united nations weapons inspectors had been searching iraq for over 2yrs and saddam said to america so you know and you have proof, then come and show the world,but bush went against united nations and bombed iraq(whats the point of united nations)bush said yo blair jump and blair jumped,then they wonder why other countries want revenge and bush and blair call it terrorism,wake up people,
2007-03-14 07:49:58 · 16 answers · asked by rebel 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Well he told me that he knew all along, he really just wanted to have a sumber party at big bush's house and thought that if he didn't go along with him he would get totally uninvited. Me and blair are really close and he tells me everything.
Do people really still care about this? It happened, and nothing is going to get better. The US can't win and all president bush is doing is sending young men and women to their deaths. It is pointless and stupid.
2007-03-14 07:55:55 · answer #1 · answered by cooltoque 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What good is it pouring over spilled milk. The only way we can help the people of Iraq is to help them get stability into their war torn country.
And to leave the country with proper infra structure, schools transport and utilities. Though not by lining the pockets of companies like Haliburton who I believe have just moved their business interest to Dubai.
Let some of the good fortune of rebuilding this country go to the Iraq people themselves after all the majority of buildings that were annihilated had been there for generations and were build with grace and beauty so there is no doubt that the people are more than capable of rebuilding given the resources with which to do so. And not the business Moguls of the USA.
And Bollocks to Bush and Blair; Hell mend them both!
2007-03-14 08:02:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
According to Scott Ritter former Chief UN Weapons Inspector, Everybody in power knew there were NO WMDs in Iraq.
He also spoke about molybdinum contamination in Iranian uranium prohibiting the refinement to weapons grade material.
Below is a very informative piece. 59 minutes and 31 seconds
2007-03-14 08:27:48 · answer #3 · answered by seattleogre 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hussein wouldn't let inspectors into sites, and often trucks were seen leaving sites as inspectors waited at the doors.
If he didn't have WMD, then he could have saved himself by letting inspectors into the sites.
Put yourself in Hussein's shoes. You are the leader of a country and very very rich as a result. To stop an invasion, you merely have to show you have no WMD or are destroying those you have. You have no WMD. Do you A. shout to all who can hear, have public shows, press conferences etc. during which you destroy your WMD, invite people to inspect sites, or B. keep inspectors out of sites, fail to provide reports when asked, etc.?
2007-03-14 07:55:18 · answer #4 · answered by FCabanski 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are wrong.
We found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003
US-led coalition forces in Iraq have found some 500 chemical weapons since the March 2003 invasion, Republican lawmakers said, citing an intelligence report.
"Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent," said an overview of the report unveiled by Senator Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra, head of the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives.
"Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf war chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf war chemical munitions are assessed to still exist," it says.
The lawmakers cited the report as validation of the US rationale for the war, and stressed the ongoing danger they pose.
"This is an incredibly -- in my mind -- significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," Santorum said.
2007-03-14 07:57:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They want to go to war in Iraq for the oil reserves and silly Tony Blair went along with it. They knew there were no wmd. They didn't care.
2007-03-14 07:53:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ok wise ***. And for you other *** faces. If he didnt have them, then what the hell was I looking at lying on the streets, backs twisted, toungues forced out of the mouth, eyes bleeding, blisters the size of baseballs on babies foreheads, backs broken from convulsions and the smell of acrid chemicals everywhere? A conventional weapon? I think not. For all the non believers out there, prior to my getting to see what he had in his arsenal he slaughtered 10's of thousands with the same weapon 4 years earlier. I guess what we seen first hand means nothing to people.
2007-03-14 07:56:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you really think with the games Saddam was playing, 2 years would have been enough time to find something. Heck, a year after the invasion we found jet fighters buried in the desert.
2007-03-14 07:53:14 · answer #8 · answered by pedohunter1488 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Poor try at spin...lets look at FACTS..I know you lib types hate FACTS as they destroy your OPINIONS..but here they are.
Saddam HAD WMD
Saddam moved them to Syria
Saddam had used some of them...(chemical) against the Kurds
Inspectors found plants for producing WMD
Saddams Generals have admitted that they had them and they were moved.
Now that your ignorance has been PROVEN..have a nice day
2007-03-14 07:57:01 · answer #9 · answered by Real Estate Para Legal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can't 'know' a negative.
Bush and Blair did not 'know' Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. We still don't 'know' that. We just assume that because we haven't found them, they don't exist.
Equally they did not 'know' he did have them - they just assumed - unjustifiably, it would seem.
2007-03-14 07:59:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋