Another WMD question, prefferably for the liberals.?

Question

(I had to reword this question, due to no answers from liberals)
--
Liberals are still making WMD comments, like, "where are they",, so i ask this:

---------------------
What month, and what year did Saddam get rid of his WMD? And what did he do with them?
---------------------
Please provide evidence of your answer, since you want evidence of where they are now, in order to convince you he had them prior to the war.

-------------------
-------------------
There should be no reasons liberals can not answer the above, after with the information below.

I had responses before such as, "Republicans made the WMD allegations... so the burden of truth is on them..."

This is not true, the democrats firs made them, and I would like to know when Saddam got rid of them, and how he did. As for my evidence of him ever having them, can't I take the clinton administrations word for it?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Answer 1

What WMD?
Do you really believe that Saddam could develop them during the sanction period!
He only was a card to play & had been used fully to convince those who decide in the US to rush for war.
The real question is who actually played the game?
My opinion is that now the game in the middle should be completed correctly and not left for uncontrolled destiny.

Answer 2

The scattergun approach to political indictment, again!

Libs don't all think alike. McCain/Kennedy on Illegal immigration for example.

Saddam's genocide of his own people makes him eligiblefor dire punishment so it matters little whether we found wmds - he had and used them before our arrival.

Incidentally, I don't see any Libs spouting irresponsible poison as many conservative talk-show hosts do with their 'Liberals hate this country' remarks.

Answer 3

What happened to the WMD's?

Well, any Liberal that says he never had them is misguided at best and most likely ignorant. The same can be said for any conservative that says the existence of said WMDs was justification enough to invade Iraq.

If the justification for going into Iraq, killing 3K US troops and 50k-150K Iraqi civilians was all because Iraq had WMDs, consider the following...

Known, ACTIVE chemical/biological weapons PRODUCING states: United States, France, Russia, Iran, North Korea,

Nations known (or STRONGLY believed by virtually ALL informed groups) to have stockpiles of chemical/biological weapons...Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Canada, China, Egpyt, France, Germany, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Libya, Myanmar (Burma), Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, Serbia/Montenegro, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, ROC (Taiwan), United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam, PLUS all former Soviet States and most of Eastern Europe.

The point is virtually ANY semi-developed nation can possess chemical or biological WMDs. (Psst: pesticides used in agriculture can be used as WMDs)

Now, let's consider Nuclear capability...

Nations known (or STRONGLY believed by virtually ALL informed groups) to have stockpiles of NUCLEAR weapons: United States (in excess of 10,000 individual warheads), Russia, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, China, United Kingdom, former Soviet States AND our friend Saudi Arabia.

Nations capable or believed capable of producing a Nuclear weapon: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France , China, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Norway, Japan, India, Canada, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, & South Africa (KNOWN to have produced 6 warheads in the 80's, but voluntarily dismantled them).

States with advanced nuclear weapons development programs (active or dormant now): Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Yugoslavia

SO... if eliminating the threat of WMDs is justification for invasion... we have long list of nations to invade!

I know... Saddam was willing to use them against the US or our friend Israel. But couldnt the same be true about the Arab desire to hit Israel? Israel has BOTH chemical/biological and nuclear weapons and can hit most (if not ALL) Arab states.

- Sudan has KNOWN chemical weapons stockpiles, and has had a genocide taking over 250K lives, yet we dont invade them.
- Pakistan harbors Al Qaida, but becuase we SAY they are our friend, we ignore the fact they are aiding and abetting our enemy AND have WMD capability.
- Saudi Arabia is believed (by the US govt) to now possess 6 or more nuclear tipped missiles, yet we dont invade them! (wasnt Bin Laden a Saudi?)
- North Korea blatantly detonated a nuclear test, but we merely sanction them

The point, is the invasion was was conveniently justified with trumped up charges they intended to use WMDs against us or Israel, which I am tired of being referred to as if it were a state of the union. Even Colin Powell resigned after realizing he had been a patsy when he made his plea to the UN about anthrax, etc. (which by the way is still ACTIVELY produced within the United States for weapons use).

Sure...we can feel good about the "better to fight them there than here" philosophy, but death is death, here or there, and do you really think terrorists are SO gullible or afflicted with ADD that they can hear that mantra spouted so often in press conferences, etc. and not go "gee, this is what they want us to do. maybe we should attack the US and NOT fall into their plans"?

The point is this was a trumped up war to fix what daddy didnt do the first time, and give BILLIONS in no-bid contracts to companies run by "friends".

Want proof? Not gonna post em here... because anything I post will be "poo poo'd" as Liberal sources. Want your proof?.. look up what I have posted and find your own proof! PROVE to me Iraq was a bigger concern to world security and Darfur, China's growth into the world's MEGA economy, the collapse of the US's influence in the world economy, HIRING of illegal immigrants by US companies without retribution, the growth of the national debt, the alienation of Latin America, the fact that 51% (55% if you count veterans benefits) of the Federal Budget directly or indirectly funds National Defense while less than 6% goes to healthcare or education.

The war was wrong, is wrong, and WILL be wrong, because we invaded a sovereign nation which had not intentionally attacked the US at ANY point.. other than rhetorically.

Answer 4

I am not a liberal but check out this site.

Answer 5

he got rid of them when we invaded iraq