Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

WMDs in Iraq


Naveed

Were there ever any WMDs in Iraq?  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. Were there ever any WMDs in Iraq?

    • Yes.
      5
    • Yes, but they were moved or hidden in the desert.
      12
    • Yes, but they were destroyed.
      3
    • Yes, there was equipment to make them (biological or nuke).
      0
    • Yes, but the media is feeding us lies.
      2
    • No, there never were any.
      3
    • No, it was just Bush getting revenge for his father.
      3
    • No, it was just for oil.
      8
    • Why should I care?
      1


Recommended Posts

I can already predict your response to that........"the west is not to blame you saddam loving terrorist sympathising leftist brit", you see you are so typically pompous in your attitude that you will not consider that we are at best even partially to blame for the mess we are in because of our foreign policies primarily in the 80's.

While the Sudan was offering up Osama on a silver platter, Clinton was too busy

receiving BJs from Monica. Your inability to come to grips with reality frightens me and this is the last post of this thread.......from me anyway....we really are going in circles!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Babs

    23

  • wunarmdscissor

    20

  • Titor

    18

  • stillcrazy

    18

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

A refusal to answer the three questions i asked once again common sense deserts you joc.

Simply answer the questions.

You see thats difference whenever confronted with fact and truth you run a mile JOC.

Its your blind ignorance that frightens me joc/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US doesn't and didn't 'fund' any country. We give humanitarian aid to many, many countries on this planet. Some chose and still choose to use this aid in an effort to thwart the will of their own people. It is just not true that the US is to blame for Sadaam or anyone elses actions. Nice try though!

Thanks for the info joc, I now realise that the US never props up regiemes or plots the overthrow of Governments that are not pro-US; all the US does is send out food and love.

By the way, good job with the humanitarian work you guys did in Vietnam, Chile, El Salvador and Afganistan during the Soviet occupation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true, is it not, that the US funded Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war, which was when the atrocities against the Kurds were commited?

the majority of western countries were in support of iraq during that conflict

also, i may be wrong, but i thought the atrocities occured after the iraq/iran war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the majority of western countries were in support of iraq during that conflict also, i may be wrong, but i thought the atrocities occured after the iraq/iran war?

Maybe it was after the war; my point though is that the US (and you are right the West as a whole) were quite happy to turn a blind eye to the gassing because Iraq was an enemy of Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on what you class as WMD, I say this classes and they had them at one point.

Disturbing image warning.

Halabja

Well said, Bleeding_Heart.

I think everyone should take a look at that link. Consider a regime capable of such an outrage, having WMD at it's disposal.

I've avoided this topic, but after looking at those pictures it re-affirms why Saddam Hussain had to be taken out of power.

Dot9M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh.. yes.. the massacre of 5,000 Kurds... err.. how many Iraqis the coalition force has killed so far? whistling2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh.. yes.. the massacre of 5,000 Kurds... err.. how many Iraqis the coalition force has killed so far? whistling2.gif

"War is Hell"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"War is Hell"

Well thats quite an obvious statement to ake.

However the question is, was it justified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"War is Hell"

Well thats quite an obvious statement to ake.

However the question is, was it justified?

Was "what" justified? Saddam using WMDs on his own people, or the War in Iraq?

The topic of this thread is "Were there ever any WMDs in Iraq?"

I haven't researched to count the number of threads here on "UM" dealing with this and related topics. There are dozens, I'm sure. Each time the discussions usually end up locked.

My comment "war is hell" was in reference to your statement about the number of Iraqi's killed by the coalition. Death is a part of war, no matter the circumstances.

I should know better than to enter these types of threads. It does nothing for my blood pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Hussein moved WMD. That's what I would have done. Syria and Lebanon would be likely spots to stash them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WMDs have been destroyed. If Saddam had WMD surely he would have used it at the last moment wouldn't he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WMDs have been destroyed. If Saddam had WMD surely he would have used it at the last moment wouldn't he?

I have stayed away from this topic just cuz I thought the drugs might kick in and make me agree with the Pro-Bush camp.

However, in light of events that are not all that recent, and as a patriotic American I feel that I should put my two cents into this thread.

1. In answer to PP question in the above quote, I don't think he would have used any WMD's against the coalition troops. If he had, it would have given the U.S. the 'Proof beyond a doubt' that they needed to justify the war.

If Saddam did have the weapons, they were/may very well hidden, and will be uncovered in due course. However, at this time I doubt that this is the case. What is not on the nightly news, are the many Iraqis that are helping our troops to find Saddams stock piles. Not just of weapons but of documents, money and other valuables.

It is more likely that Saddam bluffed his way with threats of WMD's in hopes of preventing or delaying an attack. However, Saddam knew that this ploy would not work for very long. However, because of 9/11, he knew that even if he lost the battle, the radical factions of the Islamic faith would continue the war.

The problem that is now before the U.S. is the simple fact that the intel was faulty. Even President Bush has stated that the intel was less than perfect and that they didn't have the full picture.

What is hurting the U.S. in international relations is this administrations arrogant attitude.

(Edited for grammer, I should know better, I just graduated from the sixth grade)

Edited by stillcrazy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Hussein moved WMD. That's what I would have done. Syria and Lebanon would be likely spots to stash them.

Another likely spot would have been Libya. Isn't it interesting that Libya suddenly had a 'turn of heart' and turned over a bunch of Mustard Gas? Or is that just the tip of the WMD iceberg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Hussein moved WMD. That's what I would have done. Syria and Lebanon would be likely spots to stash them.

Another likely spot would have been Libya. Isn't it interesting that Libya suddenly had a 'turn of heart' and turned over a bunch of Mustard Gas? Or is that just the tip of the WMD iceberg?

Joc, I might agree if Libya were a boarder country, but it's not. Syria and Turkey come to mind as they are easy to access and even though Turkey is a 'friend' of the U.S., there are many factions in Turkey that would be more than happy to store WMD's for later deployment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did we really invade Iraq looking for Mustard Gas?

Sure Mustard Gas is an awful weapon (you just have to read about its effects on troops during WW1), however, Saddam could never have threatened the US or UK with it. How would he have deployed it?

Sure he could have used it on our troops, but if we had never invaded the country in the first place he wouldn't have had the opportunity and even with the opportunity he didn't use it, which would impy he never had the stuff in the first place.

We have to face facts, even with the help of captured Army Officers and informers, no WMDs have been found.

WMDs were a smoke screen and the pro-war boys and girls fell for it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh nancy I never said nething about IRaqi civilian deaths so get you quotes right.

YOu dont need to read the threads and you dont need to post.

Ive read your posts on these topics before and it seems to infuriate when people dont toe the bush agenda, YOu know millions upon millions of people dont agree with you and we have every right to voice our valid concerns ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW stamford thumbsup.gif again.

Once joc you really need to look ata map mate, then study world politics and then study a bit of history.

Even mentioning that libya now have saddams WMDs is laughable, the right wing will say anything now lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't go for Bush bashing or weed whacking, I have noticed that here as elsewhere, there seems to be two distinct camps. Those that believe all the crapola fed to us about the war, and those that don't believe anything said by the current administration.

I belong to a point in the middle. I don't believe that we needed to go to war because there was a growing threat, I never believed that part of it. Iraq is about the same size as the state of California, and to me it would have been a lot easier to contain the threat, than go in and take the country by force.

The fact that they used 'faulty' intel is no excuse. If you plan to kill people in what you claim is a just war, you had better make sure your intel and sources are un-impeachable.

I hope Iraq will be a better place without Saddam, but I doubt it. There are too many Clerics that want to impose strict Islamic law on everyone.

We have been in Iraq for just over a year, you would think in that time, some evidence of any weapons of mass destruction would have surfaced. Evidence of these weapons having been moved out of the counrty would have come to light by now. To date, nothing crediable has been shown that the reason we went to war was a legal and legit reason.

Some have compared this to another Viet Nam. I have a tendancy to agree in some respects. During that war, we couldn't identify the enemy and we lost. We can't say who is for us and who is against us in Iraq. I grew up during the Viet Nam era, with the fear that as soon as I finished high school I would be drafted.

I see the prelude to another draft building already.

Every thing we are doing in Iraq we have done before in Nam. We are going to get the same results. It's not about superior fire power or larger numbers. It's about the enemies resolve and willingness to die ofr thier cause that will decide who wins this little war.

Enough ranting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another likely spot would have been Libya. Isn't it interesting that Libya suddenly had a turn of heart?and turned over a bunch of mustard gas?Or is that just the tip of the WMD iceburg?

That is interesting...never thought of that. I do remember Libya wanted to be taken off the terrorist list, awfully bad. The list puts terrible pressure on a country to cope with it's neighbors and the rest of the world; I, also, remember North Korea getting pretty upset being called part of the 'axis of evil'. (being labeled like that can make heads roll).

stillcrazy...I have a question. I agree it could be Turkey too...we don't know. Could we get into Syria and Turkey or Lebanon to find out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question. I agree it could be Turkey too...we don't know. Could we get into Syria and Turkey or Lebanon to find out?

Err....no!

What would you suggest, we pop in quickly, have a bit of a mooch around, maybe ask a shepherd if he has seen any swarthy types with shovels and some smoking drums with the words 'Weapon of Mass Distruction' written on them?

Could we get into Syria, Turkey or Lebanon?

I think we have invaded enough countries for the time being, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stamford....If we can't get into these countries, how do we know they don't have WMD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stamford....If we can't get into these countries, how do we know they don't have WMD?

Well we don't know and, short of invading them, we never will.

Are you suggesting that we march into these countries, including Turkey who is a friend of the West's, and look for them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stamford....If we can't get into these countries, how do we know they don't have WMD?

What right do you think you have to march into any country in the world and demand they give us their military secrets?

How arrogant is that?

THe countries your talking about have as much right as we dlo to arm themselves for defense.

They are sovereign nations my god.

Turkey is a member of NATO By the way, arent you lot taught anything at school lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.