The definitive debunking of the arguments for a war on Iraq by the former weapons inspector who is a major voice throughout the international media, and who knows from the inside what the risks really are-both of not going to war and going to war.During the seven years that UN weapons inspections took place in Iraq (until they were banned in 1998), Scott Ritter and other inspectors confirmed that Saddam Hussein's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programme had effectively been destroyed. This undermines America's premise for waging war on Iraq. If the weapons aren't there, what is the war about? The war supporters are now walking in shame.
2007-09-06 00:54:45 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The whole iraq invasion and occupation is a farce...a trick being played on apathetic americans.
2007-09-06 01:26:41 · answer #1 · answered by me 3 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Erudite, if you continue to listen to Scott Ritter, who hasn't been in Iraq in nearly a decade, you are fooling yourself.
How about checking with some of the folks who are actually THERE, and who HAVE uncovered the WMD in Iraq. How about the Soldiers who were exposed when the insurgents detonated a sarin warhead in a roadside IED . . . or the weapons found buried in numerous places around the country.
Ask Mr. Ritter sometime to account for the 90% of Saddam's stockpile -- based on Mr. Ritter's own accounting -- that has yet to be destroyed. Yeah, that's right. The inspectors got an accounting from Saddam and his folks of huge stockpiles, and agree that only 10% of them were destroyed before the invasion. So where are they, Mr. Smarty-pants? Even Scott Ritter can't answer that question.
So who is lying here, jerkweed? Did Mr. Ritter get so totally fooled by Saddam that HE grossly overestimated the stockpile? Was Saddam lying, and if so, why should we trust Mr. Ritter to have any freakin' idea, since he was so easily duped? Bush just took the assessment of the UN inspectors at face value, and now HE'S the liar? Get real.
But far be it for you to actually pay attention to the TRUTH. You just like spreading jihadist lies and Democratic slanders to get attention. You are utterly pathetic.
2007-09-06 03:26:22 · answer #2 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
not probable, through fact they bumped off a malicious dictator. the reason the iraqi public is struggling with back is via the fact the US government did it incorrect, on account that this war is considered unlawful by ability of the UN, yet they are able to't do something approximately it through United States's capability while in comparison with the the remainder of the international. additionally that's a brainwashed public who replaced into made to have faith all and sundry yet themselves are the evil ones and could desire to be bumped off, the taliban has an element in this too. i've got not got faith they died for not something, yet they could desire to have accomplished this in a distinctive way, not convey interior the troops, yet use clever weapons that take the enemy out with very very nearly 0 friendly casualties. and now that the dictator replaced into bumped off and the war is supposedly over, they could desire to leave the country to their own judgements, not put in a first-rate minister which you somewhat choose, yet a first-rate minister the widely used public needs. what's going on now with IEDs and insurrection fighters, is technically a civil war, through fact many of the widely used public are struggling with to take the country back from the individuals and the individuals do not prefer to leave, rather hassle-free.
2016-10-18 02:59:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As usuall, you are wrong in everything you say. Go back to the 18 months prior to the start of the latest Iraq war and read newspaper articles. There were numerous reasons given as to why the war started.
Everyone knows Hussein had WMD's. He used them. Chemical weapons were found.
Scott Ritter is the male equivalent to Cindy Sheehan. He has found a gimmick to get himself covered by the left wing liberal loonies in the main stream media.
Your tired old argument is really tiresome. About 4 1/2 hears too tired and old.
2007-09-06 01:19:29 · answer #4 · answered by regerugged 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Can't believe people are still saying WMD were found in Iraq. No they were not.. even the American Idiot was at a loss for words on the absence of WMDs in Iraq.
2007-09-06 19:40:39 · answer #5 · answered by Tweet 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Haven't you noticed! They just make up a new excuse every time the old one is debunked.
2007-09-06 01:25:56 · answer #6 · answered by Monk 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Politicians spin things to their likes. Iraq had no WMDs after they were all destroyed.
Don't how congress actually voted for the invasion based on false information.
Unfortunately, some people here don't realise that.
2007-09-06 01:01:21 · answer #7 · answered by Zabanya 6 · 5⤊ 4⤋
If they had "effectively been destroyed", then Saddam had no reason to kick the inspectors out.
"major voice throughout the international media" - Good for him. It's the MEDIA.
dandles 99 - Please learn the definition of "war crimes" please, before you make assinine comments.
2007-09-06 01:24:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
You're wrong.
2007-09-06 14:30:27 · answer #9 · answered by Too Old For Idol 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This war is about Bush he is the one who wanted it. Please contact your represenitive and ask to have him impeached. He should also be brought up on war crimes.
2007-09-06 01:01:41 · answer #10 · answered by dandls_99 4 · 7⤊ 7⤋