when they have been FOUND IN IRAQ?
Do people really not follow this sort of thing?
Will any of you change your opinions because of this, or will you blindly follow the liberal line and find some reason the WMDs "don't count"?
Link (don't worrky, its not a long read): http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060710-123909-1428r.htm
2006-09-08 05:33:33 · 13 answers · asked by Ricky T 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
To you; I am aware of these finds. Thanks for pointing it out to those who are in denial.
Sarin is active for a lot longer than ppl realize. With only moderate chemical treatment it can have virtually an unlimited effective shelf-life.
To another poster; FYI; The reason Sarin was not talked up is b/c the ppl who found them, at the time, didn't know how many more there may have been or where they might be. AND they didn't want to give any ideas about their existence to terrorists. It's called security. Lay all your cards, face up, on the table and I will bet against you every time - especially if I know I can beat you! The important thing to remember is that it is YOU who have given ME the upper hand - the option - by doing so! lol!!
To another poster; Imagine an air plane (US) on final approach to Chicago, suddenly the plane is ripped open by a SMALL explosion and this chemical is spread over the mall. One fleck the size of Lincoln's eye on the Penny can kill in less than it takes for an ambulance to reach you. AND there is no antidote readily available! Happy shopping!
2006-09-08 05:55:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Do you not think that if that claim was in anyway credible that Bush would not be shouting it from the rooftops? It would get him off the hook for goodness sake!
People believe that no WMD were found in Iraq because nothing was found. You make the mistake of thinking that that means no one believes they existed!!!
A lot of people believe they existed and that he was after nukes and all sorts of things. A lot of his aircraft where spirited away to Iran and it is likely a lot of other stuff too.
A number of aircraft were found buried in sand dunes. Luckily this was close to an airfield and therefore easy to find. Enough WMD to slaughter the world could be put in twenty or so 45 gal oil drums. Try finding an oil drum in the huge expanse of Iraq! It would be like looking for a needle in a whole farm crammed with haystacks!!
His gassing of the Kurds shows that he did have WMDs at one time. Whether they existed in recent times or not simply does not matter now because even if they did exist he had hidden or got rid of them and finessed Bush into attacking him for it and making him look a fool!!
There have been a number of Islamic leaders over the years that have sought to unite the Muslims and by finessing Bush into the war Sadam appears to have come the closest yet!!!
2006-09-08 05:58:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Bush administration even admits that the old WMD's from the 80's & 90's are not the WMD's that we went to war over.
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," a a senior Defense Department official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
2006-09-08 05:44:52 · answer #3 · answered by Pitchow! 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush has said they may have been wrong about the weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure Saddam had them, and hid them in other places, but not in Iraq. He wasn't a stupid guy. To be honest even't if there weren't WMDS in Iraq, I'm surprised Bush didn't fly in any and lie about finding them there. Republicans have cake all over their face about this Iraq deacle, trying to wipe away a small amount now is a pretty futile effort.
2006-09-08 05:47:00 · answer #4 · answered by kris_rynshall 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why do people (read: you) believe that he had them?
I'm sorry, but a few rusty shells with degraded agents does not a threat make. This was not a cache of 500 shells, shiny and primed and ready to fire. These were a few shells at a time, scattered about the desert. Rusty. Old. Decrepit. Degraded. Rather like the arguments regarding the WMD 'threat'. Fitting really.
2006-09-08 05:44:48 · answer #5 · answered by Morgy 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The report that the Bush administration made when George Dubb first got into office.... Stating that there were no WMD's in Iraq....
2006-09-08 05:42:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Democrats have a complete lack of WMD's. Come on people, even Bush admits to being wrong about it at this point.
2006-09-08 05:39:27 · answer #7 · answered by metatron 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yeah, Hussein had WMDs; he probably hid them in Syria.
2006-09-08 05:38:33 · answer #8 · answered by chrstnwrtr 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
20+ year old sarin cans that are degraded past any ability to use them do not, in fact, count. So no, there are no WMDs in Iraq.
2006-09-08 05:36:18 · answer #9 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If they were so significant why did it take 3 years to make them public.
I will tell you it was political. They were mentioned in a debate about funding the war.
2006-09-08 05:38:37 · answer #10 · answered by PARKERD 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋