DreamRebel Posted January 27, 2004 #1 Share Posted January 27, 2004 [Edit] Post removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nxt2Hvn Posted January 27, 2004 #2 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Did Saddam have ever have WMD? Were they moved? Did he never have them in the first place? Another touchy topic... But I think he did and still does... I think they are either hidden underground somewhere in Iraq or he had them moved to Syria. Just my opinioin.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamRebel Posted January 27, 2004 Author #3 Share Posted January 27, 2004 [Edit] Post removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nxt2Hvn Posted January 27, 2004 #4 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I tend to agree with you. Yes, had them and are buried in the desert or were moved to places like Syria and Lebenon. Do you think we will ever find them? If he hasn't or doesn't have them destroyed... yes.. I believe we will find them. It could take time though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PsychicPenguin Posted January 27, 2004 #5 Share Posted January 27, 2004 He did have WMD (it was supported by USA btw). Most of them had been destroyed or smuggled out of Iraq. We will only find what Saddam forgot to remove. But it doesn't really matter now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffybunny Posted January 27, 2004 #6 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I think he may have had a few things that he wasn't supposed to... Enough to warrant going to war? I won't open up that can of worms... I don't think we will ever find very much in the ways of evidence. If they couldn't find it with all of the technology that the weapons inspectors had before the war, I doubt we could find anything now. If you consider that they don't even really need to find the weapons themselves; just the trace evidence that is left from their production and storage, it seems like it would be a fairly easy task, they can only be made in certain facilities. it isn't like you can have a chemical weapons production plant in a hidden facility in the middle of the desert...It takes a bit of technology and lots of support systems in place to build the scary stuff, which leaves a lot of evidence... So far we have zilch... The fact that Bush used the "fact" of saddams WMD to go to war in the first place is going to come back to bite him in the butt in my opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxcatz Posted January 27, 2004 #7 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Asking if Saddam HAD WMDs is like asking if the sun rose this morning. Of course; it's not even up for debate. Now, wether or not he has WMDs now if a bit more controversial. I see no reason why he would be so uncooperative with inspectors and secretive in his activities had he destroyed them. Had he even destroyed MOST of them, I think he would be out waving a flag to call people's attention to his compliance. Instead, he played cloak and dagger games and constantly taunted the UN and it's member nations. Even if Saddam didn't have WMDs; he WANTED everyone to think that he did (without being so forth-right as to say it in public; an action that would've, no doubt, garaunteed the end of his regime.) That alone is enough for me to believe that action of some sort was nessecary... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxcatz Posted January 27, 2004 #8 Share Posted January 27, 2004 And folks, while tearing President Bush a new as... err... rectal cavity, please remember: Saddam actions before the war could definitely be considered antagonizing, and he did little to nothing to avert the encounter. Perhaps, Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction at the start of the war and quietly destroyed them in a last ditch attempt to shame the US gov't. Think of it as a big "going out" party... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted January 27, 2004 #9 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Saddam murdered a countless amount of human beings. HE is the WMD, regardless of the means in which he did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nxt2Hvn Posted January 27, 2004 #10 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I agree saxcatz.... I back the war because something had to be done. With someone as unpredictable and as dangerous as Saddam... I dont' feel the Government was is in any position to take any chances.... I feel the right thing was done... and now we don't have Saddam to worry about anymore... and I feel that Osama will be caught soon... On that note... i really don't know what to think about there being a connection between Al Quida and Iraq... but i believe that both are euqally dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nxt2Hvn Posted January 27, 2004 #11 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Saddam murdered a countless amount of human beings. HE is the WMD, regardless of the means in which he did it. Good way of looking at it Sweetpumper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daughter of the Nine Moons Posted January 27, 2004 #12 Share Posted January 27, 2004 The fact that Bush used the "fact" of saddams WMD to go to war in the first place is going to come back to bite him in the butt in my opinion... I agree. I don't know if he had WMD, but that was his justification for going to war. Please don't any one bite my head off but yes I believe that Saddam Hussain had to be stopped...I also think that George W. is one scary dude! Dot9M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffybunny Posted January 27, 2004 #13 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Saddam murdered a countless amount of human beings. HE is the WMD, regardless of the means in which he did it. I can definately see what you are saying on that respect. He did kill a lot of people. His own people. I get a bad feeling about it though. I was in the Army in 1990 and 1991. I was a medic, and ended up going to the first war there. He invaded another country, I could see the reasons for Bush Sr. to do what he did. I was very supportive. If you want to look at the huge sums of people that have been killed, that seems to happen on a regular basis on the african continent, but it never seems to get the same coverage or reaction... Also the Bush plans from 2001(Before 9/11) that looked at removing Saddam is a bit suspect in my opinion. And the fact that after 9/11/2001 everything went from being a problem with Al queda and Afghanistan to being a problem with Iraq(who we now find out didn't actually have any links to the terrorists...) seems very suspect. Have you ever read 1984? You know how the Ministry of truth keeps changing the enemy to keep the war machine going? does that sound familiar? It seems that the American people were sold a bill of goods, that wasn't what it seemed to be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted January 27, 2004 #14 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Please don't any one bite my head off but yes I believe that Saddam Hussain had to be stopped...I also think that George W. is one scary dude! You should only be scared of President Bush if you are a terrorist or are harboring a terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffybunny Posted January 27, 2004 #15 Share Posted January 27, 2004 You should only be scared of President Bush if you are a terrorist or are harboring a terrorist. ...or an American who hates to see his freedoms stripped away by the patriot act...or a US soldier afraid to die for questionable causes...or any free citizen of the world who is afraid to see the US go to war for questionable reasons...or??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daughter of the Nine Moons Posted January 27, 2004 #16 Share Posted January 27, 2004 You should only be scared of President Bush if you are a terrorist or are harboring a terrorist. ...or an American who hates to see his freedoms stripped away by the patriot act...or a US soldier afraid to die for questionable causes...or any free citizen of the world who is afraid to see the US go to war for questionable reasons...or??? Well said fluffybunny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seraphina Posted January 27, 2004 #17 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Well...we do know that Saddam certainly had chemical and biological weapons....hell, didn't the US give them to him to start with? I doubt very much he'd have been willing to part with them either...either they're buried somewhere, or they were destroyed in a mad rush before the onset of war. He definately didn't have nuclear weapons though...I think that claim would be stupid at best.... Side note: The reason Saddam became the 'enemy' all of a sudden after 9/11 is because Bush couldn't find Osama, but still needed a neck in a noose somewhere to keep the prodaganda machine going, and give the US citizens something to feel good about. Everyone in the free world loves to hate Saddam, and he's a far more media centered figure than the previous nobody of Osama Bin Laden...so who better to go after as a diversion from 9/11, and the failure to catch the people who were responsible for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
<bleeding_heart> Posted January 27, 2004 #18 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Yes he did! He wiped out a whole Iraqi town with biological weapons. I dont think the taliban were connected with him he is a control freak who ruled with an iron fist the taliban is totally against the law and rule whoevers is it, they were natural enemies! If the taliban werent in Iraq before they are now! At the end of the day he was a lunatic with no humanity he needed stopping! Well thats my two pennies worth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxcatz Posted February 1, 2004 #19 Share Posted February 1, 2004 You should only be scared of President Bush if you are a terrorist or are harboring a terrorist. ...or an American who hates to see his freedoms stripped away by the patriot act...or a US soldier afraid to die for questionable causes...or any free citizen of the world who is afraid to see the US go to war for questionable reasons...or??? Or more likely; a message board BS'er who can't come up with real reasons to hate the president so dwells up experiences which he/she hasn't had or shared to attack a man that simply operates on a different set of principals. *No; I am not backing "President Chimpanzee"... I am just tired of seeing all these ridiculous reasons that are over-exagerated to the point of insanity* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffybunny Posted February 1, 2004 #20 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Or more likely; a message board BS'er who can't come up with real reasons to hate the president so dwells up experiences which he/she hasn't had or shared to attack a man that simply operates on a different set of principals. Excuse me? BS'er? was that directed at me? I hope not. A real reason to hate the president? I never said I hated the president ever, you are awfully confused. I support the president on many of the things that he does, and as you have read over and over again on other threads, I disagree with his justification for going into Iraq, and how his "War on Terror" has taken away rights of law abiding US citizens. In example, the Patriot Act continues to be scrutinized and portions have been found to be unconstitutional. Link As an American, I am partial to the freedoms of the constitution, and don't want anyone stepping on those guaranteed rights, even President Bush. When that happens I will not tolerate it. When the president lies to achieve a goal(WMD/Terrorist links in Iraq), I am going to call him on it. What he did hurt our standing to much of the rest of the world, and is going to have far reaching implications that we may not see for year to come. so dwells up experiences which he/she hasn't had or shared to attack a man that simply operates on a different set of principals. What in the world are you talking about here? What are you Dr. fricken Phil now? Get a life. The "Different Set of Principals" that I am attacking is the LIES that the President told the rest of the world to garner support to attack Iraq. Let me see if I can emphasize my point more clearly as there are a couple of you here that refuse to understand what I am saying. I am going to make it nice and bold so that hopefully it will stick with you and won't be lost amongst the rest of thise text. Here it comes. Prepare yourself: President Bush lied to the rest of the world to justify attacking Iraq. Does anyone understand that? Am I alone here? Does anyone consider this a problem? Is it OK for the president to lie to the world? Are we so tough that it really doesn't matter that we have alienated ourselves to a good portion of the world that we once called allies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenojjin Posted February 1, 2004 #21 Share Posted February 1, 2004 It was right to try and find osama and base the war on terrorism on terrorism , it was wrong to attack Iraq . We did not know for sure Sadaam had WMD's , and possibly we never will know . The basis for going to war was mainly on a hunch ... sure , Sadaam may be a bast**d who has prodded the US numerous times but he did not make any threat whatsoever to attack us . Bush then used the term "prempitive Strike" to justify going to war ...that term my freinds , is a very sad and pathetic oximoron . With reasoning like that I should grab a shotgun and shoot every high school bully that might decide to beat me up one day Not only that , but it went further then just disarming WMD's . "hey dang .... we can't find any weapons of mass destruction .... well, sadaam's reign sucks anyway so lets put tons of anti sadaam propaganda out and justify overthrowing their governement ! " I know we would probobly have most likely had to fight Iraq someday , but we were currently not killing each other in mass on a daily basis . What we basically did was invaded and overthrew the Iraqi government . Is that right ? Despite the fact Sadaam was basically an evil dictator , we have no right to invade and change that . I may be glad sadaam is out of power but the means we used to do such a thing were not right . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous57 Posted February 1, 2004 #22 Share Posted February 1, 2004 I seriously doubt that SH had WMD, and if he did I doubt that even he would have used them, because he would have known that if he fired so much as one nuke then he'd have the entire US stockpiles of nuclear warheads (left over from the cold war) landing on his front lawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Krow Posted February 1, 2004 #23 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Did Saddam have ever have WMD? Were they moved? Did he never have them in the first place? yes...and the reason Bush knows is because he has the receipt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PurpleStuart Posted February 1, 2004 #24 Share Posted February 1, 2004 It is a FACT that Saddam had WMD. as pointed out in this thread earlier he used biological weapons on his own people. Whether or not governments lied to go to war, and whatever the real intentions for going to war were, Saddam waas a thoroughly evil man who's regime slaughtered thousands upon thousands of innocents and it was necassary for him to be removed from power. Whether the end justified the means is a different matter entirely, and possibly only a question that history will decide on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xenojjin Posted February 2, 2004 #25 Share Posted February 2, 2004 as pointed out in this thread earlier he used biological weapons on his own people. not to reflect what I feel about the war , but that seriously sounds like media BS propaganda in order to justify the removing of Sadaam from power . In other words I think its an example of our government lying once again . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts