English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I seem to recal that Saddam denied UN weapons inspectors into Iraq which triggered the US invasion. Given the political climate at the time, I say Saddam got what he deserved.

2007-11-25 13:55:23 · 15 answers · asked by Socks 5 in Politics & Government Politics

15 answers

People are quick to talk about how Iraq didn't have WMDs...but they don't know what a WMD is. WMDs are categorized into several subgroups, including CBR (Chemical, Biological, and Radiological) and NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical).

People concentrate strictly on the Radiological/Nuclear aspect of MWDs, and always cite how Iraq had no WMDs as if the other two parts of it (Chemical and Biological) didn't exist. Saddam did possess and use chemical weapons on his own people during his regime, and the US found stockpiled chemical weapons in Iraq when we invaded.

Did Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq?

In all actuality, he didn't lie. Iraq did possess and use WMDs on it's own people. Iraq just didn't possess nuclear weapons, which is what everyone considers WMDs to solely consist of - which isn't the truth.

2007-11-25 14:21:03 · answer #1 · answered by theREALtruth.com 6 · 2 1

Saddam was allowing UN unlimited and unsupervised access at the time. The UN voted against the US invasion. He planned to invade Iraq long before 9-11 ever happened. He is a liar.

2007-11-25 14:05:01 · answer #2 · answered by lcmcpa 7 · 2 1

Suddam wanted to deter Iran, which is why he told the Iranians that he had weapons. In 1980, he launched a war against Iran (a war, which the Reagan administration gave billions in fraudlent loans to and sold Suddam anthrax after Iraq was losing). He lied becuase he wanted to prevent more Iranian retaliation.

Suddam did not have weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War. No doubt Suddam was an evil man.

But so was the US, then. The US bombed important facilities like water treatment plants, then blocked Iraq from purchasing things like water chlorination plants. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died because of this (although I believe that Al Queda has exaggerated the figure - Bin Laden cites 1,000,000, I believe around 500,000). And the US waged an unjust war leaving even more dead, and millions of Iraqis displaced.

Did Suddam deserve to die? He did horrible things, no doubt, so he did deserve to be punished and depending on your views, executed. Did innocent Iraqis deserve to die though, by either the hand of Suddam or the US? No.

2007-11-25 14:07:37 · answer #3 · answered by ch_ris_l 5 · 1 1

the internet nonetheless exhibits photos of lengthy, suspicious convoys racing out of Iraq into Syria. of course Saddam grew to become into no longer delivery out a 40 truck convoy into the Syrian desolate tract to conceal his high-quality china. those photos have been undemanding: the Iraqi military despatched a great line of vehicles into Syria suitable until now our invasion. What have been they hiding? Saddam's extensive porn series? 40 vehicles of it? Nope. this is a few thing very suspicious: while the rotten witch Nancy Pelosi grew to become into named Speaker of the abode, her first act grew to become into puzzling to declare the least: she and a few people who have not have been given any corporation doing so raced..... to Syria! Did you basically placed 2 & 2 jointly? I speculate that the traitorous Pelosi raced there to make a manage the Syrians: in no way exhibit what Saddam hid on your u . s ., save it hidden, and we Democrats will mushy ball you at each turn. Even fool Libbys could desire to understand that Saddam did no longer take the easy step of freeing a itemizing to the U.N. inspectors because of the fact none existed. He refused to get rid of his weapons, until the invasion grew to become into approaching. Then he stashed them interior the Syrian desolate tract, and was hoping Bush Jr. might do what Bush Sr. did: pass away right now. Then Saddam might nonetheless be completely in power, and could desire to proceed being the Butcher of Baghdad.

2016-10-09 11:56:03 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Yes Bush did lie (Uranium from Niger and Anodized tubes - remember?).
And as for inspectors - they were in there at the time - with thier head Hans Blix asking for more time.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/blix.html

2007-11-25 14:18:00 · answer #5 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0 1

Nope , I don't believe Bush lied.

I do believe we had wrong Intelligence.

but then that's not a lie and the Intelligence would have been right if Saddam would have been left alone for awhile.

2007-11-25 14:02:02 · answer #6 · answered by SFC_Ollie 7 · 1 2

He ordered the weapons inspectors out because they weren't giving him the answers he wanted.

2007-11-25 14:02:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Your memory is pathetic.

Saddam allowed the inspectors in and they were busy looking when Bush told them to get out because the invasion was on.

Why must you lie?

2007-11-25 13:58:38 · answer #8 · answered by NONAME 1 · 3 2

Bush did not lie about anything..they were INSPECTING to see if their were WMD and they had every right to also they were on a mission ( MY own thinking here) anyway Saddam was a horrible man he killed so many innocent people he was like hitler

2007-11-25 14:00:56 · answer #9 · answered by Gina 4 · 1 3

If Bush lied - then so did all the major intelligence agencies in the world. Everyone - including Saddam Hussein himself - thought he had WMD. Hell, he had already used them once before in Kuwait.

2007-11-25 13:58:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

fedest.com, questions and answers