Can someone please tell me why this is not a big deal?

Question

A few days ago there was an uproar because the US government published papers siezed in Iraq and in the papers was a "how to" for building a nuclear weapon.
People have been screaming about that but does that not clue anyone else into the fact that Iraq had the capability to produce nuclear weapons?
For all of these people that screamed that there were no WMD should this not shut them up and silence the argument that we should not be in Iraq? Does this not PROVE the necesity of the war in Iraq?

I also wanted to add this to the question: Also do you think that it would make a difference in Iraq that Iran has the ability to produce enriched uranium. Do you think that they would have shared it with Saddam's regime?

Answer 1

Ok and you can find articles on how to build nuclear weapons on the internet do that mean you have one or even have the capacity to make one in your basement? So what l am sure he was trying from the 90's to build one but that don't mean he had one and we had to rush to war to stop him from using it.

Answer 2

Contrary to popular opinion, it's really not that hard to make a nuclear weapon, and almost any country can do it.

However, and this falls right in line with the current concern over Iran, the key component of a nuclear weapon is enriched uranium. Producing enriched uranium is FAR more complex than actually building the bomb itself.

Possession of biological and chemical weapons by a nation doesn't necessarily mean they're a threat, especially when the have none to little capability to actually deliver the weapon to a target.

Oh, both Germany and Russia posessed biological/chemical weapons in WWII (all the major combatants did), yet never used them. Why is that? Because of fear of retaliation. Had Saddam ever used such a weapon against any other country, then he could expect a retaliation that would pretty much destroy the nation of Iraq.

Consider this: If Saddam had so many WMD's, and was actually crazy enough to use them, then why didn't he use any when the US invaded??? He knew we were going to conquer Iraq and remove him from power, so he had nothing to lose by using them, yet he didn't. Why not?

As far as the argument goes that Saddam was using them against his own people, then there's a whole list of other countries we need to invade where similar/worse atrocities have happened and are still happening today.

Basically, there were no real compelling reasons to invade Iraq, and now that we have we've only further destabilized the Middle East, and increased the chances of terrorist attacks.

I doubt Iran can produce more than minute amounts of enriched uranium, and they sure as heck wouldn't have given any to Saddam, or did you forget about the first Persian Gulf War between Iraq and Iran in 80-88?

So, here's plenty of reasons why "this is not a big deal", and I could elucidate further but I'm on my way to bed.............

Answer 3

Those papers have been around for years. Tom Clancy used them as the basis for his 1991 novel "The Sum Of All Fears", which has Middle Eastern terrorists rebuilding a nuke from scratch and using it to nuke the Super Bowl in Denver.

Did Iraq have WMD? Actually, yes, they did. The US Government, represented by Donald Rumsfeld, sold them to Iraq back in 1983 when Iraq was at war with Iran. The States funded and supported the Iraq side, the USSR did the same for Iran...get the picture:

http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&q=Rumsfeld+and+Saddam+1983&btnG=Search+Images

Answer 4

Very Valid questions:

No it does not prove or justify going to war. Over a few sheets of paper. Every country in the world could possibly have this or other WMD's paperwork.

i find it hypocritical of the USA to claim "No One can have WMD's" when we still have ours. i know the argument, WE THE USA WILL NOT USE THEM....Duh....we are the only country to ever use WMD's..WW2..lest we forget that?

i am not saying that We, as the USA, should not attempt to keep the spread of Nukes down, but we are in not a position to demand who is who in the playing field..

And your 2nd question:
The USA has the largest contingency in the UN so we always have more troops in UN lead operations. Granted the Iraq war was never sanctioned by the UN, in fact condoned, but, even the UN cant stop us from forcing our foreign policy agenda on the world.

Answer 5

Iran HAS nuclear weapons. North Korea HAS nuclear weapons. Both are facts. Now, it's still DISPUTED whether or not Saddam HAD nuclear weapons in Iraq. With that said, why Iraq?

Answer 6

just because info on how to build a wep like a nuke is on the internet, DONT mean anyone could/would have the know-how and moreso the balls to do it. I dont care if Saddam had WMD's or even nuke knowledge....he killed his own peeps by the thousands at one point, and used mustard gas on the Iranians. So there's your sign.

He HAD stuff!!!!!
USED it!!!!

My feeling on our troops=hero's.
feeling on the war in Iraq= mixed.

Answer 7

i don't know if Saddam had nuclear capability, but everyone knows he had chemical weapons which he used on the Kurds and the Iranians. So in my mind there was always a justification for deposing him. I believe he moved all of his wmd material to Syria.

Answer 8

Remeber that the plans to build a bomb came from the Bush white house not the Iraqies, so following your logic we should make war on the white house by voteing against dubya anyway and every way possible.

Answer 9

You have a good point, but I'm still confused as to why the US has deemed themselves (ourselves) the police of the world. Isn't this why the UN was created? Why does it have to be US that goes after the miscreants? Why isn't the UN in charge and not us?

Answer 10

Good question. But news is too depressing for me and it's always the same crap. So I'm not big on watching. SO even if it was I wouldn't have heard it.