2007-01-09 16:46:09 · 21 answers · asked by inin 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
never have ,never will.unless you consider bush a wmd?
2007-01-09 16:53:19 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Oh yes, in 2003, the U.S. removed 1.7 tons of processed Uranium ore from Iraq (as reported by CNN). Yes, last August, just like Alex says, 500 tired old mustard gas mortar shells were found. Stipulated.
The prevailing rumor is that the bulk of Saddam's WMD were moved to Syria before the invasion. If that's true, the obvious question then would be.....Why didn't Hezbollah use them against Isreal last spring?
If I were Bashir Assad, and Isreal buzzed MY Presidential
summer home not once, but twice. Those WMD's would have been loaded into the nose cones of at least some of the more than 2000 Katyusha rockets that fell in Northern Isreal.
If I were Bashir Assad, the half dozen or so well publicized Kassam rockets used in that campaign would have certainly contained 200-400 pounds of Uranium ore when they penetrated as far as Haifa.
My opinion? The WMD thing is a red herring . PERIOD.
2007-01-10 01:40:10 · answer #2 · answered by Farnham the Freeholder 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some moronic Republicans think that a few barrels of 20 year old mustard gas are the WMD's. When they probably have more toxic chemicals in their beer.
No. No one with a brain believes there are still WMD's in Iraq.
2007-01-10 03:44:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Iraq Survey Group, apart from a few stockpiles, did not find the large quantities of weapons that the regime was believed to possess.
On December 14, 2005, while discussing the WMD issue, Bush stated that "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong.
National Intelligence Estimate (a consensus report of the heads of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies) asserted that the Iraq war had increased Islamic radicalism and worsened the terror threat.
2007-01-10 01:06:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, nor was there a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda or theTaliban or 9/11, nor was there any terrorist threat coming from Iraq, nor was the primary reason of invading Iraq was to liberate the Iraqis. The chemical weapons that were found (And were touted by Rick Santorum and other neocons as "proof" of our need to invade Iraq.) were made before the 1st Gulf War and had decayed to the point that they were harmless.
Iraq was an illegitimate front on the War on Terror.
2007-01-10 01:06:50 · answer #5 · answered by Liberals love America! 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
At this time, most likely not. However, there obviously had been MD at some point.
If Saddam Insane had allowed open inspections like the UN required at least 4 times, it would have removed one of several factors that were used to justify his removal.
Mr Hussein thought he could continue thumbing his nose at the world and that everyone would just stand by and talk. Well, some did. Unfortunately, for his way of life, others did not.
2007-01-10 01:12:21 · answer #6 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, he abandoned his wmd projects after the first gulf war and as a direct results of the sanctions.
Lesson - sancions WORK. Sure - there were scandals - oil for food, blah blah, but in the end, sanctions - not war - rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. Period.
2007-01-10 00:54:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do you really believe that there ever was? And if there ever was it was what the usa gave them years ago. Listen, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and hussein had nothing to do with osama. This war is for oil and so the usa can put up mcdonalds and walmarts and have more people to tax to death.
2007-01-10 00:56:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
there were dangerous chemical weapons found in Iraq but hey, what do you know ?
The most dangerous weapon in the middle east is an American liberal whiner who does more damage towards the New Middle East's peace negotiating process than anything else. Should our country have given up on making peace in Europe or Japan ? NOT ! We are awesome and you don't have a clue
2007-01-10 00:53:59 · answer #9 · answered by 21 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
To be honest, its really a mute point. Bush was given permission to go into Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, and decided Sadaam was more important. So he changes the name of his B.S. war and marches off to iraq and ignores Osama . And for what? Meanwhile the Taliban is as strong as ever and its rumored Bush is going to deploy troops from Afghanistan to Iraq! Way to go Geroge. The neo cons want unending war at any costs.
2007-01-10 00:53:23 · answer #10 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No. They were taken out of the country before we could invade. The UN stalled and gave Saddam time. They took money from him for the favor.
This is not hard to figure out.
2007-01-10 01:01:12 · answer #11 · answered by Tropical Weasel 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋