2007-02-14 03:40:28 · 26 answers · asked by Drop the donkey 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I think Bush wanted to improve the bottom line of Halliburton, nothing more.
2007-02-14 03:43:42 · answer #1 · answered by Mitch H 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋
No, I would hope that they would not send 10000's of troops to mass on the boarder with Iraq if they thought that Iraq could fire WMD in 45mins. The justification is back to front. GB has WMD so that no one will attack us. The USA is the only country to use WMD's so if having WMD's is a reason to attack a country then Iraq should have been way done on the list.
2007-02-14 10:44:54 · answer #2 · answered by chris h 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
When their intelligence services both said that the indication was that Iraq still had WMD and probably was reconstituting their WMD programs, and had sought uranium in Africa, and this was confirmed by the French, Russians, Israel and UN, why would they choose to NOT believe it?
When the Clinton carry-over CIA director told Bush that the WMD was a "slam-dunk", why would Bush not believe him?
It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.
2007-02-14 03:51:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
No they did not and if they did they should be put up against a wall and shot anyway.
To send troops into a war where you know that the enemy has WMD is more than stupid, it is murder.
They went in guns blazing like the cowboys that they are.
The minute they got to the city they dropped bombs from 10 miles up to save their troops lives.
If they were that worried about WMD they would have done that from the start before putting our troops lives in danger.
Isn't it amazing that every time anyone makes a sensible comment they are branded a liberal.
I would rather be one than be a fascist that locks people away for years without a trial.
This is a crime against humanity in the civilised world.
2007-02-14 04:57:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
it is been shown previous any doubt, that Iraq management grew to become into FINANCING terrorism via their oil earnings. some traced to Ben weighted down and different terrorist businesses. Any united states of america that helps the killing of voters, even of their very own territories, as Iraq did, truthfully grew to become into area of the photograph of terror. for the time of any of our international wars, a rustic would declare war on any they discovered helping their enemy! In our day and age, that's truthfully some Muslims who propose that any one that may no longer of their faith could die. there is likewise info that Iran is and has been helping terrorism via funds or perhaps some Liberals mentioned looking after that subject! that's surprising as maximum Liberals are against any Republican President on any war difficulty! They make all a play for a vote and for politics despite if the country or our human beings will go through for it. we could propose that they do no longer look to be even American for some! So we can't call Bush a terrorists whilst he's attempting to provide up it.. We would desire to bear in mind, that's international and a lot of countries have suffered from murders and kidnappings from those animals...Earl
2016-10-02 03:15:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I honestly think it surprised the crap out of everybody that they did not.
Think about it: If Bush KNEW that Iraq had ditched all its WMD's, how hard would it have been to plant some to be 'found'?
I think the intelligence reports were cooked, but I also think the WMD turning up completely missing caught everybody by surprise.
-Dio
2007-02-14 03:46:47 · answer #6 · answered by diogenese19348 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Bush, Blair, Clinton, Gore, and several intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had WMD. Stop it with these childish questions.
2007-02-14 14:29:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Someone close to me in the military has been to Iraq three times, once as part of the search for wmd's. They found expensive, air-conditioned buildings in the middle of the desert that had been "vacated" in a hurry. Obviously not definitive evidence, but awfully curious. We never found Bin Laden, did he never exist?
2007-02-14 04:57:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Whether they did or not if Saddam had let the inspectors do there work and find no WMD instead of being so bl--dy minded, there would have been no war and he would probably have still been in power.
2007-02-15 09:05:27 · answer #9 · answered by jaybee 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes of course and they can be launched within 45 minutes.Considering how many U.S. soldiers and civilians have been killed since the war"ended" no WMD would have caused so much death as the pure wmd which is the suicide bomber.
2007-02-14 03:50:23 · answer #10 · answered by stupid girl 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
IRAQ had WMD. The WMD are now in Syria.
I think Bush and Blair believed that we'd find WMD. That doesn't make them right or wrong, just misled.
2007-02-14 03:46:50 · answer #11 · answered by rjrmpk 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋