How do a few chemical weapons from 25 years ago constitute a "clear and present" and imminent danger to the US

Question

I don't believe that and WMD's were found in Iraq. But i KNOW that no nukes and no delivery systems were found.

Please con's you have to admit this.

Now if that is true and the supposed weapons escaped to Syria, then we should be attacking Syria right now for the same reason we attacked Iraq.

If a few chemical weapons scare you, hold on because by that justification the US is going on a whirlwind tour of country invadin' Yee Ha!!!

Iran, N/ Korea, Pakistan, Somalia, Isreal (we sold them their WMD's) and many many more!!!

Fact is we don't have a good justification. Ity's just a bungled plan that went wrong. The soon you admit that the quicker you can heal.

Yo Genius...
I guess Bill wasn't convinced enough to spend a trillion bucks and thousands of our troops lives there though was he....

Score one for Bill..

Bunz:
you got ammonia and bleach in the kitchen?

Guess what you have WMD's

Thats as high a bar as they're setting

Johnnycat:

Thank you for proving my point.

So, if we'll go after everyone who has a bad intention towards us now no matter the size of their weapons:

We're gonna be some kind of busy!!!

Answer 1

Maybe all this smart weapon technology the Army brags about is a fantasy. And despite billions of dollars spent a goat herder with a beer bottle full nerve gas is a real WMD.

Go big Red Go

Answer 2

It is clear from many sources that WMDs were not the primary motivation for attacking Iraq--Bush and Cheney were intent on finding a reason to attack, and WMDs were their best justification.
Even if there had been WMDs, they would not have been an immediate threat, and there was no basis for invading a sovereign nation based on accepted international law. Saddam was not friendly with Osama, and he had no ability to reach the U.S. with missiles. However, the U.S. public would have been willing to accept the invasion if it had been based on an honest mistake.
Instead, there was a willingness to twist the facts to make the war appear to be justifiable, and we have paid dearly for the manipulations.

Answer 3

Say you've 3 babies. Now, say that 3 of your associates made threats for your babies. Then, a million of those associates particularly accomplished the threat. Now, the different 2 associates are nonetheless making threats about your different 2 babies. What do you do? sit down idly by technique of waiting for the subsequent one to strike, or do you strike first? What has to take position before you're taking action? Yeah, it may have not been an forthcoming threat, besides the undeniable fact that it became a threat. Saddam kept attempting out Americas persistence by technique of capturing planes and blocking guns inspectors and distinct different issues. All that aspect bartering with others to get a hand up on united statesa.. again I ask, what could you do?

Answer 4

That depends on your definition of "a few chemical weapons."

Facts:
Prior to being kicked out of Iraq by Saddam in 1999, the UN inspection team had destroyed 48 long range missiles, 14 conventional warheads, 30 chemical warheads, 40,000 chemical munitions and 690 TONS of chemical agents. Prior to their departure, they also discovered a nuclear program that was far in advance of what they previously had thought.

With no reliable ground inspections for over two years prior to the invasion and Saddam's history of using chemical weapons during the Gulf War to kill over 20,000 people, including an estimated 5000 Iraqi Kurds - I have no problem with our justification dependent on a "clear and present" danger based on the above evidence alone.

Answer 5

Wasn't that a Harrison Ford movie? You may have been fooled from the start, but this moderate knew all along that the goal was to establish a massive long term military presence in the middle east. You honestly believed the WMD stuff? Align yourself with logic and common sense in the future, instead of an ideological political party, and you won't be shocked ever again.

Answer 6

If you believe a few weapons from 25 years ago are not a danger, then you're a fool. 2000 years ago, they threw stones, and if they were throwing them at you, you would be in danger. It's not the size or power of the weapon, it's the intent, and believe me, those people want us ALL dead.

Answer 7

Somalia?? I've never heard of Somalia having any kind of WMD!

Answer 8

Hey Genius, Ask Bill Clinton. He was convinced they had WMD!!

Answer 9

I think the dead horse has been severely beaten...

Answer 10

they are holding on by the skin of there teeth.