Do you think that liberals know they've been duped while it's happening, after it happens or never? Check out this link to a CIA study published in 2004:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#
This is a full account of Iraq's development of "dual use" chemicals. For liberals: "dual" means "two"--these were chemicals that had two uses, one commercial and one military. (It seems that Saddam was especially interested in pesticides.)
Buried in this study somewhere is a little published fact: we have inventoried a total of 10,049 weapons caches and as of this study had detonated a total of 243,045 TONS of illegal weapons out of the total 412,012 tons. (What do you think they mean by "illegal"?)
This is the kind of intelligence is what lead the United Nations Security Council to pass resolution 1441 warning Saddam to disarm and account for all of his illicit weapons programs within 30 days "or face serious consequences."
2007-02-24 20:41:53 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sueflower, honey, if we waited for the UN to authorize a war, wouldn't we all be dead?
All you need is the Sudan and Rwanda for examples of the UN's bang up job of being the world's authorizing agency.
No, sweetheart, the US is the world's protector, and we have been now for about 90 years, since WW I.
2007-02-24 21:13:48 · update #1
Nationalist: I don't consider the "Free Republic" to be an unbiased source for information, so I don't really like to use it, but thanks for the link.
In this case, they're reporting actual events, not the usual course in the liberal press. If I could find the primary sources behind this article, I'd use it here.
2007-02-24 21:18:20 · update #2
To answer your question, Liberals don't know anything.
That being said, he developed "dual use" or Schedule 3 chemicals because they are easier to import, export, and conceal. They have alternate uses that can disguise their true purposes for stockpiling. They are also easier to create.
As far as finding the chemicals and weapons in Iraq. You are absolutely correct. We began finding remnants as soon as we got there and are still finding them. The reason why the WMD has not been declared as "found" is because the specific weapons the U.N. declared missing were not found.
Please see the following source for the WMD findings...
//////Edit: I would have to agree with you on the Free Republic however I provided the link because it was a good article. All they did was reprint it. I believe it lists the original source as Insight Magazine ^ | 26 April 2004 | Kenneth R. Timmerman///////
2007-02-24 20:59:44 · answer #1 · answered by Nationalist 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
412,012 tons? Wow, and all I've heard is that we haven't found anything in Iraq. Why won't the media let little facts like this come to life? Oh yeah, it would mean Bush might be right.
2007-02-24 20:51:03 · answer #2 · answered by Mr. Pibb 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
And what was the number of the UN security resolution authorizing military force in Iraq?
Oh yeah... that's right.... there wasn't one.
2007-02-24 21:04:30 · answer #3 · answered by sueflower 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Ummm... So that the US would have a reason to invade?
2007-02-24 23:20:54 · answer #4 · answered by theocide84 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋