Why do people think that we found WMDs in Iraq?

Question

There are many different WMDs from Iraq. There were some in the 80s we gave Saddam, there were some from the 90s he got into trouble for, and there were some we accused him of producing and developing in the 2000s. The ones from the 80s are old and he either already used them, or they are disabled. The ones from the 90s he got in trouble for in 1998. Those are the ones that Clinton is always quoted as talking about. Those were either destroyed or disabled.

Then we accused him of producing new ones and developing new technologies. These new ones and new technologies were never found. These are what we went to war for. Yet I hear people constantly say we did find WMDs. Yes, we did find remnants of the old ones, but we have never found any of the ones we went to war over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_in_Iraq#Runup_to_the_2003_Iraq_War

Yet people keep insisting that we found the WMDs we went to war for. What are they talking about?

So most of the people used the 80s and 90s WMDs as their examples when I explained the differences. So those people are dumb.

And RAR24, you can't criticize Wikipedia for being flawed by being written by people and not experts, and then use your entire evidence from one person who is not a military expert either. Way to define hypocrisy.

Thank you willy. I admit that I am not fully educated on the subject (but more then most). I will research what you have explained and continue to try and expand my knowledge on the subject..

Answer 1

The reason is is that people believe anything that confirms what they want to hear.As recently as a few months back failed senate incumbent from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum stated wmd's had been found, he later backtracked on this. Yet many of the most gullible ideologues started claiming "See, see their are weapons in Iraq."

Answer 2

You gotta blame Hans Blixs and the UN for this one. If the UN had one half, of one ounce of balls, they would have never let the Iraqi's get in the way of the weapons inspectors who were there to do an agreed upon job. The Iraqi's chose not to comply for whatever reason so the UN should have taken a page out of Adolph's book and kicked a little a$$ right on the spot and done what they were suppose to do.
Oh whats that you say, we can't inspect this facility today? Well I have a UN tank behind me that says I can. Evacuate this building immediately so we can do our inspection, or prepare to be buried beneath the ruble in 10 minutes. Posed with that proposition, what would be your choice?
But the UN, remaining true to form, dropped the ball again.

Answer 3

They had no wmd's that could be used against the U.S. The problem with the people that think there are or were wmd's is that they get their information, I mean dis-information from:

George Bush
Dick Cheney
puppets of the White House
Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Ann Coulter
Bill O'Reilly
Fox News channel

People in this post have talked about sarin or mustard gas. If, and I repeat if, they did indeed have these gases, many were old and were no longer that much of a threat. And IF they did exist, there was no way to get them to the U.S. They did not have a rocket that could deliver them to the U.S. They have no air force. They were not an immanent threat. That was a lie.

Answer 4

These people are talking about the ones that the govt. keeps classified. Such as the Friday, before the election, the major newspapers showed an article in the paper, talking about how, through republican urging, GWB started publishing some of the things they found in Iraq online, some of the plans they had. The newspaper article, continued to talk about how they pulled it down, because nuclear physicists were saying that those plans were more detailed than should be allowed to be shown in public.

The link is herehttp://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50917FD3B5B0C708CDDA80994DE404482
But you need to buy the article now to view it, but you can get a glimpse of it through this.

It seems like it could be a little speculation, but then again, it appears that believing the reason of going to war in Iraq was a lie because of WMD, is even more speculataion, since 1) Iraq had a few months to get rid of them if they wanted, 2) there is over 50,000 documents in Iraq that are still being translated and 3) military secrets sometimes are almost never really revealed to the public until that generation is dead. IE, prison torture camps in Japan during WW2, released in 1999. By released, I mean the information on them

EDIT: "g", don't you contradict yourself? You said he would hold multiple press conferences if we found anything. Then we did, but not the ones we were looking for. So, I guess saying anything is probably very false.

Answer 5

It became rather the actual WMDs that Saddam became speaking approximately it. Saddam rather lied to international approximately having actual WMDs yet info shows that once the 2003 Iraq invasion. yet info shows that Saddam became approximately to construct it and have a look at to start up a nuclear conflict with Iran. however the mainstream media refuse to rfile it as they do no longer experience it relatively is no longer clever. The Iraq conflict is everyone opinion: no rely if we would desire to continuously have been there or no longer.

Answer 6

You are incorrect. We went to war in Iraq based on 17 UN resolutions which were violated. In the case of WMDs we did find shells tipped with Sarin and Mustard gases. These munitions are considered WMDs and were of pre 1991 origin making them exactly the weapons we were looking for. Now if you want to argue that these weapons were not usable in their current form that would be a valid argument, but holding to the No WMDs found or these aren't the weapons we were looking for does not hold water.

Having these discussions with people of your stripe is absolutely pointless. You are locked into a mindset that cannot even accept actual findings. It doesn't matter if you agree with the justifications because many people don't, but it cannot be denied that some weapons have been found and they are classified as WMDs thus leading some people to the natural conclusion that weapons were found. Instead you deny the findings or try to explain them away, then refer to those who disagree as and I quote as "Dumb". You asked the question " Why do people think that we found WMDs in Iraq?" this question was answered effectively by several people here. You just did not like the answers, get off of your high horse and get over it.

Answer 7

Wikipedia is not necessarily factual, the entries are made by common-man not experts.


Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Thursday, June 22, 2006

WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

Answer 8

Bush should have said in the beginning that the Middle East is becoming a threat to the entire world, and instead of things going very badly 30 years down the road, let's try and do something about it now. I know everyone says "it's about oil and Haliburton and imperialism!" because it's fun and hip to say, but there's more going on than just that.

Answer 9

VERY good question! Allow me to explain!

In order to understand this issue, we must look into the history of Iraq and Saddam. Saddam and the Iraqi minority hate Iran and the Shiites and were embittered enemies with constant border squabbles. With the UN resolutions, Saddam was put between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, he wanted to avoid US intervention so he SOMEWHAT cooperated with UN inspections just enough for a show of cooperation but certainly not full compliance. On the other hand, he did not want Iran to get the idea the UN resolutions left him defenseless so he propagated intelligence to demonstrate he still had WMDs. This is why the allies found many Mobile Chemical Weapons Labs travelling around with no real chemicals.

Simply put, Saddam got caught in his own web of lies.

I'm so glad you asked this question so I could clear things up!

You're welcome!

Answer 10

Because we did. Seems you and others missed the news casts I believe they were in 2003, when traces of anthrax were found in weapons arsenals American soldiers, recovered from Iraq compounds. If they didn't have anthrax, which is a weapon of mass destruction, then why were there traces found? Don't forget Iraq is a very large desert, weapons could be hidden anywhere, just as the mass graves of innocent murdered Iraqi people were eventually found using satalite pictures.