A Question for Conservatives. If Iraq's Non-Existent WMD's are in Syria, Then What is Bush Doing About It?

Question

Stands to reason that if your argument for no WMD's being found in Iraq is because they were moved to Syria, seems that goal #1 in the "War on Terror" would be doing what ever it took to seize them in Syria. Right?

How come no one except the looney right fringe mentions this Syria/WMD connection theory?

Could it be that the WMD's didn't exist in 2002 at all? As the U.N. inspectors said. Before they were kicked out for the invasion.

And please don't quote people from 1998. "Evidently" between 1998 and 2002 they were destroyed. Like Hans Blix said.

So why did we start this war again?

Answer 1

Wow, good question. I think I hear 2 things:

1. Neocons spinning answers ... and/or
2. Crickets chirping

Answer 2

Your right somewhat! They are pointing fingers at Bush for getting us into a war over oil with a people that had done nothing to America, and "yes" Bush should have gotten his facts straight, and came up with a provable reason to go to war with Saddam so that he could legally kill the enemy of his Daddy, but as usual he blundered his way to war! Then to make matter's worse, Bush didn't forsee the enormous cost of sending us to war, nor did he seem to really care, nor did he understand the amount of innocent lives that would be taken as a result. Is it his fault? "YES" it is! Bush should have come up with a plan for the gradual withdrawal of our troops once Saddam was captured, but "no" he now wants complete control of Iraq as a way of taunting his enemy. We have no business there, and we should let those people settle thier own affairs! We had a Civil War in this Country to settle our affairs, and now we have a better Government as a result, and a consistent way of life, that recognizes the diversity of the multi-racial/ multi-cultural people of this Country. We still have a few problems that we need to workout such as: Erradicating racism completly or legally, Gun control, Court reform, automatic/ systematic Minimum Wage raises, and enacting Police anti-brutality laws.

It seems apparent that we need a new Leader, as Bush has failed us as he seemingly has had "No Plan" that has been productive, practical, and prosperous for the Middle and Lower Classes of people in this Country. His policies have ultimately been very divisive and destructive to the welfare of the masses, without posing any suitable alternatives to our current or previous situations. Under the Bush administration, crime is rampant, the economy is faltering, and our response to our own people in crises( Katrina and Rita) is atrocious, and was thought to be blamed on racism/ republicanism/ compassionate conservatism! We can't truly blame anything on the Democrat's cause the Bush Admintsration has largely undone most of the Clinton Adminstration's efforts and replaced them with their own. Wake up AMERICA! It's time for change once again!!!

Answer 3

Just go back and check out the "unenforced" UN resolutions that were placed on Iraq. If the UN had enforced their weak resolutions the US would not have to. Oh and the quotes from 88 and 02 don't count because democrats are quoted with no proof of the WMD's being destroyed. Hans Blix has the creditiblity of the NY Times which is not saying much.


http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/

Answer 4

The invasion happened because Hans Blix got stonewalled by the Iraqi government. Get your facts straight.

I guess the theory never gets mentioned because the media are in denial that the WMDs ever existed (which they did). Saddam is paranoid enough to have moved the WMDs elsewhere long before any UN resolutions were passed.

Answer 5

Ali, Ali, Ali, You just don't understand.

The info about the WMDs being in Syria is ultra secret, known only to people that post on Yahoo Answers. Not even the President knows. SSSSh

Answer 6

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. So instead of getting attacked over fighting two wars in two different countries, we would be getting slammed for fighting THREE wars in THREE different countries (we'd still be in Iraq, rebuilding the infrastructure). Not only that, but we're really not on bad terms with Syria, or with Jordan. We're not on "good" terms, but it could be worse. Which it would be if we had gone in.
Besides, it's all conjecture anyway. Who really knows, except Hussein and his administration? And somehow, I don't think many of them would admit it anyway.