Why do people cry foul when no WMD were found when it is well documented that WMD were used on the Kurds?

Question

You know the new movie with Anthony Hopkins where he is aquited because they can't find a gun...sort of reminds me of that.

WMD don't have to be nukes

and not found not used theory defies logic.

Thanks for giving me some good viewpoints though.

Bill, you make a few good points, don't believe that Sadam knew that the court of world public opinion would be a better weapon. they aren't dumb. They chased out UN inspectors and what inspecting was done was a show at best. Chemical weapons are WW1 technology. Not hard to make. There is no reason to believe that he didn't have them just because he ran out. You have to admit, when the **** hit the fan, it was a needle in a hay stack that he had months to hide or destroy. No one will argue that we installed him. It doesn't make him anymore innocent I think.

Answer 1

Few people say that Saddam Hussein didn't have chemical weapons at one point. He certainly used them on the Kurds, and the Iranians, if memory serves. However, that was twenty years ago. We weren't sold the Iraq war as a means to punish Saddam Hussein for gross human rights violations two decades ago -- if were engaged in that role, we'd go into Darfur, Rwanda, El Salvador, and a hundred other places (not to mention that America has been known to use WMDs as well, on Japan and in Vietnam [defoliants are chemical weapons, after all]).

The point of this war was that an imminent threat existed, that Saddam had a CBW arsenal at his disposal and a nuclear program underway, and was going to use it in the region, or give it to terrorists to use against US targets. Guess what? That didn't happen to be true. He had no arsenal; they found a few depleted shells left over the Gulf War. Almost all sources interviewed since the invasion say the arsenal was destroyed years ago, and they no longer have an incentive to lie.

Whether President Bush knew the intelligence was flawed is another question, but the point remains, the intel was false. Yes, it is true that *basic* chemical weapons are easily manufactured (although third-generation gases like VX and weaponized bio-agents like anthrax, ricin, and botulinum are more complex), but that means that any one of a hundred countries could develop them. Will we invade them all? I hope not. The imminent threat was not there, the CBW arsenal was not there, and the nuclear program was a mirage. THAT is why people are upset today, and cry foul. What happened to the Kurds was vile and a tragedy, but there are equally vicious crimes perpetuated with conventional weapons every year, and America does nothing about them. We went to war, first and foremost, because Bush said we couldn't wait for a mushroom cloud over an American city, but Iraq did not have the weapons Bush claimed it did, nor the al-Qaeda connections he claimed it did, and so the threat to America and its allies from Iraq was minimal. Those are simple facts.

Answer 2

I have been wondering the same thing. I don't know why no one in this administration has mentioned the destruction of the Kurds when people start whining about no WMD's. I think chemical warfare is more dangerous than nuclear warfare because we can see a nuke coming but chemicals can be released in so many ways that it could kill thousands before anyone knows what happened.

Answer 3

the ones used on the Kurds were supplied by the arms manufacturer to the world the United States of America and when we got to iraq to take out a man we once supported in whatever he did then of course no WMD's were found they were done as was requested by the UN and destoryed if not then the insurgents that we are fighting today would have no problem using them against us

Answer 4

The gas was used on the Kurds before the first Gulf War and we pretty well cleaned it out then, with the UN inspector's help.

If Saddam had not been BS the world, acting like he still had a weapons program then he would still be a dictator today.

You reap what you sow.

Answer 5

Because when you have always had most of the world's WMD's it is foul to make up stories about other countries having them in order to invade them and occupy them for natural resources. It reminds most people of the school yard bully w. a pathetic side kick saying what are you looking at and do as I say not as I do.

Answer 6

It's because the current administration lied about it to involve the Us in a war. That is wrong by any stretch of the imagination, and to make matters worse it appears that the intelligence that was used to claim that Iraq had WMD's was in effect created by the administration

Answer 7

Yes, it is well documented. But they aren't there now, that was in the 80's.

And by the way, the US Intelligence community turned a blind eye to the use of mustard gas because they supported Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war.

And Bush meant Nuclear Weapons.

Answer 8

Before anyone makes statements of FACTS, they ought to do a little light reading FIRST.... Sadam and OJ Simpson have something in common....Both were criminals, both DID things they professed NOT to, only ONE was punished...the other--had a laywer who knew that trying on a winter glove over a LAYTEX GLOVE would definitely NOT FIT.....had OJ not been wearing a latex glove in the court room, that leather glove that had been found at the murder scene would have most definitely FIT.... ever try putting on a leather glove over laytex?????

Answer 9

Some people don't Know what a WMD is. Chemical warfare is just as devastating. It counts as a WMD.

Answer 10

they are suckered by no NUCLEAR weapons having been found. under UN law chemical is the same as nuclear and Saddam certainly had plenty of those, but he had those for decades, plenty from us! for what Saddam had there wasn't cause for going to war. we should have stopped after we got him and especially after it was assured Iraq had nothing to do with 911 but saudi arabia had plenty.