Does anyone have proof that Weapons of Mass Destruction dont exhist in Iraq?

Question

If you have proof that you cant prove a negative, prove it.

If they found shells of Sarin nerve gas.
a. they found WMD shells
b. A mad man said, hey I aint got no chemical weapon delivery system.
c. He dropped Sarin on his own mother.

And the United Nut Factory (U.N.) is irrelevant !

There is no such thing as "burden of proof" only fact and non fact.
Proof stands by itself. Fact alone rules.
Not implied fact, not spun fact.
JUST THE FAX

Answer 1

Doubtful.....Saddam had admitted to them. We just havent found them. They could be in Iran, Syria or buried in the sand. He had weeks to hide them, before we got there. There are civilizations, still being found from centuries ago.....Its a big sandbox over there

Answer 2

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You cannot prove a negative. Extrordinary claims requires extrordinary proofs.
Nobody I know has any proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam got rid of those and the U.N weapons inspectors knew quite well. Scott Ritter knows and is quite articulate and informed about this subject but is not allowed on the Facsist (coprporate) media because he contradicts the big lie.

Answer 3

They moved all that stuff to Syria when they knew the Americans & the British were coming. And, if the US & Britain pull out, guess where all that stuff will end up ? Right in the hands of Al Queda, who would like nothing better than to kill every last one of us. Yes there were WMD in Iraq, & if we don't get the job done there, they will take it as a sign of weakness & come after us again.

Answer 4

I agree. They have found Chemical Bombs with poisonous gases. I believe that could be a weapon of mass destruction. Maybe they don't destroy buildings but they could destroy the human race. So I don't get it. Why don't they think Iraq couldn't destroy us. Huh! Oh yes our great armed forces protect us and give us the freedom and the safety to sit in front of our computer and ask and answer questions in yahoo site.

Answer 5

Of course they don't, for two reasons.

1. They found shells of Sarin nerve agent that Hussein claimed didn't exist.

2. You can't prove a negative.

Answer 6

The Armies didn't find anything, dummy.

Interesting enough, they have chemical weapons now don't they. I refer to the chemical bombs used by the insurgents yesterday. Bush is responsible for bringing WMD's to Iraq....That should be a headline......

Answer 7

first off- exist*
second- to the person that said they havent been there for 2 years prior to the invasion --- Sadam admitted to having them and moved them to Syria just before the UN took its sweet time to investigate Iraq.
Third- you can't prove a negative.

Answer 8

Good question in that it was averred in short order that there were no WMD (Gore "He betrayed us.") w/o enough time to find them. The only reason why we have not- is that the dems wanted is to go through the UN over and over- giving Iraq plenty of time to hide them in Syria Bekka Valley. Will Gore apologize if we find them> Will all dems apologize?

Answer 9

Too late.

The US terrorists have already been proven to be using white phosphorus, depleted uranium and napalm, all of which the UN deems to be "weapons of mass destruction" and thus illegal.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030810-napalm-iraq01.htm

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraq.html
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqdubabiespix.html#DUBABIESPIX
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html#IRAQWARPIX


.

Answer 10

There is no proof that they existed, or ever existed for 2 years prior to the American invasion of Iraq.