English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The report that states that no WMDs were found in Iraq also states that Saddam Hussein left his capabilities in plce to make WMDs and intended to resume making them if the US left him alone.

2006-11-07 10:36:18 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

8 answers

Duh, he had WMD's because the U.S. supplied them to him during the Reagan administration to keep Iran in check, they were our ally then, remember..

2006-11-07 10:41:17 · answer #1 · answered by Bob D 6 · 0 0

What WMD's he had, fell apart or were destroyed after the first gulf war.

Those that he had, we (the US) supplied him for the Iran-Iraq War. Those were Chemical weapons.

Saddam had PLANS for a few various types of WMDs (that I can remember). They were only plans and not in action.

Saddam was not an imminent and gathering threat as we were told by the Bush administration.

The US and weapons inspectors had him contained. Even Condi Rice, as national security advisor, had reported that containment was working.

The policy of containment was working and could have continued to work. Instead of invading, we should have engaged those who live there to overthrow Saddam. This was happening right after Gulf War I and Bush I abandoned those where working to overthrow Saddam. So instead of gaining allys AND getting rid of Saddam, we now have enemies, spent over $300BB on our way to $1 Trillion+, and we're stuck there for years to come.

2006-11-07 10:49:33 · answer #2 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 0 0

There are some conflicting reports about this. The very thing you state of resuming WMD is mentioned. If anyone cares to read more about this topic, the links below are interesting.

2006-11-07 11:50:17 · answer #3 · answered by 63vette 7 · 0 0

The point is that the UN sanctions were working on him. If we left them alone, goodness only knows what the dictators and madmen would get up to. When the rest of us keep an eye on them, through UN sanctions and inspections, they toe the line. There was no need to invade Iraq.

2006-11-07 10:40:49 · answer #4 · answered by random6x7 6 · 1 0

they're greater or less equivalent. the reality that Saddam become retaining WMD courses become nicely-documented, and the difficulty become that Iraq had not satisfactorily confirmed that countless stockpiles of countless bio weapons, alongside with countless lots of Anthrax, had not been disposed of in accordance with the treaties signed after the Gulf conflict. the reality that he had his team enjoying shell video games with the suspected web content jointly as the UN become attempting to verify those web content merely merely before the conflict in 2003 gave some creedence to the thought Iraq nevertheless possessed lively courses and components. evidence right this moment accessible after 9/11 pointed quickly at Al Qaeda, which, of direction, is led with the help of Osama. There wasn't plenty doubt approximately that one.

2016-11-28 02:25:43 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I think the report is wrong. Bush said there where no W.M.D.'s

2006-11-07 10:41:44 · answer #6 · answered by flip4449 5 · 0 0

Bush never proved it

2006-11-07 10:43:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

yep he was, proof?

here

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/index.html

2006-11-07 11:00:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers