No WMDs in Iraq?

Question

If Iraq had no WMDs, then just what did Saddam use to gas the Kurds?

daveg1222: That would be a WIMD.

Additionally, if he had them and used them on the Kurds, then the type of guy that does that is also the type of guy whose word we should take when he swears he no longer has any???

If the WMDs cannot reach the US (no intercontinental delivery system) then should we just not care that he has them? That is, the lives of people in the region he can target are less important than the lives of US citizens?

UN: The same organization we trusted to administer the Oil for Food program to keep civilians from starving is the same organization we're to trust when it comes to WMD disposal?

What does the US selling them to him have to do with anything? We don't jail gun owners when their customers commit gun crimes. Foreign arms sales is a multi-billion dollar business for every developed country on the planet, not just the US.

If we put a regime in power, arm it, and then learn of its corruption, are we not then solely responsible for removing that regime???

Answer 1

Let me help the narrow minded libs out here. WMD'S IS NOT THE WHOLE REASON WE WENT INTO IRAQ!!! Read the resolution would you and stop picking the one talking point Liberal leaders chose to hang their hat on. There were about a dozen reasons we went to war with Iraq.

You can read it right here and finally get educated on it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Secondly....

There were weapons found in Iraq...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50746

Wake up already... even your leaders aren't beating that drum any longer.... perhaps you missed the memo for the next talking point?

TruthSeeker... so anything that happened 8 years ago is irrelevant because it didn't happen this century? Nice lib spin... And it doesn't take a missile to deliver a weapon like that. An illegal with a suitcase across the border would do just fine. (by the way... we also stand up for our allies as they do fr us... how far is Europe from Iraq? But hey.... we should just let the little dictator who openly threatens the US and it's allies and just guess that he is bluffing? Smart! You probably thought Bin Laden wasn't a threat either... he being ALL the way in Afgahnistan and all.

Douglas.... easy to play monday morning quartback isn't it? Fact is he made the threats.... you would choose to ignor them? I'm guessing you are one of those guys who thinks Bush ignored signs of 9/11 too huh? Can't have it both ways champ. And yes, they did find the cache of older weapons. This means he didn't use them against the Kurd's? This means he didn't actively try to reverse engineer the weapons? Of course he did.... don't be SO niave. If you let a drug dealer know your coming to search his house in one week... what are the chances anything will be there to find? And yes.... WMD'S were the largest threat on that list as information from MULTIPLE sources confirmed he had them. Saddam is also publically announcing he had them. The Senate and Congress APPROVED the war unaminously with the same info Bush had..... come on... this is not hard to understand. This is from the article too... by the way.... it is information from a report.... how would they be spinning it if it affirms the weapons were not the ones we were looking for. (apply common sense here) It also said in the report....

"The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq."

So, lets say you are the President.... We suffered the largest terrorist attack on our nation because your predicessor chose not to pay attention to the warning signs. You have information from your intelligence community, from England's intelligence community and Spains saying they have "yellowcake". You have the dictator of that country claiming so and your Congress and Senate agree with the information and vote to go to war. What do you do? Let's see if you can give an honest answer...

Answer 2

The chemical weapons the Reagan Administration sold him during the Iran-Iraq War. Next?

Edit- Hey That Guy? Here's a little quote from one of your own right wing net spin rags:

"The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s."

And saying WMDs were not the only reason for going into Iraq? Well ya coulda fooled me son because that's all the Bush admin talked about while staging 15 divisions in Kuwait in 2003. Teh so called Resolution was all theater staged by a GOP congress wearing flag pins and gorging themselves on fear and freedom fries.

You're just another irrelavant apologist. Sucks don't it?

Answer 3

Too many falafels?

Methane?

That might make a good political cartoon!

"Saddam never had WMDs! He used Green Friendly Gasses (GFGs) to rid his country of unwanted political dissidents!

Use "Kurds Away", by Muffet Enterprises.

Wait, I just figured it out! President Bush STOLE them BEFORE the Twin Towers, and used them to blow up things on 9/11! He was so clever! I mean...uhhh...stupid! Errrr....but smart enough to do this! But,...ehhh,...not smart enough to plant WMDs ANYWHERE in the Iraq desert to save his reputation!

Keep speaking up. Lots of silliness out there. Lot's of short-term memories, as well. Might as well laugh at it.

Oh, I'm a democrat, but I'm not crazy (some have their doubts, of course). I'm not a liberal or socialist. I don't believe Saddam had WMDs. I suspect he did, based on the evidence. It is not a matter of "belief". He claimed he did to his allies and that he was fooling the U.N. and U.S.A. even to within a few months of the last invasion.

We're bad because we believed him? Weird logic, that.

Answer 4

That event happened between 1986-1989, before Bush I went into Iraq, well before Bush II defended occupying the country.
Colin Powell and the White House claimed Saddam Hussein was attemting to amass the technology and chemicals to create atomic bombs, based on faulty spy data.

Answer 5

there were clearly some WMD at some point...

Bush said they were making new ones and we were invading to stop him from making new ones and that was by FAR AND AWAY the no.1 reason he gave for the invasion, with everything else being a "and he's did other bad stuff too"...

there have been no "new ones" made post-gulf war found or used to anyone's knowledge...

EDIT: and yeah... everyone though Saddam was a dream when we were arming him... sure...

Answer 6

Excellent question, also Oregon National Guard found the largest underground cache of weapons in Iraq, and it contained Sarin Gas. An older weapon but a WMD. Another question I like is if the war is a conspiracy why didn't we just plant a nuke during the invasion?

Answer 7

did you check into "when" he gassed the Kurds??? It was definitely not in this century.

even if he had this 'gas', how was he supposed to get it to the United States. The furthest any Iraqi missile could travel was 1500k.... that won't get it to the U.S.

One of these days you will realize that Saddam was not a threat to the U.S.

Answer 8

You forgot to mention that Saddam himself was a WMD! He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.

Answer 9

yeah i just learned that WMD and chemical based weapons are technically speaking together. In my mind im thinking Nukes

that was just me though

he blew it WAYY UPP for that speech u have to admit that.

Answer 10

Nobody has ever said that he didn't have them back then......as you correctly mentioned, he used them on the Kurds.

The issue is that there doesn't appear to be any there NOW....which was the whole point of going into Iraq.