Is it true that no WMD has found in Iraq?

Answer 1

Even Bush himself admits that none were found, and probably did not exist on any scale worth noting since shortly after then end of the First Gulf War. Damn, but should I take HIS word on that??

Answer 2

A Weapon of Mass Destruction is a weapon that causes MASS DESTRUCTION...

Obviously the definition of MASS is up for debate. Some people think that the death of 10-50 people or 10-50 buildings is a MASS. Some think 100-5000 is MASS. Some think 5000-100,000 a MASS... and on and on.

So, what is your definition of MASS DESTRUCTION? Would it be the same as a scientific definition? Or a governmental definition? If you think the aforementioned, possibly expired chemical weapons could have caused your definition of MASS DESTRUCTION, then the answer for you is yes. If not, the answer for you is no.

Part of the debate over this found/not found issue, includes an element where when the Administration presented their case to the UN and the American People, phrasing was used (see explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier#Uranium_from_Niger) that established the particular TYPES of Weapons of Mass Destruction they believed were in Iraq. As a result of *those* types of weapons not being found, it is argued that WMDs have *not* been found in Iraq.

Answer 3

no it is not true, there was WMD's discovered, only not at the extreme level that was first expected..... the amount of actual WMD's that were found was very small in quantity,
while i think the Bush administration made many mistakes, the idea of WMD's goes back to the days when Clinton was in office.... following the past information and having poor intelligence based on historical evidence of the old Saddam regime days and having no new evidence to show that the existing WMD's from the Clinton time period no longer existed in the multitudes believed, they made choices that were incorrect... while it is easy to believe Bush was at fault, ((clearly i am not a fan of Bush) there is little fault given to Saddam Hussein over thee lack of transparency in this matter, being a man who literally pushed the US to the brink many times and then backed down only at the 11th hour in every occasion had little to no credibility when trying to say he had none without allowing unfettered weapons inspections....he hindered inspections at every point along the way,,,, understandably since his country was a sovereign country....but at some point do you acquiesce and give proving yourself verses being overthrown and facing being hunted down......

Answer 4

Technically they found some but they were old, left over from when we were arming Iraq, and no longer viable. So for all intents and purposes, SH did not have any sort of viable WMD program.

Answer 5

There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction. Even people on here don't believe Bush that their were no WMD's. They must live in never-never land!

What they did find was some old 155 mm shells which contained gas, they predated the first war in the 1990's, and were so old, even if opened, represented NO RISK to anyone the dosage was so low! There is no way Saddam would have ever known about these. I doubt if Bush can name 5 nuclear subs and where they are at!

The bottom line is Iraq had nothing to do with terrorist, or the attack on 9/11. I don't care how many way's you slice it, this war is a total nightmare based on nothing!

Saddam pushed us to the brink of illegally attacking him? How is that? It was Bush who threw the UN Inspectors out of Iraq, not anyone else, including Saddam. Any weapons Saddam may have had were taken out in Operation Desert fox where we hit MILITARY targets, 50 the first night, and didn't lose one damn person! And the Republicans were all up on arms about Clinton taking out military targets, just as they were against his anti-terror bill in 1996, 5 years prior to 9/11!

Answer 6

Chlorine gas bombs are a WMD. Sarin gas is a WMD, both of which have been used in the last 2 weeks. Sorry to disappoint you libs...

Answer 7

False

CNN Washington Bureau
Wednesday, May 26, 2004 Posted: 11:14 PM EDT (0314 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The recent discovery of two chemical artillery shells in Iraq has raised concerns among weapons inspectors that other shells may turn up in the hands of insurgents battling American troops, the head of the U.S. search team said Wednesday.

"We need to investigate whether there are more where that came from, wherever that is, and we need to make certain that they're not finding their way into anti-coalition or terrorist hands," said Charles Duelfer, head of the CIA-led Iraq Survey Group, in an interview via satellite from Baghdad.

Laboratory tests of an artillery shell used in a May roadside bomb in the Baghdad area confirmed the presence of the nerve agent sarin, and a shell found two weeks before then contained the decayed residue of mustard gas

Answer 8

No, none but beware Bin Ladin might fart in the direction of USA and the terror alerts WILL go up.

Answer 9

the only WMD in this poor country are american... and used by the american army...

Answer 10

none... iraq adventure was a waste of US tax payers hard earned cash {}