Chunky_Moose Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 When weapons inspectors went into Iraq before the war, the most dangerous weapons that they found had a range of 85km (upgradeable to 120km). That's around one fifth of the distance from Baghdad to Basra. I'm not sure on how big the payload that they could carry was but certainly not more than a couple of hundred pounds judging from the size of the rockets...Hardly a weapon of mass destruction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 But the fact that he had mustard gas and stuff like that hidden means he lied!! Remember the inspectors for the UN only searched the proper places to hold weapons like bunkers and warehouse. They didn't have the permission to search caves, homes, mansions, and any other place. They could have been anywhere.Even if the mustard gas had gone bad, it meant nothing he still had the remains of a WMD. And he claimed to have gotten rid of everything but he didn't. HE LIED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 But the fact that he had mustard gas and stuff like that hidden means he lied!! Remember the inspectors for the UN only searched the proper places to hold weapons like bunkers and warehouse. They didn't have the permission to search caves, homes, mansions, and any other place. They could have been anywhere.Even if the mustard gas had gone bad, it meant nothing he still had the remains of a WMD. And he claimed to have gotten rid of everything but he didn't. HE LIED. I will put my point as simply and clearly as possible: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THIS!!!! Yes, it was claimed Saddam had mustard gas, yes, it was claimed that he had other WMD. When it came to proof, the case was extremely weak, and, as time went on, the incredibly weak case for the existance of WMD in Iraq became even weaker. The supposed location of WMD facilities were passed on to the UN Weapons Inspectors, who found NOTHING, not even small traces, which would indicate WMD had been there and had since been moved. Even the Iraq Survey Group, who went in after the end of open warfare found NOTHING. In fact, as my sig says, David Kay, the man in charge of it (who was pro-war, by the way), is on record as saying he thinks the weapons didn't exist. In short, there was no concrete evidence of WMD in Iraq before the Iraq War started, and, since then, nothing has changed in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Thief Oriana Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 But the fact that he had mustard gas and stuff like that hidden means he lied!! Remember the inspectors for the UN only searched the proper places to hold weapons like bunkers and warehouse. They didn't have the permission to search caves, homes, mansions, and any other place. They could have been anywhere.Even if the mustard gas had gone bad, it meant nothing he still had the remains of a WMD. And he claimed to have gotten rid of everything but he didn't. HE LIED. Bush lies all the time and you NEVER complain, what makes this any different using your logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 The topic here is Saddam not Bush. I'm definitly not a supporter of Bush if that is what you think!!! I just think Saddam is a dangerous man and in many ways I'm glad we went over there and got him out of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chunky_Moose Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 America has the same problem as Britain. The leader and the lack of choice. The Republicans have got George Bush in power and everyone hates his guts BUT the problem is that John Kerry is just as bad, if not worse, so most of the electorate don't vote because there's nobody to vote for and the remainder who do are either Republicans or have chosen the lesser of two evils - normally Bush. Its the same situation with Tony Blair and Michael Howard. If the tories had decent leadership they could win the election but they don't so Britain is stuck with Tony 'Iamahypocriticalidioticfoolwhoistotallyunawareofpublicopinion' Blair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 I just think Saddam is a dangerous man and in many ways I'm glad we went over there and got him out of power. To a certain extent, I agree with this, but: 1) Why now? Saddam has never been a good guy. His human rights abuses stretch back for quite a large number of years, and, in the past, he has definately been in possession of WMD, so why is it all of a sudden now we have to get rid of him? 2) Why choose to 'enforce' UN resolutions against Iraq when, not only the UN objects to this, but it is done in a way that clearly contravenes the UN Charter? 3) Why doggedly insist that Iraq has WMD when everyone else, including the people who should know best (the UN Weapons Inspectors who had been inspecting Iraq on and off for the previous 12 years or so), say this is simply not true? These are just some of the questions that, as far as I can see, the US and UK governments simply don't have answers to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 In all honesty, I think there is more to this situation than the public knows... Why would the president, the senate, and the house of representatives in majority all agree to an attack if they had no solid evidence? I think the government is holding something back and they can't tell the public because if the tell the public what they know they are also telling the enemy at the same time. It's questionable but possible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 In all honesty, I think there is more to this situation than the public knows... Why would the president, the senate, and the house of representatives in majority all agree to an attack if they had no solid evidence? Simple. They bought the 'Saddam has WMD and is a direct threat to us' line of Bush and Blair. I think the government is holding something back and they can't tell the public because if the tell the public what they know they are also telling the enemy at the same time. It's questionable but possible... I don't think so, for one simple reason - the enemy was Saddam Hussein and his regime. Saddam is now in custody, and the regime is ousted, and there is only the tiniest of tiny chances they could get back in power in Iraq, yet there is still not the remotest sign of any information coming from the UK and/or US governments that is not already known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chunky_Moose Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 The war was most probably fought because Bush wanted Iraq's oil. He saw a weakened, starving nation with a leader who was slightly misbehaving 10 years ago and invaded it because it had lots of oil. The reason he decided that it would not be a good idea to attack North Korea or Syria was because - in the case of North Korea - an army of 1 million personnel and very real nuclear capabilities and - in the case of Syria - Saudi Arabian disapproval. Bush attacked Iraq because he knew that Saddam had NO WMDs. If he was in doubt whether Saddam did have any WMDs, he would not have risked his soldiers getting poisoned, gassed or nuked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.