Is this proof that Iraq had WMD's?

Question

consider the implications from the information on this site, scary isn't it....
www.globalsecurity.org/wmd_state.htm
www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/facility-intro.htm

THIS IS NOT A GOVERNMENT SITE

you can't HANDLE the TRUTH !

there are hundreds of reseach org in alexandria, va....liberal/dem non partisan...are you saying you can only trust information from websites in states that you deem reliable...putting a lot of orgs and people into one group aren't we...

EVEN WHEN THE TRUTH IS IN FRONT OF THEM THEY CANNOT SEE IT....CALL IT FOR WHAT IT IS....STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE

even when faced with the truth the lie continues to be your 'truth'....no wonder we are in dire straits

Answer 1

I reviewed some of the website's entries regarding WMD programs in Iraq prior to the Mar '03 invasion.

I think logic dictates that if Iraq/Hussein USED WMD's on their own population, a few times, then they'd likely be in possession of some of that technology still (overtly or covertly) and that they'd be inclined to use such weaponry either as a deterrent to local foes (Iran, Kuwait, etc.) or as a retaliatory measure (through proxies, such as Al Qaeda or a smaller group), where tracing the material/weapon back to Baghdad would be cumbersome or inconclusive at best (in order to defer a like response from the U.S.).

Those who say 'HEY, there are no WMD's in Iraq, or HEY, we invaded on false information" are severely myopic. Iraq, under Saddam, was a threat, not because he was a radical Muslim, but because he had no qualms about confronting the U.S. on every imaginable front and scale, using all means and assets at his disposal. Aided by France, Germany and Russia, Saddam was able to continue to enjoy not only personal opulence, but also the continued strengthening of his military arsenal, perhaps at the expense of his people's best interests.

We suspected, prior to invasion, that material and transport related to WMD would be hidden, destroyed or displaced outside the borders, in order to save the collective Husseini skins. This is known and documented. It may not be an active ticking nuke, but it would be something much more divisive and long-lasting than the effects of two planes running into skyscrapers. Even a small detonation of anthrax, saran, irradiated metals or other radio/bio agent would have wide and long-lasting effects on the areas attacked. And these attacks would require significantly less planning and risk, because they wouldn't involve the hijacking of planes and the requisite knowledge of how to fly them. U.S. intelligence would be wise to track ALL nuclear material, and catalog them as such, in order to not only know where everything is today, but in case things are 'lost or stolen', to know the nature and variety of this material in order to trace it back to its creator, seller and detonator.

The WMD issue vis a vis Iraq, in my opinion, is overblown and resolved. He had 'em, he used 'em, he'd use 'em or sell 'em again, and yes, we entered more for regional control of land and assets (OIL!) than for fear of WMD, but WMD fear was NOT UNFOUNDED. Now it's Russia and Iran, China and N. Korea who can funnel material and logistics to those they feel will counter U.S. influence in their regions. There are always bigger fish behind any event. On 9/11, the fish were the Saudis and UAE emirs. Heaven forbid another attack occurs, Russia, N. Korea and Iran would be the first culprits on my list of likely enablers from a material and logistics standpoint, with Saudis and/or Iranian proxies coordinating the attack specifics.

It's not a fun world out there, no need to bury our head in the sand and self-blame, the truth is there, denying it is moronic.

Answer 2

"GlobalSecurity.org is an Alexandria, VA, based research organization that focuses on defense, space and intelligence issues."

Alexandria, Virginia. Alexandria, Virginia. Alexandria, Virginia.

what kind of "research organization" focusing on "defense, space and intelligence issues" is there in Alexandria, Virginia?

oh, oh. i know one. they are known as "Them."

EDIT >>> the fact is i don't trust anyone who would try to enforce an authority over me, be they libs, cons, dem, or repubs. see the thing is i'm an american. i believe in the old-west philosophy of "don't fence me in."

as for WMD, i hate that term, why weren't they used. i mean saddam was crazy enough to burn the oil-field at the end of sand war one. why wouldn't he have used them then? it's a moot point though, if he had them he moved them out of the country.

Answer 3

Nope linky no workie I thought that meant (W=Whopper MD= McDonald's or Micky D's) Hey Now I am hungry
*repost the links

Answer 4

only if you trust the site it would take me 30 minutes to prove that Clinton was trustworthy by picking and choosing from all of the crap on the web

Answer 5

Iraq did not have any WM D's weapons, it is Bush lies learn it from the Nazi , when the Nazi say Jewish will destroy Germany
let us kill them without any evidence Now the same thing happened

Answer 6

1) Thy wesites don't work
2) I could care less. Death is NOT an acceptable form of political campaign!

Answer 7

what difference does it make? I thought the whole point in the war was regime change!

Answer 8

There's plenty of evidence that they didn't but you don't here too much about that unsurprisingly.
The net is loaded w. propaganda from both sides, don't scare yourself w. it.

Answer 9

Yeah, look in Syria!

Answer 10

yes you win a watch