Even though the united states found 9 nuclear bombs, 800 pounds musterd gas, 30,000 gallons of clorine gas, and over 200 bombs filled with botolism tockins?
2007-03-24 05:35:56 · 22 answers · asked by gopaokay 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
They found nuclear bombs? Where did you read this? I think you are mistaken.
2007-03-24 05:39:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
And where did you get these made up 'facts' from? There where no, none, zero nuclear bombs found in Iraq. The mustard and chlorine gas canisters were already known about by the US and the weapons inspectors and were there because the US gave these to Iraq decades ago. And there were 'rumors' that Saddam was trying to set up a bio-weapons lab but no evidence of such was ever found. Better start looking for info in places other than the I-am-a-brainwashed-Republican.com website.
2007-03-24 06:31:00 · answer #2 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nine nuclear bombs, huh? That's a new one.
Were they found "in the area around Baghdad and Tikrit and somewhat to the East, North, South, and West of there" right where Rumsfeld said they'd be?
You must have missed that day when the representatives from the miliitary said that whatever decrepit and ineffective weapons have turned up in Iraq are left over from their war against Iran, and were not the WMD we thought they had and for which we invaded their country.
Surely you listen to what the official military spokesmen have to say about what's going on over there, or do you maybe have an elite network of Tim McVeigh types over there who fill you in on the secret truth the rest of us never hear???
2007-03-24 06:20:40 · answer #3 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Where do you get these statistics?
No news report that I've ever seen ever said nuclear bombs were found in Iraq. So, if you're going to make such claims, you need to include a link to a reputable source to back them up.
As for the rest, most of it was left over from the first Gulf War, in the form of non-functioning chemical warheads. And if you think mustard gas and chlorine counts as WMDs, then that terms has pretty much become meaningless.
2007-03-24 05:39:01 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
Where did you get such an idea? Your data is completely false.
Who said this nonsense? Some Bush apologist?
Certainly there had been confiscated weapons, bombs, etc. found there in Iraq.
And promptly lost by our incompetent re-invaders.
There was nothing Saddam Hussein or his army could have used, nothing at all.
UN inspectors had found them, despite Bush's lies to the contrary.
What pseudo-religious right-wing Republican told you this nonsense?
Hussein had no connection to the 9/1// mass murderers; he'd been killing outside provocateurs.
And he had no weapons of mass destruction.
There was no reason to risk destabilizing as entire backward philosophically-poisoned region's citizen's lives, who were being ruled by autocrats and insular madmen; no reason at all.
least of all nonexistent WMD.
2007-03-24 05:43:45 · answer #5 · answered by Robert David M 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That's just a lie! You have no evidence to prove this whatsoever. If Sadam Hussein had 9 nuclear bombs wouldn't he have used against his enemies? If he had chlorine gas wouldn't he have used it against the invading troops?
You have absolutely no evidence any weapons of that calibre were found. Admittedly small amounts of degraded sarin and mustard gas munitions were - yet this is not "9 nuclear bombs" I, however, do have evidence the Bush administration admitted no WMD were found. Take a look for yourself.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3135932.stm
2007-03-24 05:42:49 · answer #6 · answered by Mordent 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003
"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere."
George Bush March 26, 2004 - while joking at a dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association
bye bye gopaokay.
2007-03-24 05:55:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Slow down! What nuclears? I never heard of something like that!! You should have posted the link.
And "The fact is there WERE WMD found in Iraq.
They can't see past their hatred for Bush to know the truth", I admit that I don't like Bush, but I'm willing to see the facts, I hope you too.
2007-03-24 05:45:38 · answer #8 · answered by stormcow05 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's because that's what they are being told by Liberal leaders and the media. They don't want people to know the truth. Some people refuse to admit it because they think it's a lie. Sometimes Liberals are so indoctrinated they can't understand or accept any other way of thinking. Other times they have just never heard it before. Take every case on an individual basis and try not to stereotype.
2007-03-24 05:43:52 · answer #9 · answered by jesus_lover1962 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Because there was NOT any.. come on, use your head for something besides one of Bush's hats.
Don't you think IF they had WMD they would have tried to defend themselves a little better? Sadam would of used them long ago.
2007-03-24 05:45:15 · answer #10 · answered by Not Me!! 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"Were they found 'in the area around Baghdad and Tikrit and somewhat to the East, North, South, and West of there' right where Rumsfeld said they'd be?"
SEE!! You gotta just KNOW with your HEART that we found them!! Guy!!! Because after all, as you pointed out in the statement above, we knew EXACTLY where they were!!!!
:P'
2007-03-24 06:54:13 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋