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

First off, I'm not saying the things you say I'm saying. Secondly, I have the right to say what I want, if I want...when I want. In my country there is freedom of speech.

My point was, if we can't get into these countries, then how do we know they don't have WMD? How do we know' insane' Hussein didn't travel them out of his country and put them in another? When someone said that no info has come to light about WMD...how could it?...we can't get into these countries to find out!

Fact is, we want to get these weapons. If there aren't any WMD from Hussein, so be it. Hussein was a danger and had to go.

In my opinion, Hussein put money into the terrorist network and he backed it...just look at what's happening now in Iraq. You've got terrorists from all parts of the globe coming in there to fight the U.S. and coalition. There are foreign fighters, al Qaeda, terrroist groups etc. etc.; Hussein was a part of the terrorist network. Iraq was a terrorist state. They put money into the terrorist organization. It took funding from governments to get that job done on 911. There are more nations behind this than you think. Most people don't want to see this because they don't want to fight. They are scared.

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

About Turkey....didn't the U.S. have to pay Turkey a great amount of money to use their land?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was, if we can't get into these countries, then how do we know they don't have WMD?

What point, you go on about finding these WMDs, but you can't just waltz into a sovereign country (ok, apparently we can, but legally we can't and shouldn't - it's called an Act of War).

If there aren't any WMD from Hussein, so be it. Hussein was a danger and had to go.

Ah, so the WMDs don't matter after all.

In my opinion, Hussein put money into the terrorist network and he backed it...just look at what's happening now in Iraq. You've got terrorists from all parts of the globe coming in there to fight the U.S. and coalition.

Your opinion is wrong though. Where is your proof?

As for terrorists flooding into Iraq; well that's what happens when you invade a Muslim country and create anarchy, lots of other muslims extremists decide to pay a visit.

Hussein was a part of the terrorist network. Iraq was a terrorist state.

No he wasn't and no Iraq wasn't a terrorist state; I have said this before, but obviously Fox News has been talking a lot louder, Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda or 911. It was bull spoon fed to the people of the US and UK before the war.

There are more nations behind this than you think. Most people don't want to see this because they don't want to fight. They are scared.

Proof. Ever heard of this? What countries were behind 911? Osama Bin Laden has a vast personal fortune, which he has used to support Al Queda.

You don't need the support of Countries to fly planes into towers, just fanatical morons.

Scared? Yeah I am scared, scared of people who swallow this rubbish and don't question the motives or the moral issues involved.

If it were down to people like you we would be on a never ending war footing with the entire Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

We have intel agents in all these countries. However there are some major problems.

Just Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, turkey sent massive troops to the border of Iraq, but they were statitioned 100 miles from the border. This is a very mountainess area and hard to defend by Turkey's forces. This area also has a lot of tribal and religious factions that are more in control then the Turkish government.

Syria has no trust for Iraq, but hates the U.S. more than they dislike the Iraqi folks. It is very possible that they moved some of the easier transportable weapons such as anthrax, or other biological items. Scuds are a little harder to hide in a truck or bus. And if you remember, many of Hussains family fled to Syria just before or right after the start of the war. Many of the current terroristic attacks in Iraq are not being done by Iraqis, but by Syrians and Iranians who have come into Iraq to fight Americans.

Another point I have made before, I feel, and I think in the years to come will be proven, that Saddam did not have any large amounts of WMD. He was pulling a bluff to prevent and/or delay the war. QUOTE

In my opinion, Hussein put money into the terrorist network and he backed it...just look at what's happening now in Iraq. You've got terrorists from all parts of the globe coming in there to fight the U.S. and coalition.

Your opinion is wrong though. Where is your proof?

As for terrorists flooding into Iraq; well that's what happens when you invade a Muslim country and create anarchy, lots of other muslims extremists decide to pay a visit.

I have to agree with stamford. Saddam did not sponsor any type of terrorism until it was obvious that the U.S. was going to attack. Saddam and his sons were more concerned with personal wealth and power to even bother with funding terrorist.

If there were terrorist camps within Iraq, Saddam may have known, but did not provide material or monatary aid.

To date. There has been no hard evidence or proof that Saddam et al, had anything to do with 9/11, and I doubt that there ever will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the REAL reasons george bush attacked iraq (i got these from a comedy bit by frank caliendo in 2002)

3. dick cheney kept sliding up behind him saying, "you're daddy did it, wussy!"

2. al gore thinks it's a bad idea.

1. tony blair and he planned a sleep over where they tell scary war stories in their pjs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chico...that's funny grin2.gif

Dick Cheney is 'da' man!....I love Cheney....I'm from the camp that thinks Cheney is the real president. thumbsup.gifthumbsup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stillcrazy...When 911 hit, the first thing I thought about was Saddam Hussein. I felt that we should go after him. I thought that he was connected to 911 and we'd find out somewhere down the line if we searched long enough. I thought that he was a threat to the U.S. with all his wealth and what he might be able to accomplish if he connected with al Qaeda and other terrorists. This is my opinion and I haven't changed it.

I did think it was odd that we didn't find WMD. But, as you can see, I think Saddam had to be dealt with anyway and the U.S. being on the offensive is the only way to go. It is the best policy. The U.S. saw that if the terrorists hooked up with Saddam there would be no stopping them...or what I call real trouble would ensue.

Saddam did bluff...I agree. He did what you said, bluffed his way through...or at least that's what I think, too. But, I still don't trust him to be clean.

To date. There has been no hard evidence or proof that Saddam et al, had anything to do with 9/11 and I doubt there ever will be.

If I had to wait for hard evidence or proof my enemies might kill me. This is how I think and I'm not the only one, alot of Americans feel the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're opinion is wrong though, where is the proof?

Opinion?....I wasn't aware that an opinion has to be right or wrong. It's just an opinion. I wasn't aware that an opinion had to be backed up by facts...it is merely an opinion, what one thinks. And, for you to state that my opinion is wrong, is ludicrous.

As for terrorists flooding into Iraq; well that's what happens when you invade a Muslim country and create anarchy, lots of other muslims extremists decide to pay a visit.

Are you psychic?... grin2.gif Yes, I had a feeling the terrorists would fire up all the muslims to fight the U.S. and the coaliton, there in Iraq. Other Americans thought this, too. We are fighting a world war there.

I have said this before, but obviously Fox News as been talking alot louder, Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or 911. It was bull spoon fed to the people of the US and the UK before the war.

Do you have a news station, too? ohmy.gif (I watch CNN). As I said to stillcrazy, and I hate to burst your bubble, I thought about Saddam when the planes hit the towers... and so did alot of other americans.

Osama Bin Laden has a vast personal fortune, which he has used to support al Qaeda.

I know that he does...just think what would happen if he combined that fortune with Saddam Hussein's fortune...think of what terrorist acts they could perform. We thought about that and thought about all the innocent people that could die; we acted accordingly.

You don't need the support of Countries to fly planes into towers, just fanatical morons.

I disagree. It was brilliant...fly our machines into our buildings. The terrorists, obviously, don't have weapons like we do and they don't have the money that a nation has, so they came up with this extraordinary plan. It was truly brilliant... and I think Osama doesn't have the smarts to think this one up; the only person I know that would have that kind of smarts would be the doctor, Osama's side-kick. Love to get my hands on him. But, don't kid yourself there are governments behind this; people are sponsoring them; people are supporting them. It took quite a bit of finesse to pull 911 off.

And again, I am not the only american who thinks this. This is what I think, this is my opinion.

Terrorists live by their wits, fight by their wits and someone is using their wits to take over this world. Terrorists kill women and children and the elderly. We americans are killing them and will continue to kill them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

if it wasn't for the right wing, Libya would still be pursuing a nuclear weapons program...oh wait, people conveniantly forget that as a direct result of the Iraq war, Libya opened up its doors and came clean about its weapons programs.

Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or 911. It was bull spoon fed to the people of the US and the UK before the war.

i don't think anyone in government has said he has been directly linked to 9/11, at the most they have said he has been linked to supporting terrorist networks, which is quite true:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinion?....I wasn't aware that an opinion has to be right or wrong. It's just an opinion. I wasn't aware that an opinion had to be backed up by facts...

Very true Babs, and, as we have seen, it seems an opinion is now all that is needed before we go to war.

As I said to stillcrazy, and I hate to burst your bubble, I thought about Saddam when the planes hit the towers... and so did alot of other americans.

How is that bursting my bubbble? I know that's what you think, I am simply telling you that you are wrong.

What ever happened to 'proof'? Are we now simply allowed to invade countries because we have a suspiscion that they may have done wrong?

Of course Saddam's name came up after 911, he was an enemy of the US and it would have been a tremendous coup for him; it would also have brought the US to a state of war with Iraq and spelt his doom...er, hang on, it did!!! huh.gif

i don't think anyone in government has said he has been directly linked to 9/11

Bathory, this may be true, but it wasn't for a want of trying to find a link and therefore and excuse to invade; after that, WMD's came into play as a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bathory, this may be true, but it wasn't for a want of trying to find a link and therefore and excuse to invade; after that, WMD's came into play as a reason.

meh, all unsubstantiated:)

as far as i see it, the US acted on flawed intelligence. Whether or not they knew it was flawed and acted upon it anyway is something we probably won't know, because those who speak out always have some kind of agenda, and i'm talking about both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Babs

Opinion?....I wasn't aware that an opinion has to be right or wrong. It's just an opinion. I wasn't aware that an opinion had to be backed up by facts...it is merely an opinion, what one thinks. And, for you to state that my opinion is wrong, is ludicrous.

1stly if an opinion is clearly wrong and not based on any fact or reason then it is pure assupmtion and speculation, therefore if you make this opinion public and someone who has facts to back up their opposite opinion responds then they are entitled to tellyou that your wrong.

You just cant expect to make unsubstatiated claims , state them as fact then get offfended when you are indeed told you are wrong.

Just because you and 200 million other Americans thought Iraq was involved in 9/11 with no proof or through no logical deduction does not mean it is right lol.

Youve already proved your not exactly "on the ball" when it comes to both international law and world politics by seemingly getting frustrated at the fact that we arent allowed to just waltz into a soverign state..ahem... and demand to know how they are planning to defend themselves. Not only that but for some reason youve got it into our head we have a divine right to do it to anyone including our close allies in Nato, turkey.

As i have highlighted before this is the type of arrogant illeducated attitude that seems to be rife in america.

I mean for what reason would you have immediatly thought of Iraq straight away after 9/11 , honestly what logical reason, i mean bin laden and saddam hated each other lol.

Of course Saddam's name came up after 911, he was an enemy of the US and it would have been a tremendous coup for him; it would also have brought the US to a state of war with Iraq and spelt his doom...er, hang on, it did!!!

He was only an enemy when we decided he was of no use to us, we were quite happy to cosy up to him and supply him with WMD's 20 years ago, so when are we goin to be invaded for supplying dictators and maniacs across the entire planet with WMDs, surely we're just as dangerous.

Oh i forgot we hold the moral high ground dont we?? do we??

Are you psychic?...  Yes, I had a feeling the terrorists would fire up all the muslims to fight the U.S. and the coaliton, there in Iraq. Other Americans thought this, too. We are fighting a world war there.

Yeah just as we united behind france when germany was invading, in their eyes its the same fight and it was us who took it to the muslims not the other way around.

We have played into the terrorists hands.

Who exactly are we fighting this world war against, beacause i know exactly what you mean and this is not supposed to be a war against Islam.

That must be what you meant as the terrorists who twist islam are still in the minority.

.

Edited by wunarmdscissor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAck to the main point of the thread here is what happened.

We supplied a well known dictartor and evil man with WMD's 20 years ago he used them to massacre thousands.

He then ,after ending a war with IRan(which we thought was totally acceptable lol) , invaded kuwait ,which is smaller than the country of wales but with massive resources in oil, which we thought was appaling thing to do and came to the recue. I wonder why?? lol.

WE GOT A UN RESOLUTION WHICH THE REST OF THE WORLD SUPPORTED AND KICKED HIM OUT OF KUWAIT.

Oh but we let him stay in control and slaughter his people again.

We then imposed sanctions which instead of hurting saddam only made him richer and the people poorer , i will concede this was definitley not our doing however afetr 9 years when you see it aint working you need to change something and i dont mean through war.

We got weapons inspectors so destroy all of the aforementioned WMD's and never supplied him with them again.

Now we really good guys.

We go and finally invade Iraq killing yet more thousands of inncoent civilians on top on teh ones that saddam has already butchered under a western supported regime.

Ahh but you see hes a threat now and we have a legal right because he;s horeding illegal WMD's which the aforementioned UN resolution disallowed him.

Then we get there and they arent there.

LOlL But thats ok in 5 years time we'll apologise find another brutal dictator to make frinds with supply him with WMD's and so the cycle begins again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOlL But thats ok in 5 years time we'll apologise find another brutal dictator to make frinds with supply him with WMD's and so the cycle begins again.

I think that is what is called 'American Foriegn Policy', Wunarmd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOlL But thats ok in 5 years time we'll apologise find another brutal dictator to make frinds with supply him with WMD's and so the cycle begins again.

I think that is what is called 'American Foriegn Policy', Wunarmd.

laugh.gif nice one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess I'll step back into the fray.....

Fact: During the Reagan years, The U.S. military and others in the defense industry provided Saddam with weapons and the know how to produce more weapons.

Fact: When Saddam used these weapons against Iran, The U.S. and the U.N. looked the other way, due to world opinion of Iran at the time.

Fact: As a part of the cease fire, ending Desert Storm, Iraq agreed to allow U.N. inspectors into the country to dismantle Iraq's Weapons system that were more than allowed by U.N. treaty. Iraq was allowed to keep a certain amount of weapons in order to defend itself.

Fact: The U.N. inspectors were told to leave prior to a final accounting of all weapons.

Fact: Returning U.N. inspectors, prior to Iraqi Freedom. Did not find any evidence of stockpiling of weapons, but due to a looming possibility of war, were not allowed and therefore, could not do a complete inspection.

Fact: To date, no evidence of stockpiles have been found.

Fact: To date, no solid evidence Saddam or any of his people have ever supplied either money or materials to any terrorist group. There is questionable evidence that he allowed terrorist camps in some of the outlaying areas of Iraq. But most extemist groups were based in Afganistan, with the blessing of the Taliban

This is a very brief history of factual events.

Speculation 1: Between the time of the first U.N. inspection and the return of the inspectors, Saddam either, moved his remaining weapons to another country, most likely Syria. Jordan and Turkey are also possible tranfer countries, but only due to religious factions that do not support Saddam, but dislike the west. Or had the weapons buried deeply. Satellite recon photo's do not support this possibility.

Speculation 2: During the period between Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, Saddam had used his remaining weapons on his own people. He did not replenish these stocks.

Speculation 3: If there are weapons yet to be discovered, it would be in the interest of some of the captured prisoners to make a deal with the coalition forces in exchange for information on the whereabouts of the weapons.

Question 1: If there were weapons as we were led to believe, why, when the war was going so badly for Saddam and his troops, did he not use them when he had a chance?

Question 2: Why have none of these weapons fallen into the hands of the current round of internal terrorist? It may be because they don't know where they are, or they don't exsist.

Opinion: I feel that we, the U.S., and the world were falsly led into this war. Saddam is a madman to be sure, but then so are many other dictators. He was a bigger threat to his own people than the rest of the world. I have yet to see any documentation that says he was a direct threat to the United States, or the U.K.

I feel that the current administration took us to a country with faulty information. It does not matter if they knew before or after the fact, if your going to commit troops and money into a war, you had better be damn sure your information is correct, current and irrefutable. Not just guessing. And regardless of who fell asleep at the switch, the commander in chief is responsible in the end. He is the one who made the case for the war, not his minions.

As for 9/11: When the first plane hit, I thought it was a suicidal pilot. I knew it wasn't an accident as pilots are better trained than that.

When the second plane hit, I knew it was a terrorist attack, and my first thought was an extremist group. (Mainly because they had tried before) I did not think it was Saddam only because I know a bit more about him than the average American. If 200 million Americans thought it was Saddam, it was only because of the talking heads on the boob tube.

(BTW just for the record, when on 4/19/95 the federal building in OK was bombed, I was among some of the first to think it was connected to Waco two years earlier. The FBI and the CIA both stated that they felt it was an American right from the beginning, due to the location and the date. OK city was the central command point for the siege at Waco.)

Just my thoughts and opinion. Carry on Montegue thumbsup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tests are being conducted on the chemical/bio agents that Jordan seized.

Weird, an Israeli army general said Iraq smuggled WMD's into Syria prior to last years' war, but did anyone believe him?

It will be interesting what the test results are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lottie

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 completely agree with Cufflink, people should take a look at the Link. I cannot even put into words the horror I felt reading that and seeing those pictures.

Whether or not Iraq had WMDs or not, and I think they did/do, if by going in and making damn sure there were/are none and preventing another tragedy such as in the link, then the US and the UK are doing well.

Edited by Lottie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

stillcrazy...thank you for answering my question and giving information. It's interesting what you are saying.

Stamford...... "don't see it that way."

wunarmdscissor...I didn't take offense grin2.gif ....I didn't get frustrated and I didn't know I was, what did you say..."ill educated?"....Wow whistling2.gif ...and here I thought you guys were getting all lathered up. w00t.gif

Edited by Babs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

stillcrazy...thank you for answering my question and giving information. It's interesting what you are saying.

Your welcome Babs.

I try not to get emotional about this stuff, it'll drive ya crazzzzzy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was only an enemy when we decided he was of no use to us, we were quite happy to cosy up to him and supply him with WMD's 20 years ago, so when are we goin to be invaded for supplying dictators and maniacs across the entire planet with WMDs, surely we're just as dangerous.

or perhaps, he became an enemy when he started becoming a threat to the west?

as for supplying him with WMDs, noones denying it, however, back then the use of such weapons wasn't such a big deal in wartime. These are different times.

I mean for what reason would you have immediatly thought of Iraq straight away after 9/11 , honestly what logical reason, i mean bin laden and saddam hated each other lol.

whether or not they hate eachother is irrelevant....common causes could bring anyone together:) Then again, noone in a position of power is saying the Iraq and Al Queda were linked.

Question 1: If there were weapons as we were led to believe, why, when the war was going so badly for Saddam and his troops, did he not use them when he had a chance

so the US would lose what international support it had

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE 

Question 1: If there were weapons as we were led to believe, why, when the war was going so badly for Saddam and his troops, did he not use them when he had a chance

so the US would lose what international support it had

With his back against the wall, Saddam would have used nukes if it would of saved his ass.

International support would have been fat use to him in jail or dead!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wunarmdscissor...I didn't take offense  ....I didn't get frustrated and I didn't know I was, what did you say..."ill educated?"....Wow  ...and here I thought you guys were getting all lathered up. 

I think youll find if you read your post replying to stamford pointing out that your views were not based on fact and nonsensical , youll realise that you were gettin all hot an bothered that it was "just your opinion"

as for the last part i have no idea what your talking about.

or perhaps, he became an enemy when he started becoming a threat to the west?

as for supplying him with WMDs, noones denying it, however, back then the use of such weapons wasn't such a big deal in wartime. These are different times.

Might I ask exactly how did he become a threat to the west all of a sudden??

was it nething to do with the fact he invaded kiwait , who just happen to have a lot of oil?

it wasnt such a big dea???? lol

there were laws against biological and chemical warfare then you know, it was seen as a disgraceful tactic then as well. It was only 20 years ago.

And no these arent different times because george bush is a carbon copy of reagan in every way, including intellect.

And stamford is right do you really think a man who ordered the use of chemical weapons on his own people & massacred thousands would have hesitated to use any kind of weapons on us? lol lol.

Edited by wunarmdscissor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And stamford is right do you really think a man who ordered the use of chemical weapons on his own people & massacred thousands would have hesitated to use any kind of weapons on us? lol lol.

This is one of those unknown points. Saddam is nuts to be sure, but he is also crazy like a fox. If he had used any type of chemical weapon such as anthrax, Mustard gas etc, the world leaders would have rallied behind the U.S. and been in support of the war. The question of nukes never comes up because we knew he did not have them. He was three to five years from a Nuclear bomb. (According to Bush)

An interesting point that no one seems to notice, is that during Desert Storm, you saw troops donning Chemical suits all the time. Every time a scud was fired in fact.

During the current fighting, Very rarely do you ever see anything about chemical suits, even at the beginning of the war. Does this say anything to anyone. Were we that sure we had taken out his chemical weapons in the opening salvo that we did not need the suits? Or were we sure that the suits were not needed?

While Israel was on high alert, it seemed that even they were not very concerned about chemical attacks.

Does anyone else see a connection to all this. Or am I just not doing enough drugs?

Edited by stillcrazy
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.