What is the difference between have and could have as applies to WMDS in Iraq & Iran?

Question

US ,Lumberjacks want to know,,,,

Answer 1

Depends on your definition. Mine a suicide bomber or land/roadside bomb qualifies. As in Iraq several politicians believed for many years Saddam had them and also could perhaps create nuclear weapons. * see link

Iran/ some of the factions there/ support Iraq with weapons. So we have a problem. Iran also wants nuclear energy/ maybe weapons? You have the Supreme Leader of Iran who is top dog and the President is #3... but most vocal.

It's kinda like football. You have the players taking hits on the field, the Coaches on the sideline and the Executive Box...
Difference is the US was able to contain the problems in Iraq. Iran expands the playing field. They are in deep. From the bad Kurds to all the ones we in America need fear. They walk a tight rope. And how many carrots or sticks they will accept is up for grabs.

Does that assist Lumberjacks?

*http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes

edit: last report Iran has maybe 5% if that capacity... and she owes Russia a billion $ but the Saudi's recently offered uranium ... see if done diplomatically they can get the energy they badly need. They do not have the oil every one thinks. Currently negoitiations are on going.

Answer 2

In 1991 Iraq had all this crap. The U.S. Military did a great job destroying all of it down to an insignificant pile that really couldn't be used for much more than killing roaches. Then we needed a reason to attack it again so the myth of WM D's was brought in.Now we are looking at Iran do I think they have WMD's (maybe) do I think they have Biological Weapons (yes). Now with that said.Do you think a nation has the right to protect itself? The United States has enough Nerve agent to kill every person in Iran 5 times.We have enough Bio-weapons to do it a couple of hundred times.If that doesn't do it we can Nuke-em with enough bombs to create a new grand canyon in the sand.Do you really think any country on this planet wants a War with us.
Sorry! I didn't really answer your Question.

Answer 3

i think of the demographics are fairly diverse, between different issues: a million- lots of the Iranian inhabitants is youthful. Median age is approximately 26. those human beings are particularly westernized regardless of the religious classes tries to impose a hatred of the west. 2- Iran is exceedingly lots a homogeneous usa of Shia. Iraq grew to become right into a conglomeration of three diverse ethno and non secular communities. 3- the vast majority of Iran's protection tension ought to is centred interior the progressive shield 4- thier nuclear software is underground, while in comparison with Iraq's that grew to become into above floor and much less confusing to attack 5- the best minister there, Mr i'm-inna-Jihad, has been lots greater vocal approximately destroying the west normally and the US & Israel in specific. blended with their help of Hezbollah terror communities, this makes them very risky. 6- Iran has a lots longer coast line and owns one edge of the Straits of Hormuz. this suggests it has the flair to blockade the Persian Gulf and forestall oil tankers from dealing with. there are so lots greater, yet you get the assumption.

Answer 4

There is no difference when FEAR-MONGERING is applied.

You're dealing with a bunch of worn out, glory-hogging Cold War hacks whom dream of the days when we were surrounded by our enemies and we had our hands on the BUTTON.

Nowadays, all they have is the very same terrorists they helped fund and train in the 80s.

But that's no longer enough. Now, they have to fake intelligence and evidence to go war with a country that poses absolutely NO THREAT to them at the slightest.

Answer 5

"What is the difference between have "
*a lie
and could have
*a threat

Iraq was a planned invasion months before the attack here.

Iran, well, since Iran won't let the US inspectors in that means the inspectors that have been there aren't reliable enough for the administration.

Answer 6

No difference at the time the tough decisions had to be made.

Obviously, it would have been pretty fool hardy to ASSUME that Saddam had complied with the U.N. Resolutions he so often rejected.

Answer 7

Well, Iran (and prior to the invasion, Iraq) are not very forthcoming about their nuclear plans. Therefore, one has to evaluate intelligence and try to reach a conclusion. Since liberals are generally devoid of intelligence, they are incapable of reaching a conclusion. Instead, they like to blame and belittle anything that runs counter to their beliefs while running their mouths without ever presenting an alternative. Liberal is becoming synonymous with "blowhard."

Answer 8

well- do you HAVE twenty dollars in your hand -or don't you? it's either actually there or might be there.i.e. there MIGHT be a terrorist attack, we have confirmation of a threat-but we can't give SPECIFICS, so be afraid of everything people and go buy more stuff and support the economy.get it. it's a rip. just like all the other bologna he's feeding us.

Answer 9

Iran has not moved their WMD's to syria yet.


Thats the only difference.

Answer 10

How about "didn't have" and haven't we...learned not to trust anything the meat puppet tells us.