English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-28 13:05:37 · 13 answers · asked by bowlingcap 2 in Politics & Government Military

13 answers

1) Saddam used WMDs (poison gas, specifically) on his own people - hundreds of Kurds dead from poison gas in Iraq is pretty good evidence that Iraq has poison gas, which is a WMD.

2) Iraq had a nuclear program in the past, trying to develop nuclear weapons. It was well known in the international community that the Iraqis had been attempting to buy weapons grade plutonium. Israel, the US, and others had intelligence that Iraq was trying to make weapons-grade nuclear fuel at the Osirak reactor. The Israeli Air Force took it out in 1981.

3) For years Iraq would not give free acess to UN inspectors who were in Iraq to ensure that Iraq no longer had poison gas or a nuclear weapons program. Not allowing inspectors free access is a strong clue that you're trying to hide something.

4) National intelligence services in 2002 produced reports that said "“We assess that Baghdad has begun renewed production of mustard, sarin, GF (cyclosarin) and VX.” (all of which are poison gasses classified as WMDs). In October 2002 the CIA reported that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapons program. Numerous other reports from US and British intelligence agencies reported various likelihoods, from possible to almost assured, that Iraq had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs in various stages of startup and operation.

5) These reports were available to both the President's national security council and the intelligence committees of both the house and the senate. If Bush lied, then so did every other congressman, republican and democrat, who voted for the war.

6) Personally, I think that everyone spouting "Bush lied" has pretty much no mind; they're letting opportunistic liberal politicans, and media with more of a mind for spin rather than facts, do their thinking for them. The facts about the pre-war intelligence reports, and how both the president and both sides in congress acted on them, are clear.

2007-01-28 13:39:30 · answer #1 · answered by dougdell 4 · 2 0

The U.S. citizens thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because their government told them so. The citizens believed this and went along with it.
Now the citizens know that there are no weapons of mass destruction and have come to realize the government lied to them.
The government lied to get approval for the war hoping to find such weapons after they invaded Iraq. No such thing was found. Now the boys and girls of the American "Bush league" are mired in a war of lies and deception that is costing the citizens literally trillions of dollars.
Meanwhile back at the ranch Mr. Bush has his holidays with prime beef ribs while the poor and hungry do without the benefit of those trillions of dollars that could have been spent on places like New Orleans. This money could have been spent on a war against illiteracy, a war for education amongst the poor. It could have paid for the welfare of the nations future.

2007-01-28 23:39:17 · answer #2 · answered by the old dog 7 · 0 0

Because for a period of about three years we were secretly recovering and destroying chemical-weapon warheads in Iraq.

You will have a very hard time convincing me that Iraq did not have WMDs - I personally saw a couple of them.

2007-01-28 22:26:02 · answer #3 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 2 0

US government headed by the president Bush dreamed or had an illussion that Iraq has had WMD,so before Sadam used the WMD Bush should attack him firstly.He did not want to be late.He would not take a risk to be attacked by Sadam'WMD.

2007-01-28 21:31:52 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 0 1

political expediency to support invasion.Lets get real .If the states was all in an uproar about democracy ,they could have invaded Burma a hundred times.If they wanted to see a population actually gain from oil revenue they could have invaded Nigeria.
The Iraq war is all about the floundering Us DOLLAR.The Arabic nations are moving away from the dollar and towards the euro when oil trading .Control the middle east and control the way in which oil is traded and you save the dollar

2007-01-28 21:12:01 · answer #5 · answered by Paul I 4 · 2 0

They did, they were removed. It took over six months for Congress to decide to let the President do something about it, in that length of time, plenty of time for the terrorist to remove WMD's to make US look bad, but main thing is, Bush is cleaning up there, and countries need to learn not to mess with the US or pay dearly. 911 and the war in Iraq, better to fight there than here. I support Bush and I support the Troops. Anyone who does not, is a coward or traitor.

2007-01-28 21:16:07 · answer #6 · answered by m c 5 · 3 2

because u attack before they have an operational WMD so 100,000 soldiers dont die when u did invade which would be 100 times worse then it is now and it would be another vietnam

2007-01-28 22:48:02 · answer #7 · answered by Mike F 2 · 1 0

Because George didn't want you all to think he was invading Iraq for personal reasons, like the threat that Saddam made on George Bush seniors head. so he manufactured this lie just to get revenge. and I would bet that there are more W.M.D's in Iraq now then there ever was before, Thanks to Iran, and Syria.

2007-01-28 22:04:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

They had to think something dangerous and acceptable and that was as good a candidate as any to justify the invasion.

Just like the quickness in which Saddam was killed. It was all contrived, George should be snatched, tried and killed in the same fashion for the many Iraqi innocents he's killed so far.

At last count he surpassed Saddam.

If Americans today were like the way they used to be they will all bow their heads in shame AND do something to George to discourage similar actions in the future and for ALL of them to atone for George's sin and their sin for going along with him and pretending nothing about it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

2007-01-28 21:11:24 · answer #9 · answered by childrenofthecorn 4 · 2 2

Because Saddam was not complying with UN weapons inspectors.

2007-01-28 21:39:57 · answer #10 · answered by Curt 4 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers