2006-12-05 13:40:25 · 17 answers · asked by tre_132mp 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
They were there back in the Gulf war but he got rid of them to avoid UN problems. He pretended to have them so Iran would not feel that an invasion would be easy. He never thought that the US would be so stupid as to invade after the first Gulf war and the smart first pres. Bush said it was impossible in his book.
2006-12-05 13:50:14 · answer #1 · answered by Birdman 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
I'm not sure, probably, but Iran has nuclear weapons and will probably try to use them against Israel. Think of this, Iran has huge oil reserves it does not need nuclear energy as a power resource, hence they are developing it for weaponary purposes only, its frightens me to say the least.
2006-12-05 15:39:31 · answer #2 · answered by 1776USA 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
maybe not iran but syria...hell they could still be buried in the deserts of iraq. And why wouldn't saddam move them? we only told him for months we were coming, that was plenty of time to do it. im not a genious but i am a thinker and if i was saddam i would make sure they are well hid or out of my country then i could say "look at the evil americans invading my country for no reasons, see i have no weapons!" but i guess that makes to much sense
2006-12-05 13:56:44 · answer #3 · answered by rizinoutlaw 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe they were there, but Saddam wouldnt have given them to Iran. Remember the Iran/Iraq war? Saddam got rid of them while he was holding the UN inspectors back, probably to Syria where they can finish the job.
2006-12-05 13:55:02 · answer #4 · answered by druszka717 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I bet you some day its going to come out that the WMD's were moved before we came in. I saw those large trucks in the satellite photos in the Iraq camps. Where did they go?
These trucks were never found, how can we be so sure WMD's weren't in them.
I'll take the loss on the WMD's for justifying the Iraq war but let's not be so certain they never existed.
2006-12-05 13:46:13 · answer #5 · answered by Action 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Of course they were there.He used them against the Kurds.The Clinton administration gave him the weapons to fight Iran in order to keep Iran from invading the middle east and disrupting oil supplies.
2006-12-05 13:46:09 · answer #6 · answered by STIFLE IT LIBS 2 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
moved to iran and syria (thank putin or that)...funny how they did find evidence of wmd's but the dem's said those aren't the wmd's we were looking for...huh? not THOSE. also if saddam didn't have wmd's explain how the kurds died....wmd's. also just a couple of weeks ago a renowned forensic expert testified at saddam's trial and guess what he found in the soil of saddam's victims in the mass graves...you got it....biological residue. the bones tested positive too.....good thing saddam didn't have wmd's right? ; )
2006-12-05 14:09:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There are high ranking officers who were in the Iraqi army who will testify to the existence of the WMDs Don't you think Saddam had the power to conceal a couple bombs within a million miles of dessert
2006-12-05 13:55:00 · answer #8 · answered by josh h 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
properly, evidently somebody has some exciting common sense per incorrect information. enable me prepare you. one million. Bush gave a itemizing of TEN motives for invading Iraq. among those motives have been the 1000's of 1000's of civilians Saddam had murdered, the reality that Russia, Germany, and France have been violating the UN sanctions and promoting weapons to Iraq, and that Saddam grow to be getting billions of greenbacks from the "Oil for foodstuff software" that he grow to be in no way meant to get. the only reason he grow to be getting this money is with the help of the fact some UN officers have been taking their own proportion. With this technique, in simple terms approximately $500 million incredibly went to civilians in Iraq. tremendously much $6 billion grow to be unaccounted for! 2. invoice Clinton HAD Bin encumbered and enable him pass. I guess if Clinton might desire to run back you may vote for him in a 2nd. 3. The weapons of mass destruction have been in simple terms one area of the reason of heading into Iraq. That being reported, we DID discover weapons of mass destruction. We DID discover nerve brokers utilized in terrorist assaults in France. whether, Bush right this moment admitted that Saddam had no connections to this terrorist team. 4. OBAMA has already defied the UN and set up a team of countries to take extra desperate action with Syria. this is totally a probability that we will quickly pass into conflict with Syria, with Obama as president, and pass against the purposes of the UN. 5. Obama observed BUSH'S plan with Afghanistan. count of actuality, we even have extra infantrymen in Afghanistan right now than we did while Bush grow to be president. Giving Obama credit for Bin encumbered is in simple terms as logical as giving it to Bush. I provide the credit to the protection stress. edit: exciting. Antonia reported that no-one could ever vote for a president who could renew the Patriot Act, renew the Bush tax cuts, advance protection stress spending, deliver extra troops to Aghanistan, and so on. while i at the instant published a query that confirmed Obama's record, she incredibly reported that no-one could ever vote for this form of poor president. She needless to say would not comprehend Obama's record.
2016-12-13 03:37:55 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you kidding me? Saddam wouldn't hide his WMDs (that he used to kill thousands of Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war) in Iran. He might hide some of his MIGs but never WMDs? Those are way to valueable to give to an enemy.
2006-12-05 13:44:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
One theory is the WMDs aren't in Iran - look to Iraq's other neighbor Syria.
If you can hide Russian jets in the desert why not mustard gas or other nasty items?
2006-12-05 13:51:20 · answer #11 · answered by Akkita 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋