Since Saddam never denied they existed, and they did use them on the Kurds and on the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq war, was it believeable when Saddam suggested he had destroyed them without being able to verfy their destruction? Were they lost? destroyed? or sent to another country? All opinions please!
2006-09-21 09:19:39 · 16 answers · asked by Edward J 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Think about this.....
If the local drug dealer is told that the police are going to raid his house in three weeks then what does he do?
Saddam was given so much warning that the inspectors were coming that he could have parcel every thing up and stuck a bow on top...Of course he didn't destroy them...he shipped them out and hid them in the hills.
2006-09-21 09:29:59 · answer #1 · answered by blissman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The weapons Saddam used on the Kurds were 80s era weapons that he bought during his war with Iran, which the US supported. Dick Chaney thought Saddam was just a wonderful man.
When we attacked Iraq in 1991, we knew where most of Saddam's WMDs were and targeted them all. He was able to get a couple of SCUDs off, but not much in the way of weapons production was left to him after Gulf War One. What little was left was dismantled under the eyes of UN inspectors.
After Saddam threw the inspectors out, the BELIEF was that he was re-starting weapons programs. But the evidence was that he was not. When UN weapons inspectors returned in 2000, it was assumed by the US that he had new ones that the inspectors would find. But he didn't. All the evidence points to the fact that he might have THOUGHT about re-starting weapons programs, but he never did. Even Bush admits that Saddam had no WMDs.
Some people say that he packed them up and sent them to Syria. This is myth, not supported by fact. The best FACTS that we have are that such weapons did not exist after 1992.
2006-09-21 16:35:33 · answer #2 · answered by Chredon 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Saddam Hussein used up his stock of gas and nerve agents (on Kurds and marsh Arabs) and never has a nuclear capability.
He tried to bluff that he had some WMDs in an attempt to protect his borders.
Western powers knew he wanted to develop WMDs and that sanctions had stopped working. Greed for Oil only put money into central government hands, his. So enhancing his ability to develop WMDs.
Bush/Blair knew his dreams then wrote up his dreams as though they were a reality (to be known as dodgy dossiers). Bush needed to control Oil and couldn’t catch Osama Bin Laden and always wanted to be a great war leader. Couldn't wait for diplomacy as the UN agencies would get the glory.
Bottom line they didn't exist but made a good excuse to go to war for Bush/Blair.
2006-09-21 16:48:13 · answer #3 · answered by Ashley K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. Iraq never had any weapons of mass destruction - thats why we attacked them
2. Israel destroyed Iraq's nuclear capability on 7 June 1981 at Osiraq
3. the Halabja incident was during the Iran/Iraq war - it was done by Iran
4. Iraq's biological and chemical weapons were destroyed by 1998 by UNSCOM (who were paid by Washington DC) - they have a shelf life of five years or less
5. the main reason for the occupation is OIL - Iraq has the second largest reserves in the world after Saudi Arabia - with 2300 oil wells drilled most of Iraq is untapped, including the undiscovered Majnoon field in the west of the country
6. the sooner British troops withdraw the better
2006-09-21 18:44:53 · answer #4 · answered by Conservative 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The point with WMDS that our leaders in the west did not tell us is 1. What constitutes a WMD, 2 What is the min number of people that can be killed by such a device before it comes under the term WMD? And leading to the war, Saddam did say they had no WMD, which we can see now is correct. What is not correct is what our lot told us.
2006-09-21 16:32:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He had some old weapons that the US gave him (from the 80's). This is what he used on the Kurds. The WMDs that the Bush administration said he had were different. He did deny having them on many occasions (you must have missed that, probably watching Fox News). The Bush administration said they knew where they were. Now, all the evidence is that he never had them.
2006-09-21 16:24:38 · answer #6 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Google it. Under the surrender after the Gulf war in 1991 he was required to destroy them and agree to allow inspections. Last report of the inspectors said they could verify 97-98% of them were destroyed. Where did the other 2 to 3% go? Some of them were found buried somewhere, but the gas had degraded long before making them useless.
2006-09-21 16:23:33 · answer #7 · answered by notme 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush is a WMD.
It's widely believed that Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMD and complied with the UN.
Bush lied, what a surprise.
2006-09-21 16:25:38 · answer #8 · answered by p2prox 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The french and Germans knew if they were found they would be in the s... if they were found so they stalled the u.n. till they had been removed to the former french colony of Syria .Who do you think equips Syria now the Russians dont .
2006-09-21 17:04:16 · answer #9 · answered by joseph m 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's buried under the sand ha. He gassed the Kurds as far as I read.
2006-09-22 18:20:57 · answer #10 · answered by Calamity Jane 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋