It's pretty obvious that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical weapons before 1991 and produced chemicals in commercial volumes up to that point.
It's also clear that he used the weapons and destroyed entire populations dliberately.
It's also clear that up until 2003, Saddam Hussein had an entire department of government dedicated to the development of chemical, biological and radiological weapons, and that from about 1995-2003 diverted funds from the Oil for Food Program to pay for the development.
Should we act like liberals and pretend that they just vanish into thin air so that we can have a ready club to beat over the head of our own president?
Or should we ask the most logical question that presents itself? Where did they go?
Which one of Saddam's supporters is currently sitting on them and terrified to be exposed as being one of Saddam's allies in this nasty business?
Really, it's a harmless question, why are we afraid to ask?
2007-02-24 22:22:43 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Firstly guy o is spot on. Chemical and biological weapons don't last forever. A bit like the air in a balloon.
Secondly. Bush snr, Condi, Rumsfeld, Cheney, all said that Saddam was contained and couldn't develop anymore weapons. the only thing that changed was when the hit on the US dollar began to show after 2000 when saddam began trading his oil in Euros through the oil for food program. At first the US laughed because the Euro was weak but then the dollar plummetted in value and the Euro went from strength to strength and the harm of Euro trading instead of petro dollar was evident.
If Iraq was under such close obsevation with daily flyovers, satellites and spy technology, ask yourself how could it have been possible for Saddam to move his WMDS, especially as the US claimed before the war that they knew were they were. If they knew were they were don't you think they would have kept an eye on them to make sure they stayed there? They simply didn't exist and that is why they weren't found.
Ask yourself who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows a fool?
2007-02-25 01:00:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I believe it is well documented where they are. Syria will not confirm or deny it. They also will not let anyone in to decide it as well. One thing is for certain is that he used them on his own people and the UN does not even attempt to force the issue with Syria. Just another example of the weak in the knees biased U.N. and their hate of America. It may take a few more years , but, all of the truth will come out about what and where the WMD's went.
2007-02-24 22:35:37 · answer #2 · answered by meathead 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Only the mentally retarded, the liars and the willfully ignorant don't know the facts: Saddam didn't have any WMDs since 1995. Even "Chicken George" Bu**sh** knew that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/24/AR2006062401081_pf.html
http://forums.appleinsider.com/archive/index.php/t-12602.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/printable1527749.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1449362,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.main/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/26/iraq/main690922.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
The same informant that told Chicken George "Saddam still wants WMDs" is the same informant who said Iraq didn't have any.
Curveball invented lies because the Whorehouse was willing to pay for anything he could invent.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0405-24.htm
Chicken George is equal parts cherry picker and nose picker. Anyone who claims there were WMDs in Iraq in 2001 should be forcefed a mouthful of anthrax...or, stop being a coward and sign up for military service in Iraq.
.
2007-02-24 23:00:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Where Iraq's WMDs go is not the most important issue, since Iraq had no WMDS at the day of the invasion, which was supposed to be due to Iraq having WMDs. But one can ask: "Where did the DU, which the US had, go?". The answer to this is: It was used mainly in Iraq, but also in the former Yugoslavia and in Afghanistan.
2007-02-24 22:52:03 · answer #4 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Syria, Jordan maybe Iraq. One of those whack job Mid East counties
2007-02-24 22:36:05 · answer #5 · answered by Boston Mark 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
a million. My function? 2. to ask you, what aspects such fairly good, astute & sharp humorousness? 3. would you at the instant seek for to the sky for an answer? 4. Is that "a" question? 5. Or, is it extra like "5 questions?"
2016-10-16 10:58:46 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Chemical weapons have a shelf life. Usually a few months or years. If he manufactured in the mid 90's, all of that would have deteriorated by the time we accused him of having them.
So he had no chemical weapons.
2007-02-24 22:27:54 · answer #7 · answered by guy o 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Iran,all leads to Iran.Bush will clarify that soon.just don't flip out when the bombs start to fly on Iran,,,.decider,,,,p,s this was all known by the Bush administration ,for years,but its a program in the middle east that must be followed so as to not offend out allies in the region.enjoy the Bush victory,s ...soon decider
2007-02-24 22:31:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Syria.
2007-02-24 23:13:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everybody nows they went to Syria,
2007-02-24 22:28:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋