You think we haven't found WMDs in Iraq?

Question

I laugh at you then.
Documentation.
Signatures, distribution, you name it, it's on here.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
WHAT NOW LIBS???
If this dont' convince you, I don't know what will.

Answer 1

When I served in the military, they called weapons of WMD,
ABC warfare, OK? A=atomic, B= Bacterial (germs) C=
chemical (poison gas,etc.) Saddam wanted everyone to think
he had nuclear capabilities! You ask why? So no one attacks him! He used poison gas and probably germs on his own people (Kurds) in the North! He had missles, bought them from USSR they called them Skuds, he fired them into Israel during Gulf ONE!
If he had an atomic devise then, I am sure he would have used same! Does it make a lot of difference if you are killed with
WMD, or the "Old Fashioned Way" in Saddam's prisons?
I think, he paid (tried and hung) for killing his own people!
I don't think it makes a big difference, if you are killed sucking
poison gas, germs, an atomic blast, or a .45 to the brain.
The final result is the same! Final thought, Hitler after killing(WW2)50 -60 million people, was working on the atomic bomb! He had rockets which would reach the USA (V-2), do you ? he would have used them, if he had won the race to developing them? Saddam would have also!
Did we need to find that Hitler had WMD? Wasn't that one of the devises he used on 6 million Jews (poison gas and ovens)! COL (Crying Out Loud) it ain't funny!

Answer 2

Several tons of chemical weapons were discovered, what is missing is the WMDs and dual use technology that the UN, The Select House Commitee on Intelligence, the US Intelligence Agngencies and the Clinton Administration knew were in Iraq prior to the expulsion of the UN weapons inspectors.

So while most people realize some WMDs were found they are not the WMDs that were being searched for, hence the reason Bush never proclaimed he found them, because there are still a great deal unaccounted for.

Answer 3

This is old news that has been discredited. Some old degraded weapons from before the first Gulf War were found buried. They had been lying around so long they were unusable. Even the Administration discounted this story. The only one who gave this any credibility is FORMER Senator Rick Santorum.

Answer 4

Oh, come on! If we had indeed found WMDs in Iraq don't you think President Bush would be announcing it faster than you can say it! Boy, that would be his grandest day as President! It would be the one thing to end all negativity toward his war policy. I have not heard one word from him about this so where did Fox get the news? Oh, yea, Fox; I forgot, they know everything & then some!

Answer 5

So what? Obviously you haven't read too many intelligence estimates. "We ASSESS that WMDs still exist." What that means to military types, is "we THINK" there's still WMD out there.
The black market etc, again so what? If they moved/sold them, then no WMD. The point of the invasion was, Nukes that could potentially threaten US interests in the middle east. Not chem/bios.
"Insurgent and Iraqi groups desire...to use chems/bios". No kidding. Tell something my years in Counterterror didn't already know.
Bottom line, is the invasion was planned on lousy intelligence, without proper discussion of alternative interpretations of available intel.
Finally, I note this summary is "Unclassified'. NIEs, INTSUMS are NEVER "unclassified". They are at least Secret, if not TS/SCI. To my military mind, this calls the document itself into question.

Answer 6

Yeah, Fox news is a reliable source. If you were to invade any nation, you would find ammunition. The whole point is that Iraq never intended or planned to attack the US. They had absolutely NOTHING to do with 9/11 and Saddam was an enemy of BinLadin. Empty shells and a few guns under people's beds does not constitute weapons of mass destruction. Pull your head out of your azz and get a clue.

Answer 7

The correct question might be were any left behind after the USA supplied Iraq back in the 1980s for their fight against the Iranians.

Personally I am surprised we didn't find Saddam sitting on a Bio Chem warhead signed by Reagan. (sarcasm)


Why does the USA have so many weapons of mass destruction and who will stop us? Take that Neo Cons, wait i forgot the caps.
Incidentally, the media tends to lie like dogs.

Answer 8

If WMD's had been found in Iraq,both Bush and Blair would have been screaming it from the rooftops as justification for their illegal invasion.
Suggest you look at things a little objectively in future

Answer 9

Did you read that? It says 500 old, unusable chemical weapons were found. And it says they might be others and it says terrorists want to use them.

If you recall, the old weapons were found to have traces of chemical weapons in them. That's traces. Minute amounts.

So we have had close to 3100 troops killed for "traces"? Your link shows there were no stockpiles, no amassing of weapons.

Now what? You tell me.

Answer 10

Nothing will convince them, even if a WMD was deeply embedded in their bowels......Their Uncle Saddam already claimed to have had them...Inspectors documented them Saddam did not prove he destroyed them.
Scenario: While waiting for the US to attack, Saddam moves them to Syria or Iran. Maybe that's part of Iran's plan to not have inspectors.Mmmmmmmm.
The desert is one huge wasteland...we are still finding lost cities from centuries ago...
I suggest we get each Lib with a beach pail & shovel and let them dig up the desert...see what they find....We have already found planes buried from the 1991 war..took 15 years to find them...
We are still unearthing wreckage from VietNam and WW2