq had WMDs it would have used them before losing the war. The mere fact that they did not use them in face of defeat proves that they did not have them.

As for the comments that they transfered them to someplace else or they had them but did with them blah blah blah ..... What good is a WMD if it is not used in face of total destruction. We may as well assume that it is not a threat as it will only get "transfered" when it is actually its time to be used. Also if someone claims that they did use them but media is not reporting them. They have no grounds. When a WMD is used it cannot be covered-up as it gives a "Mass Destruction"

The logical conclusion would be that Iraq did not have WMDs (Although this might not be the case in case of more patriotic and less logical arguments)

Answer 5

Every Intelligence service thought so, Germans, French, British, Israeli, Jordanian, and US. The UN Inspectors thought so as well, but were unsure of its quantity and location. More than 500 chemical artillery shells were discovered by US forces after the invasion.

The point of the change in US policy following 9/11 was: We can't take the risk of allowing self-professed enemies of the US with probable WMD to continue in power, i.e. the presumption of innocence disappeared on 9/12.

The US/Bush may have been incorrect but no lying. A lie is the knowing telling of an untruth. So telling an untruth isn't a lie if you don't know otherwise.

Answer 6

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq War. Many of those chemicals were supplied by companies in Western Europe and the United States. Many of the chemical weapons were dispersed by helicopters. It is worthy of mention therefore, that in 1983, the United States authorised the sale of 60 helicopters to Saddam Hussein, whilst being well aware the helicopters could easily be adapted for military purposes. The sale took place, even though at the time, Iraq was on the US State Department’s list of ‘nations that supported international terrorism’!

There is no question that Saddam Hussein was endeavouring to obtain nuclear weapons. The chief components of those weapons were being provided by companies in Western Europe and the United States.

Saddam Hussein wanted nuclear weapons to counter the military advantage of Israel, which in the year 1990, reportedly had an arsenal of 200 nuclear warheads and 47 atomic bombs. Israel now has at least 300 nuclear warheads, as well as the delivery system necessary to wipe most Arab Capitals off the face of the earth in less than 10 minutes. Despite the fact that Israel has often been accused of terrorist activity and human rights abuses against the Palestinian people, they continued to receive upwards of US$4 billion in military and economic aid from the United States!

It does need to be remembered that during the Iran/Iraq War, support was given to Saddam Hussein by the US Government. That support had wide and favourable international repercussions for Iraq, which was at the time, in a severe economic crisis. Many governments and banks in Europe, Japan and the Middle East became reassured of the future viability of the Saddam Hussein Regime, and revived its badly bruised credit worthiness.

Why did the United States support Saddam Hussein? It was because the United States was intensely hostile toward the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and feared that an Iranian victory over Iraq would change the balance of power in favour of Tehran… and against the West!

Consider this… Is not someone who supplies weapons to a person, as guilty as the person who uses those weapons?

Answer 7

YES..They moved most of them to Syria and Iran..But what alot of people are either not paying attention to or the Democrats are using the media to disclaim is that we found over 500 WMD in Iraq


And to everyone that says we just invaded for oil, We got NO oil from invading Iraq..We have let the Iraqis sell and keep there on profits on there oil.

Answer 8

Saddam lead everyone to believe that he did have them. You see, he used chemical weapons on his own citizens previously and must have thought the threat of biological and chemical weapons would cow the rest of the world. The Americans fell for the bluff and decided that these kind of weapons needed to be controlled.

The amount of WMD that was found should be considered strategically insignificant.

Answer 9

yes but he did - just ask the Iranians and the Kruds, He used WMD on both groups. When we started moving troops into the are He moved them to Syria. Now Syria has them. if you believe he did not have them then you are saying he is telling us the truth and our government is lying. You are siding with a man that has killed millions of his own people some of them with WMD and most by torturing them to death. It is a proven fact he has used them all in past. you want me to believe he used them all and never made any more.

Ok lets talk about the land I have for sale in Florida, you'll love it.

Answer 10

There were never WMDs. Saddam never had any ballistics that could strike beyond walking distance. Bush made that bull up so he could go in and "liberate" the oil that was being oppressed by Saddam's regime.

Oh, sorry did I say "oil"? I meant "people"...
<_<
>_>