where's the weapons of mass destruction in iraq? they are invisible right??? :D
2007-07-18 11:38:19 · 30 answers · asked by labohemianartist 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You're right. We should've taken Saddam's word for it.
2007-07-18 11:54:14 · answer #1 · answered by Eukodol 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
They were virtual. In it's long war with Iran, Iraq used chemical weapons to counter the numeric superiority of the Iranian forces. The Iran-Iraq war didn't really end in peace so much as exhaustion, so, in Saddam's paranoid-dictator mind there was always a danger of renewed hostilities with Iran. But, with his country weakened by the Gulf War, he had no hope of standing up to an Iranian invasion. At the same time, the UN was demanding 'proof' that he'd given up the very weapons that would deter that invasion!
So, he played a delicate game of deciet. He provided UN inspectors with just enough access that he could /claim/ he didn't have weapons, while creating just enough doubt and confusions that the Iranians would fear that he /did/ have such weapons. Fear of those weapons also helped keep his own people in line. Right up to the fall of Baghdad, Iraqi officers were being told that they would be issued chemical weapons for use against the Americans.
The game ultimately backfired when it was used as a pretext for invasion by Bush, who was looking for someplace other than Saudi Arabia to put American military bases.
But, Saddam is having the last laugh - from the grave - as his game of deception and doubt continues to play out in American politics.
2007-07-18 12:01:00 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One was hanged (Saddam) and there is another that soon will be. Two were killed in the war (Saddam's boys). There was some chemical weapons found (very old but still had possibilities) and reports from some of Saddam's weapons makers and scientist that say the WMDs were hidden prior to US entering the country. Bush made a big mistake in giving Saddam a deadline because it allowed evidence to be hidden. I am sure you have heard of the needle in the hay stack well Iraq is like the hay stack. Even if there are no WMDs there was reason to use force in Iraq (violation of UN agreements and sanctions) and also it was both the Bush and Clinton admins who believed they had WMDs 9I think both were right).
2007-07-18 11:51:52 · answer #3 · answered by joevette 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Records show that we did give them precursors to chemical weapons. I don't know that we actually supplied WMD. Most of their WMD was used against Iran while we were selling arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. There was no way Iraq could account ofr all their WMD. We blew it up in OIL WAR I and in Desert Fox.
2016-05-17 04:17:33 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The WMD were in Iraq in the 90's, on FEB17,1998 Bill Clinton tells Saddam- "Saddam rejects peace then we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Saddam and the Iran leader have decided to work together and the WMD were moved to Iran in the 90's because of Clinton's (BIG MOUTH)!!
2007-07-18 11:49:49 · answer #5 · answered by ? 1 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Let me say this first,
I believed that he did have them at first and that the war was justified and i also voted for bush.
Today i believe that if he had them he would have used them, No question about it,
Saddam would never have wanted his weaponry to be made public otherwise he knew that iran could have attacked him.
THat threat exists even more today now that iraq does not have a stable governement and it's a fact that they have no WMD's and iran is working building them right now.
THerefore i change my stance on the war from the start, NO, It was not justified.
2007-07-18 11:51:22 · answer #6 · answered by the d 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Good question....maybe he used them on the Kurds?
By the way was it called Operation Find the Bombs or Operation Iraqi Freedom???
2007-07-18 11:47:02 · answer #7 · answered by TG79 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Libya
2007-07-18 11:49:28 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I found an article from the Christain Broadcasting Network that can answer you question.
2007-07-18 11:45:29 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. Knowledgeable VI 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
it doesn't matter. The whole thing was a sham from day one, and americans are letting him get away with it. Cowards.
George Sr. is the one who gave the weapons to saddam. He created the enemy. Time-tested and proven tactic.. Hey! Kind of like right now Bush is creating terrorists all over the middle east!
The "terrorists" that "attacked us" on sept 11 was also blowback for our foreign policy over the decades.
2007-07-18 11:50:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋