By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
GameOver22 on 20 December 2010
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
whatever said:
Kasz216 said:
GameOver22 said:
Kasz216 said:

They were chemical weapons with the abiltity to cause serious bodily injury to a significant number of people.

That's specifically what they found.


Rereading the article, I don't see anything that makes that claim. The article is very vague, and when it does mention the quantity of weapons found, it hardly seems enough to cause mass casualties. Even if the article does show that there were WMDs in Iraq though, this does not show that WMDs were possessed and capable of use by the government- this is really the more relevant question and probably the better question to ask in a poll.

Edit: Quite a few of the links in the article don't even work, at least for me.

It's poisoous gas canisers... there is no such thing as a percise poison gas canister.

Considering that for months before the invasion of Iraq, all we heard about and saw were mushroom clouds and an emminent nuclear attack from Iraq giving nukes to Al Quaeda, this hardly qualifies as the WMD used to justify the war.  I have fertilizer in my garage, I guess I have WMD also.

A) Irrelevent to the mentioning above... again your answering the way you are only shows how bias can actually overpower being illinformed.

B) So, you need proof of the stuff that they use to make Nuclear bombs?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/africa/07iht-iraq.4.14301928.htm?_r=1

Wasn't in the position to be a bomb, but as you know, yellowcake can be refined into a bomb.  This was all stuff Sadam was supposed to have disposed of.  Not the "extra" stuff bush thought they were getting, but something VERY dangerous that he wasn't supposed to have for sure.

If you thought it was worth it going to war with Sadam because he was pursueing nukes all you can really do is blame Bush for jumping the gun.

Not that it's  justifcation for the war in the first place... since we could of accmplished stopping a weapons program via bombing campaign.  Clinton knew how to handle these matters... he was in like 3 wars... and he solved them all via just bombing the crap out of our enemies until they gave in.   Cost Effective, low risk, and we have loads of bombs we aren't ever going to use anyway.  (Though he really shouldn't of used the cluster bombs...)

C) Comparing mustard gas to pesticide... seriously?


I don't want to keep reviving this topic, but I found an interview on npr with a US/UN weapons inspector talking about the supposed WMDs found in Iraq. His point was that the chemical weapons found were almost 20 years old (remnants from the Iran-Iraq War), degraded, and decayed. He says they constitute a local hazard and could be dangerous but do not constitute WMDs. The radio interview is from 2006, but it also seems to apply to the weapons discussed in the wikileaks article because both sources are talking about remnants from the Iran-Iraq War and not newly developed chemical weapons.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5504298