There is hard evidence that Iraq moved there WMDs to Iran and Syria a few months before invasion though that was not found out until afterwards. Im amazed the Bush Administration does not use this point ever.
done!
I believe Sadam had WMDs - I totally believed the 45 minute nuclear claim made by Mr Tony Bliar.
He still does have WMDs - that's why no one's found them. He's hidden them in his cell, safe from Hans Bilx's prying eyes.
There is no way Saddam would have moved WMDs to Iran - he hated them more than he hated the US. That's why Britain and the US sold him the WMDs in the first place.
He still does have WMDs - that's why no one's found them. He's hidden them in his cell, safe from Hans Bilx's prying eyes.
They haven't used it because it isn't hard evidence. Source for that?Capt. Foley wrote:
There is hard evidence that Iraq moved there WMDs to Iran and Syria a few months before invasion though that was not found out until afterwards. Im amazed the Bush Administration does not use this point ever.
There is no way Saddam would have moved WMDs to Iran - he hated them more than he hated the US. That's why Britain and the US sold him the WMDs in the first place.
Of course it's a fact. There is no point denying that he had chemical weapons because his use of them on the Kurds is well documented. It's equally fact that USA supplied Iraq with weapons during the Iran/Iraq war. Would it be stretching the imagination too much to surmise that USA supplied the WMDs that Iraq had?Kmarion wrote:
Saddam did have WMD's at some point. This is a fact.
"They haven't used it because it isn't hard evidence. Source for that?
There is no way Saddam would have moved WMDs to Iran - he hated them more than he hated the US. That's why Britain and the US sold him the WMDs in the first place."
He might not have moved them to Iran, but Syria was still a very valid option to his regime. Remember all the MiG's that he flew to Syria during the Gulf War? He sent all his aircraft there so he could get them back after the US left. Only problem is they never gave them back.
I seem to remember reports of convoys going into Syria at the start of hostilities, several looked like refrigerated trucks, which could carry weapons.
Also they found remenants of chem labs that were bugged out at the start. All the important stuff was gone, but there was enough left to tell what they were.
There is no way Saddam would have moved WMDs to Iran - he hated them more than he hated the US. That's why Britain and the US sold him the WMDs in the first place."
He might not have moved them to Iran, but Syria was still a very valid option to his regime. Remember all the MiG's that he flew to Syria during the Gulf War? He sent all his aircraft there so he could get them back after the US left. Only problem is they never gave them back.
I seem to remember reports of convoys going into Syria at the start of hostilities, several looked like refrigerated trucks, which could carry weapons.
Also they found remenants of chem labs that were bugged out at the start. All the important stuff was gone, but there was enough left to tell what they were.
Interesting link this. Since the US is so concerned about the Kurds, I'm very curious to see what they are doing about Turkey. What Saddam has done to the Kurds is only a fraction compared to what they've suffered from the Turkish government. Oh but I forgot... they don't have WMDs...Kmarion wrote:
Some people worry more about what they look like rather than their own securtiy. It's a balance I feel . And both ideas can be harmful. As for your topic, the war in Iraq began in 2003 so an "excuse" is a little to late to be needed. Saddam did have WMD's at some point. This is a fact. I have posted this link before but I would rather just post the link rather than the images so I can warn people to prepare themselves before they follow it.
http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html .
ƒ³
i think people assume the atom bomb when they hear WMD
iraq had clear evidence of chemcial and biological weapons and quite a large cache of materials from the iran iraq war left over.
i have pictures if anyone wants too see. my father worked there for 3 years for USA enviromental.
most of it is just pics of buckets, viles, etc. they found alot of crap. and of course the Short range sucds taht can carry them.
the news doesnt tell anyone shit.
email me and ill give the FTP so anyone can look. 2 dvd's worth of bombs and crazy shit
iraq had clear evidence of chemcial and biological weapons and quite a large cache of materials from the iran iraq war left over.
i have pictures if anyone wants too see. my father worked there for 3 years for USA enviromental.
most of it is just pics of buckets, viles, etc. they found alot of crap. and of course the Short range sucds taht can carry them.
the news doesnt tell anyone shit.
email me and ill give the FTP so anyone can look. 2 dvd's worth of bombs and crazy shit
That's a good point. Whenever the term Weapons of Mass Destruction, I would bet most people immediately pull up that picture of Big Boy or a cruise missile. Contrary to that, if Iraq had any WMDs, it would have been either chemical or biological, proven by the Kmarion's rather graphic slide show.beerface702 wrote:
i think people assume the atom bomb when they hear WMD
iraq had clear evidence of chemcial and biological weapons and quite a large cache of materials from the iran iraq war left over.
However, it is not entirely the publics fault for this assumption. One of the key pieces of "evidence" in the pre-invasion blitz of (dis?)information were aluminum tubes that could possibly be used to enrich uranium. Hence the immediate jump to nuclear weapons. Poor old Nuke; he's always the fall guy. Hasn't caught a break since the '80's.