As America Didn't find WMDs in Iraq?

Question

Was it looking in the wrong place. Shouldn't it have been looking in it's own Nuclear arsenal? and chemical weaponry first?
What's the diference between Yank WMDs
and any others? what gives them the right to destroy sovereign nations. Surely NOT for OIL? (''Cos we are rich and powerful'') that's the real reason aint it?
Please, No more death threats!!! Grow up and read the question properly.then answer in a civilised manner.
I am of English/Icelantic stock and NOT a terrorist as I was accused of in the past.

I know the Brit's are there too. They went cos the USA needed someone else to break the UN madate against going there, to legitimise their attack.

CPT B. Where's the Victory?
What a disgusting attitude.

Answer 1

Thers never was any wmd in iraq it was just a ploy so that bush and bliar could invade iraq for the oil .

Answer 2

As a liberal, I can't believe I am answering this question:

Was it looking in the wrong place...No. Iraq had not accounted for the WMD that the IRAQI GOVERNMENT STATED that it had after the Gulf War in 1991.

Shouldn't it have been looking in it's own Nuclear arsenal...We know where those weapons are, and have signed treaties for their use. The United States have not used a nuclear type weapon since 1945.

What's the diference between Yank WMDs
and any others?...None, except when "others" threaten the peace loving US citizen in its homeland as a weapon to wage islamic fanticism

what gives them the right to destroy sovereign nations...None

Surely NOT for OIL? (''Cos we are rich and powerful'') that's the real reason aint it?...No. However, to the victors goes the spoils, so to speak. Besides, Iraqi oil is traded in Euros, not dollars.

That is my two cents and I am sticking to it.

Answer 3

So you come from seagoing pillager / divine right of kings background? Perfect right you have to criticise then. Not like you use any petroleum products in your daily life, eh.

I seem to remember you British types always throwing out your trash...and then being so surprised when something grows from it. Good thing though...or you'd be speaking German now.

Yes, we used what are now called WMDs, we did it exactly TWICE, against some people who took a big chunk of Empire away from the British if I recall correctly. Since then we haven't used a single one, no matter what the provocation. Imagine what the sunsets would be like these days if the Islamics had taken out the Kremlin, or the Forbidden City. Be pretty spectacular I'd imagine.

Maybe that is the big difference between Yank nukes and any others.

Do you blokes still have a few nukes of your own squirrelled away somewhere? I'm sure they're the perfectly safe and harmless sort, what?

Remind me again....where WERE chemical weapons developed in the first place? Wasn't it some little tribal spat you all were having on your side of the water? Isn't there a Channel Island still infected with virulent anthrax to this very day....so that not a soul dares set foot on it?

Sods like you wouldn't accept a WMD found in Iraq unless it was hand delivered to the detonation point by an Al Jizzera news crew wearing "We Love Osama" jackets....so why bother to point out the obvious?

But I will anyway....

If some skinhead (to put this in terms a sensitive type like you can relate to...) told you today that he was coming to your place to take your TV away...nothing else....just your TV.....and he was going to kick your ahss to do it if he had to and enjoy it.....would you keep your TV right there in the home?

Or would you have your friends take it and watch over it for awhile...or maybe hide it out in the garage.....or conceal it somewhere in the several thousand square miles of countryside in your backyard?

People are still finding things that the Germans and Japanese hid away when they knew their enemies were coming.....and it's been over 60 years folks have been looking for that.

It's okay though. Better you hate some country you can't straighten out all by yourself....you might do something you'd regret....even if it were for everyone's own good.

Best of luck with that EU thing by the way. Great entertainment watching the european tribes act like they accept each other. What a riot !!! Can't wait for the Islamics to take an active role....that will be too rich indeed.

Answer 4

As WMDs weren't the only reason for invading Iraq, indeed,the fact of prepared and ready WMDs weren't even part of the equation, it doesn't matter.

It would have been very easy and clear cut if there had been an operational nuke warhead or vat of weaponized botulism laying around, but that' wasn't what was expected, nor what we were looking for.

There had been no inspections between 1998. Iraq had provided an inventory of WMD materials in 1991 and again in 1998. The question was, what had happend to teh discrepencies between these lists? What about things known to have been procured since 1998 that had not been accounted for? What about verifying the fact of anything claimed destroyed? The 2002-2003 inspections had turned into a huge shell game with none of the questions being answered.

"Yank" WMDs--we have nukes. The last of whatever bio and chem weapons we had reserched have been recently destroyed, and we never had any weapons programs along those lines.

Iraq was not sovereign between 1991 and 2005. In addition we did not destroy Iraq. We went to remarkable lengths to leave as much of the country as we could intact.

In the end, "might makes right," like it or not , is the basis of all law, including, and especially, international law. Not that this is the reasoning behind our actions, but if it were it would not have necessarilly beeen, as you seem to imply, wrong.

So, having read the question throughly, and answering ti as thoroughly as the flaws in your logic in formulating it allow, perhaps you'd consider reconsidering the questions?

UN mandate against going to Iraq? Link or citation please.

Answer 5

Since the premise of your question is completely wrong, I will correct it for you ......ahem....
Why is it that the mainstream media has forgotten that we found weapons of mass destruction (ie Sarin and Mustard) in Iraq in May of 2004?
Why do so many people think we are here for oil when I have spent the better part of the last 5 years here and have not seen a drop of oil moved?

Now to clue you in...OUR chemical munitions have long been destroyed and the only weaponry grade material we have is for research to protect us.
We ARE a Nuclear country....get over it.
We ARE NOT Yanks....we are AMERICANS. And as for your "sovereign nations...BS....Two points
A: as a UN Nation (unfortunantly) we had sanctions against Iraq that were being disobeyed.....as a result ANY UN member nation had a duty to act...Unfortunantly our last Commander In Chief had no balls and a bad case of Lewinsky to worry about.
B: Who are you to lecture about invading soverign nations? remember 1814?

Answer 6

regrettably what you submit is actual. it extremely is quite unhappy. and countless are clinging to the old mustard gasoline stumbled on recently as evidence that WMDs have been present. even even with the undeniable fact that the militia and the intelligence agencies are announcing that those previous mustard gasoline boxes have been inspected and till now nicely-known to have existed. i've got confidence a poster answering your question alludes to this certainty. Pathetic that many people do no longer choose the certainty, yet could quite hear to propaganda and communicate radio morons.

Answer 7

The fact that they were not found does not mean they did not exist. There is overwhelming evidence that Iraq used them in the Iran-Iraq war, used them in suppressing internal rebellion, and had them available in Kuwait.

There is little evidence that supports Iraqs pre-war claim that they destroyed all of their WMD. On the contrary, the Iraqis tried to convince the world that they still had WMDs by evicting the inspectors and restricting the viewing rights if said inspectors.

The US had the right to restrict those WMDs under the conditions of the 1991 Iraqi surrender. Under that agreement, certain weapons were prohibited, WMDs, long range missiles, etc. Violation of that agreement was grounds for resumption of hostilities. If Saddam and Iraq did not like those surrender terms, they should not have agreed to that in 1991.

The US has never used its chemical weapons in anger. It has only used non-lethal CS/CN type tear agents since the end of the first world war. Even in the first world war, it only used agents in response to their use by the Germans.

Trying to compare the US WMDs to the Iraqi WMDs is like trying to compare a law-abiding gun owners home defense pistol with a bank robbers pistol. Same tool, very different uses. One is reasonable in civil society, one is unreasonable.

But you are right, the US was looking in the wrong place. With the 9 month run up to the 2003 invasion the Iraqis had plenty of time to move their WMD anywhere. Syria is a good guess.

But they could be anywhere -- the total amount of WMD that Iraq was suspected of possessing would fit in the average home swimming pool, abut 50,000 liters. You could bury that in most parts of the Iraqi desert and it would never be found.

So do you guys still worship tiaras in Iceland like you do in England?

Answer 8

Nobody has ever told the US why we attacked Iraq.

We now know that we knew there no WMD when we attacked.

We knew that Saddam Hussein and Al Queda were mortal enemies when we attacked.

We know that all of the terrorist training bases moved there when we did, and that they were operating in parts of Iraq that were not controlled by Saddam. We called those areas the no fly zone.

The only thing that holds up was not discussed until after the major fighting was ended. Saddam was a bad man. But he was not the worst bad man in the world.

Nobody has ever given us a reason that makes sense. We think we know that it was oil. But it may be insanity. We just do not know.

Answer 9

What gives us the Right?
First the Non-Proliferation Treaty for Nuclear Weapons. But that is all fluff.
The real answer is moral supremecy. Does the US Nuclear arsenal pose a threat to anyone, besides those who desire to use such weapons against us?
Now does Irans's or North Korea's Nuclear arsenal pose a threat to anyone regarless of the circumstances?

That is what gives us the right. These weapons are just to dam* destructive to let rouge, melicious, hostile, ruthless, or unstable governments have control of. The consequences not just to the US or her Allies, but the whole world are not worth the risk.

Answer 10

So since when did any of you young Britt's care with who hurt who? Because it's not like you Britt's have any room to talk because years ago before you lost the war to us on the 4th of July LOL you Britt's where trying to take over the world and you Britt's didn't when that many of them. And I still to this day think that what you guys did to my G. Grandparents in Ireland having them not allowed to speak in their own language Gaelic was just wrong and to think that now it's almost a lost language so before you go off on the US like that you need to look back at your own history because you Britt's where just as bad if not worse.