what would be different if the Weapons of Mass Destruction had been found in Iraq?

Answer 1

It would not have made any difference the US and UK were determined to go to war. Not for WMD, the real cause has never been disclosed. What is the unspoken agenda ? I think that it was to gain a foot hold in the Middle East to counter the up coming threat of Iran and to stop all world wide nuclear proliferation. The idea was if you try to obtain nuclear weapons we will attack you.

You may have noticed that just after the invasion Pakistan owned up to selling nuclear technology and Libya gave up her nuclear programme.

The paradox is that countries that have nuclear weapons are apparently safe from invasion. The UK had a chance to not replace her trident programme. We have them and you cannot. What a recipe for world peace. If we thought Iraq had WMD then there never would have been an invasion. look at Korea for an example.

Now the west US and UK realise what taking the lid off of a sectarian and ethnic pressure cooker really means. The suffering caused by the war and its aftermath, has it really been worth it for the people of Iraq and the poor service men dying in their thousands. How can Bush and Blair sleep at night !!

Answer 2

Most everything, other countries would be in Iraq helping the US make this war something that it isn't now. Which is over. The fact that no weapons were found not only pisses people in the USA off but it also does the same for people in the region who feel the US is an intruder for no reason at all except to get their hands on Iraq's oil. If weapons of mass destruction were found to be here then the invasion would have been justified but as it was they have no support from the UN on this other than the limited call for some troops from allied forces. It would be alot different.

Answer 3

Saddam, was 68 years old, he could at the most have ruled for another twelve years before a new order was set. Have all of you who doubt the illegality of this war not noticed that the two best armies in the world have sent armies into Iraq and easily toppled Saddam. So what! well the problem is, that if the Iraq army was so easy to topple why are we having so much difficulty in subduing a grateful people. The fact is the Iraqi freedom fighters are holding the two most powerful armies the world has known off without little effort, and we have no intentions of going leaving the true reason ''oil'' in the hands of the rightful owners. The truth is America would have just gone in and taken the oil with no excuse. America will take what it wants. Watch Iwhat happens with Iran.

Answer 4

We would have different rhetoric from the left on why the war is wrong in their opinion. Do not believe for a second that it would be different. The extreme left is antiwar, they always have been and they always will be. If you need evidence of this fact just go back and look at how much heat Bill Clinton was taking for actions in Somalia and Bosnia when he was President. We were justified for removing Hussein for power related to his violations of United Nations Resolutions and the ceasefire agreements from the first Gulf War. Liberals refuse to acknowledge even this basic fact so there is no reason to believe that any amount of justification no matter how righteous would satisfy them. When wars are political as most are these days there will always be opposition to the cause.

Buzzard: I guess you missed all those Iraqis which were shown welcoming soldiers in Baghdad and yanking down the statue of Saddam. I know many soldiers serving in Iraq who tell a very different story about their reception from the Iraqi people which the news media seems to be refusing to report. I think I will take their word for it since they are the ones living it. There were mistakes in Iraq because we did not get control of the insurgency which led to instability of Iraqi against Iraqi, but I do not believe for a second that the average Iraqi isn't glad that Hussein is gone.

Answer 5

Fishfinger ... I think not much. Because of the way Saddam had been mouthing off, along with the estimates of the intelligence communities of several countries, the world was confident that he DID have WMDs of one kind or another. This is how we could have obtained an endorsement by the U.N. for our plan to invade. Additionally, no additional permission was really required because there was sufficient basis for military force because of the provisions of the agreement that ended the first Gulf War. Because Saddam had repeatedly violated the provisions of this agreement, this was all the justification needed, actually, not to mention the hundreds of times that Saddam's military had taken "pot shots" at our aircraft that were enforcing the no-fly zone.

Back to your question ... No, things would be about the same because this internal strife that Iraq is having would have occurred anyway, whether WMDs were found or not. I believe that the legislators who initially supported the war, but now protest it, are doing so because the casualties continue to mount and they haven't got "the stomach" to see this through.

And should I mention the "D" word? Maybe sooner than we think, a military draft may be required and I'm sure they avoid talking about it at all costs EVEN if it causes us to fail in completing our mission in Iraq.

Answer 6

There would be more public support for the military action... it would have been, arguably, a more valid invasion. Probably initial casulties would have been higher as well, because if the Iraqis had actually had WMDs, then they would probably have used them against the invading forces.

As for the aftermath we are seeing now, and whether that could have been avoided, I don't know. You could put this another way- what if all the propaganda we were fed before the war was actually true? If it had all been true, then the coalition forces would have been welcomed as liberators, and met by people throwing flowers, but....

Answer 7

George Bush and Tony Blair would have been very surprised? As far as the ongoing situation in Iraq is concerned, I doubt the discovery of WMD would have made much difference. As far as the world's perception of the war and in turn our perception of Bush and Blair is concerned, all the difference in the world.

Answer 8

Actually, we've found plenty of WMDs in Iraq. But the libs always make excuses, like "those shells are old, and likely not dangerous". Or, "those mobile chemical processing trucks could have been used for anything". Or, "that chemical plant is too damaged to tell what it was really making".

In reality, Iraq refused to live up to it's UN commitments to be completely open to inspections to ensure it did not have WMDs, or the ability to restart WMD programs. After years of thumbing their nose at the UN, and with growing international concern over Iraq's behavior, the U.S. invaded.

The big mistake we made in Iraq, was not finishing the job in 1991.

Answer 9

There would be no difference at all , this war was about oil and nothing else , no-one rushes to the aid of the african people who are suffering far greater under dictatorships, wonder why that is.

Answer 10

if you lived outside of america like myself you already knew iraq did not have wmd. i got to see some american television on satellite during the run up to the occupation, and you guys were getting pure 100% propaganda sugar coated spoon fed to make it taste better. no one does propaganda quite as good as america