no air force, no navy, nor any other means to transfer their (supposed) WMD's?
2007-11-18 13:22:01 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
When they have resources we want and governments we don't.
2007-11-18 13:27:56 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
One example is, say... a country that has repeatedly expressed a desire to annihilate another nearby country. Not just once but repeatedly and with hysterical fervor. Then that country ignores any and all sanctions and limits to pursue a nuclear weapons program. And just imagine if this country had ties to another maniacal nation like North Korea. Well lack of a potent delivery system is no longer a factor since North Korea would sell its own mother for a nickel.
I guess if all these far out, wacko circumstances came to fruition, then we would have a serious problem.
2007-11-18 13:31:02 · answer #2 · answered by Salsa Shark 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Supposed WMD's? have you not seen the pics of the hundreds of thousands of Kurds killed by poison gas? And did you not see video of scuds being shot down by patriot missles? The did have an air force, and a small navy. Also by providing funding to terrorist cells, and sponsoring training camps, wait I guess you didn't see those pics either.
2007-11-18 13:30:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like who?
Iraq? They had an air force w/ several Soviet supersonic bombers as well as Improved Scud missles.
(factiod: Pentagon papers released two years ago report over 500 WMD's found in Iraq since the fall of Saddam)
Iran, better missles and F-14's
Pakistan and India, they have nukes now and missles and bombers
2007-11-18 13:29:32 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because it has been long enought for you to forget why the entire world thought the same thing. Saddam wanted us to believe he was an imminent threat to protect him from Iran.
2007-11-18 13:28:03 · answer #5 · answered by rance42 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Are you talking about Iraq who actually used WMDs on it own people or Iran that is in the process of enriching weapons grade uranium?
2007-11-18 13:27:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
You'll have to ask Bill Clinton. He signed the Iraqi Liberation Bill.
2007-11-18 13:29:10 · answer #7 · answered by DOOM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Give it a rest will ya? The entire world was convinced he had WMD's. Bush just had the stones to take action.
2007-11-18 13:26:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
They are an imminent threat when Bush and Cheney have a plan in place to invade/conquer a country that is no threat to the US.
2007-11-18 13:26:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
For the Bush admin, "imminent threat" means that defense company shares are falling and only a war will prevent it from happening.
2007-11-18 13:26:05 · answer #10 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
slice and dice,,,,the only thing imminent is that republicans have the best of the best. and dem,s are roasting the war party....
2007-11-18 13:28:50 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋