Did they find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ?

Question

if they didn't, i know some liars in the USA

And if they were all shipped out to Syria, why dont US army go there ? I think it's really a threat for the world security, syria has no a lot of oil but is really dangerous (look at lebanon...)

Answer 1

No. But people like noname continue to repeat the lie that there were And as goebbels said: Tell a lie big enough keep repeating it and the people will come to believe it.

Answer 2

Saddam managed to get all the evidence to Syria before the US was able to even look for it. It seems, he had the Iraqi army strip all the seats out of large aircraft so they could load this stuff into passenger aircraft, which gave them better opportunity to disguise it's payload by making it look like passengers rather than cargo.

As far as Saddam is concerned, this is history repeating itself. During the Gulf war he transported all of Iraq's aircraft to Iran, prior to the coalition's invasion. Thus, preventing the coalition from destroying his air power, however, I believe that Iran refused to give them back.

Answer 3

When are you referring to?

After the first Gulf War, they found lots of WMD, production facilities, munitions bunkers, stockpiles, delivery systems, etc.

For this most recent war, Saddam was much more clever in hiding the stuff, so none have been found TO DATE. The jury is still out -- there's some evidence that the stocks were moved outside the borders of Iraq before the invasion.

Answer 4

They found only degraded WMDs. And though all kinds of claims were made, like Rumsfeld's claim that "we know where they are -- north, south, east and west of Baghdad", no viable WMDs were found. And in spite of claims of an "active WMD program," no evidence of a program was found. None of the claimed "mobile weapons labs" were found either. And the notion that they were taken out of Iraq into Syria is at best wishful thinking. With our only reliable intelligence being satalite photos, any existing evidence would have been proffered.

All the claims were either errors of judgment or lies. Neither option is acceptable.

As to Bush admitting that none were found and that there was no link to al Qaida and Iraq, it is most begrudging offered and only when he is challenged on the details. He still continues to link "terra" and Iraq. And Bush continues to link competence and job permormance with Donald Rumsfeld. Go figure.

Answer 5

No they were all shipped out to Syria not long before the allies invaded Sadam land. They are hidden in bunkers between the west part of the Bekaa valley and the Iraq border.
D.

Answer 6

They found it but they didn't realize unfortunately.
The WMD is the bunch of ayatollahs of Iraq who have not and still do not let their followers THINK. This is the tragedy.

Answer 7

You may not have heard that about 500 artillery shells filled with nerve gas and mustard gas have been found in Iraq, because we've given this story much less attention than the (increasingly fishy) allegations that U.S. Marines committed atrocities in Haditha last November.


The information is contained in a report by the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center, a small portion of which was declassified at the insistence of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich), who announced the findings in a news conference June 21.


The munitions date from the 1980s — the time of the Iran/Iraq war — and have degraded since then.


The number of weapons found wouldn't have posed much of a threat to protected troops, but could be devastating to civilians. (Saddam used fewer than 20 such munitions to kill an estimated 5,000 Kurds at Halabja in 1988.)


The discovery makes it clear Saddam did possess stockpiles of WMD, and that if there were an effort to dispose of them, it was incomplete. Five hundred artillery shells filled with sarin and mustard is a lot to overlook.


There likely are more. Confidence on the left that "Bush lied" when he said Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction is based on the report of the Iraq Survey Group, which found no stockpiles of WMD. But Charles Duelfer, who headed the ISG, acknowledged his group examined less than one quarter of one percent of the more than 10,000 known weapons storage sites in Iraq.


News organizations took notice of the find chiefly to deprecate its significance. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann described them as "weapons of minor discomfort:"


"You might get a burn if you rubbed these weapons directly on your skin," he said.


That prompted Tom Lipscomb to suggest Mr. Olbermann be given an all expenses paid trip to Iraq, where he could select any one of the shells, open it, and rub its contents on his skin.


I doubt Mr. Olbermann will accept Tom Lipscomb's challenge. Liberals talk the talk, but rarely walk the walk.

Answer 8

No, but they did find a small stock of old American Chemical bombs that had been buryed since the end of the Iran Iraq War.
If it had not been American weapons we provided and sold to them shortly after Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand, the Republican would have made major hay out of it.
Nice try boys.

Answer 9

They found one weapon of mass destruction- Sudam Hussein. Isn't that enough?

Answer 10

Once again the proof has been offered and once again we have the libs apparently unable to read or comprehend, continuing their chant of "Bush lied" "Bush lied". I don't think you could get a lib to acknowledge that WMD's existed if one hit them directly, their skin fell off, and they were flopping around like fish out of water.