If we hadnt invaded Iraq and Saddam Hussein was still in power and launched a biological , Nuclear or Chemical

Question

Attack on one of the surrounding countries. Would the same people that are criticising the governments of USA and UK still be criticising them , but for lack of action??

If he never had the weapons , then who the hell gassed the Kurds?

Answer 1

The Iraqi's gassed the Kurds in the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. At this point Iraq was very much a friend of the West.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.


This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

After the first Gulf War, many sanctions were put on Iraq and the country spiralled downward. They simply did not have the means to acquire or build weapons of mass destruction. I think this has been admitted now by both Blair and Bush as in that 'they made a mistake'

Answer 2

It is the same kind thinking that we use for the Kurds that we should use for the Iraqis. The dropping of napalm bombs, cluster bombs, fuel bombs and depleted uranium bombs on Iraqi civilians under a false prospectus is just the type of thing we accused Saddam of doing to the Kurds. Which is what it is, a war crime of Hitlerite proportions and if you find scope to support the war criminals on either side, then a spell in rehab will be in order.

It does no good to speculate what might have been. The terms of the ceasefire after the first gulf war was the destruction of all chemical weapons and that is what they did as could be seen from the logs of the UN weapon inspectors. It is no use trying to say that they would have launched a chemical war when the facts are available for all to see. The point is that they had NO CBWs.

The kind of speculation you propose is what the various warmongers use to justify the illegal invasion of a sovereign country.

Answer 3

BE very careful ,Saddam did not have or have the capability of such weapons. There would be a lot more innocent people alive today if the invasion didn't take place. PROPAGANDA is a more powerful tool than any weapon!!! Read your history on this region!!! PLEASE and how these governments created it in the first place. I personally feel very sad about the whole situation. These governments act for the good of you and I supposeadly???? LOOK what's going on at the moment with the slave trade???? We are being made to feel guilty over something that another GOVERNMENT imposed without our say so

We are all aware of the " kurds" incidents, but wasn't it bandied around at the time that he had wmd that could reach mainland Europe?? That is what the majority of people were concerned about.

Edit Read Mucky's answer below

Answer 4

If Saddam had the capabilities and did launch such an attack, first off, it would not be just the countries currently fighting in Iraq now. An attack like that, would cause a larger coalition that I think would have gathered countries such as France even (Although their foreign policy is against military intervention, I do believe they, along with most countries would make an exception). In conclusion, to answer your question, in terms of people, it would not be countries, but rather private research groups, and possibly the press, depending on how much pressure we had before the chemical, nuclear or bioattack, that would be criticizing

Answer 5

Where was he going to get his nuclear weapon from and you are right he did gas the Kurds in the GULF WAR and George Bush Snr let him off he should have got rid of him then instead of trying to make a pact with him.

Mucky I don't know if you are old enough to remember the reason the first gulf war started is because of the way Saddam treated the Kurds but I am sure you know better than me.

Answer 6

Iran attacked the Kurds in halbja. USA clearly used biological and tactical nuclear weapons against Iraq. which caused the mysterious sickness for American soldiers because of a sudden wind. Iraqi generals also said on jazeera that the tanks melted like candles. American presidents are war criminals and should be executed for killing so many innocent civilians. you are brain washed by masonic media. or may be you are just another fascist.

Answer 7

By the time of the invasion he was a spent force internationally. All his WMD had been destroyed.
He gassed the Kurds in the 1980s when he was supported by the USA among others.

Answer 8

there became into an fantastically long record of costs against Saddam. costs made no longer in ordinary terms via the U. S. yet via the UN and the international community. GHW Bush did no longer grant any chemical weapons to Saddam. if actuality be told GHW Bush led the 1st gulf conflict against Saddam and subsequently the the international community in the path of the UN had banned Saddam from possessing or coming up Chemical weapons.

Answer 9

in the first place it was the US and UK who where supplying him with these weapons They were well aware of what was going on but they turned a blind eye because the US had installed him there and he was complying with what they wanted (the war with Iran) after the gulf war Iraq was no threat to any other country The Invasion was nothing to do with wmd and was planned long before 9/11 as was the invasion of Afghanistan its to do with nothing but money and power as is the hate mongering thats being encouraged towards Iran

Answer 10

Therein lies the dilemma! If you are a visionary, or act on intelligence, and prevent a disaster, people will say it never would have happened anyway.

Remember Jaws? The Chief knew, but the Mayor and the Town Officials fought it. Fiction, but very common.
What about Tom Cruise in the movie (name escapes me) where they arrest people before they do the crime? Can you imagine that taking place in our current society? NOT!!