Not having WMD's didn't due Iraq any good.  Has the Bush admin proven that whether a country poses a real threat or not, there is still a risk of invasion?  \n\nIf not having nukes means that you can still be invaded, doesn't it make sense than that having nukes might actually be an effective way of preventing a foreign country from invading?\n\nWhat would you do if you ran one of these countries and you saw your neighbor get invaded for complying with international laws (not that Suddam hasn't broken the rules in the past, but at the time that the US was making threats he was in compliance)?\n\nA very dangerous precident has been set.
213931
Interesting question.\n\nAt the moment the truth is that Iran is stating absolutely that it doesn't want 'Nukes', instead it is claiming a right to develop a nuclear capacity for peaceful power generation. With the price of oil rising globally this seems a sensible strategy.\n\nOf course the problem is that this could be masking a drive for the development of nuclear weaponry.  \n\nIs this justified?  Well there are two schools of thought.  \nThe first is that for defence purposes it is.  Iran is a developed nation in the Middle East and one of its neighbours, Israel has a nuclear capability.  Iran could justifiably argue that it requires a nuclear deterrent to counter that of Israelis.\n\nThe second is that no, it's not.  Iran has been explicitly threatening to the West and Israel (whom it said it intended to 'wipe off the map') and whilst the rest of the world are looking to dismantle nuclear stock piles, it is incongruous for a nation to be building a nuclear capability.\n\nNot sure of the answer, but hope this helps.
313529
Bush is an idiot, but Iran is a threat. Why Irans leader would put his whole country in jeapordy is just dumb. The US would destroy Iran and not even feel a scratch. Noone is that niave to think that any country right now could invade the US, so this means all wars are fought on their soil.. dumb moves.
528527
way to go for noticing.i will tell you exactly what is going on.this whole war is being orchestrated by the Saudis.it has been from the start.Bush was told there were no weapons but said he knew better and would attack with or without approval.so Saddam is out of power and there are no weapons so why are we still there and what reason do we have to keep prolonging it.the reason is as long as it continues the countries that were buying their oil from Iraq have to buy it from the Saudis.makes sense now don't it.this also the exact reason why Bush keeps coming up with excuses trying to get support to attack Syria and Iran.again for more Saudi profit.now there is no oil profit for the Saudis in N.Korea so Bush wants to handle this diplomatically.there is no other reason that makes sense why we would have to go to the Saudis to talk strategy before the President meets with the leader of Iraq.excellent job and question.can't wait to read all the answers to this one .especially the Republican supporters.
616245
keeping the republicans is way to expensive and as far as it seems pretty dangerous too , not wonder all countries around the world do not like America . \n\nbush and his people have done nothing but to impose their one way policies and have made sure to get as much money as possible in their way out we just have to see at the bicepresident to see what I'm talking about .\n\nglobal warning is also a huge problem which has been addressed by all countries and ignored by bush and and his team . we as Americans must make sure to elect a new good president and not another nature killer .\n\nthere is also the enormous problem which this administration has created whit their searching for nonexistent WMDs problem which not only has stuck America in an endless war but it has killed thousands of innocent people and has bring more hate and anger towards America .\n\nso i really hope the next  president and the new leaders are responsible people who will not take personal issues and make them into huge problems .
571873
I totally agree with you. Why can the US have nuclear bombs and wmd and we do have them. Why cant other countries. Its none of our business. Read the constitution we are not to go to war with any other country unless that country attacks us. But what do we do we invade countries that have disputes with other countries and stick our big fat noses into everything. No wonder America is a HATED country.
608684
Well ,the question is, why shouldnt they have these weapons? The security council nations, ie You guys, Us (Britain), France, China and Russia all have high-payload nuclear weapony in stockpiles..Id say were more of a danger to world peace, wouldnt you?\n Besides, north Korea is a tinpot state, its a wreck and everyone knows it, except the media, who love to play this kind of thing up. Its almost as stupid as believing iraq could actually threaten us *laughs* States like Iran and N.Korea will never use nuclear weapons in anger, as this would almost definatly result in a nuclear response from the Security nations. Basically, we dont need to go to war with them, they wont use them and theyll probably disintergrate as a nation soon anyways..
292618
Again, there's no point in even addressing what political issues you're implying, because it's a fact that Iran can not and will not set off a nuke here.  That would be considered an act of nuclear war, and we would retaliate with an unbelievable amount of nuclear firepower, which would squash Iran like a tiny bug under a giant boot.  You don't really want to enrage 300 million patriots backed by a trillion-dollar, apocalypse-bringing nuclear arsenal do you?
415820
First, if anybody believes we're going to invade either North Korea or Iran, then they are complete fools.\n\nSecond, if anybody believes that NKorea or Iran are going nuclear because of the foolish idea we'd invade them, they're even bigger fools than the complete fools.\n\nNKorea and Iran started their nuclear programs long before there was any threat from the US.\n\nWhy is the rest of the world so ignorant of simple historic fact?\n----------\nUh, what evidence? You somehow have detailed knowledge of the NKorean nuclear program? Perhaps it slowed until Clinton gave them 2 nuclear reactors.
360296
??? I question your logic. We didn't go into iraq to SEE if they had wmd - we told the world that there WERE wmds there and we had to get them out. So right there - your logic is off.\n\nFP
575169
I guess I must be about your age than cuz I haven't had anyone call me a hippy in a long time either lol. As for the question, I'm not thoroughly convinced to this day that there weren't wmd's in Iraq. The way we played around with the U.N. for months a turtle could have moved them out of there. I think any country that has a taste of freedom is a wonderful thing. and no I would not move to Iraq. If anyone has a comment about me going in the service I already did during Vietnam and my son did Iraq! He did 13 months in Fallujah.
504684
I say no the nuclear weapons shouldn't be banned. Look at history of the Cold War that went on for decades against the ussr & usa....they had nuclear weapons pointing at each other, did they use them.....no because they knew no one had the guts to see what would happen....destroy the planet???? The Cuban Missile Crisis, Kruschev had the opportunity to start WW3, and he backed off....These weapons are a deterrent to someone to start something, Nth Korea for instance with their 1st detonation of their own nuke....look what happened here, ussr,china,usa, virtually said in nice terms..."we're not taking any s_ _ _ from anyone who threatens us!!"......so is it inhumane to keep them or do we have them as an insurance policy from anyone from having a go!!!!!  think about it very carefully....i know i can sleep with some peace that some dumb f_ _ _ wont try anything.......if they do the enemy wont know what has hit them....so why try to start something where there will be no winners or loosers????
594382
First nothing can convince me,even if US finds WMD in Iraq ,that Saddam Hussein had them.If it was so they would have found it a long time ago.\nBush should be preoccupied by the situation in US and not spending money on wars,when those money are needed by the US citizens.\nIsrael still refuses to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.Anything Israel does or say it's "self defense",while the Palestinians defending themselves are terrorists.And anyone who says anything bad about Israel is definitely anti semite,if if he's right.Bush keep supporting Israel 'cos they are the only ally in Middle East.It seems ,in mr Bush opinion that anything that it's Arab it's terrorist.
242970
You put your question very well.\nYes he did have WMDs. just not found thanks to the delay in Attacking Iraq.\nThe people of Iraq did Want Rid of him. And MOST don't want him back.\nSaddam did Have links with Terrorists. The party he led were all Terrorists. I would just wonder how any other President would have handled the Pressure that was thrown at him the way 9/11 was on President Bush. Maybe if some of the ones on this site sent out good Vibes rather than the Bad ones. Might just make the Terrorists think twice. Before they act. When the American People Are United, The Worlds Terrorists Faltered. this my opinion as None American.\n\ng who or what gives you the right to call someone else Stupid Just because they have a different Point than yours.\nFucking typical rhetoric from a sheep herder.
266312
Wrong Buddy. Remember you have some crazy people who will do anything to get a nuke in their hands. Anyone from terrorists, to warlords. The civilized world, notice like the US, France, Britain, and so forth, use their nukes as a deterrent. You know u nuke me, I'll nuke you back. Crazy countries like Iran just wants nukes to WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH!!! So therefore, it is in the best interest of the civilized world that certain countries contain and hold nukes.
603355
They've not sufficiently provoked us for a nuclear attack. Not that I want it to get to that point, but there's many steps to be taken inbetween.\n\nAnd nuclear war is not inevitable - look at the Cold War. Even when it became a hot war (Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan), the nukes stayed within their silos.
593418
First of all, we where enforcing the UN Resolution 1441 that the liberals so believe in.   We went into that country to rid it of WMD's, that we are finding, and clear it of the trash that was running it.\n\nWe helped them form their OWN government so they can decide what THEY want, not what we want.\n\nThey could never invade us, however the terrorist who was in Iraq DID and I assume you didn't mind that so much.. we probably deserved it?\n\nAddition:\nIraq WAS developing WMD's, even your president said he was.\n\nUN Resolution 1441 gave us the reason we needed to go in and rid the world of this dictatorship.   I don't think we ever said he had anything to do DIRECTLY with 9/11/2001 except maybe supply training camps for terrorist.   \n\nDaddy did not finish the war because he decided to listen to wimpy Liberals.  If he had finished it, we wouldn't be there now losing more and more of our men.  If we would have done it then, the 9/11 issue would not be attempted here....
587485
Please note the first five entries were made PRIOR to President Bush becoming our president.... and then, we have Hiliary's entry!\n\n\n"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." \nPresident Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. \n\n"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." \nPresident Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998. \n\n"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." \nMadeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. \n\n"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." \nSandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 \n\n"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." \nLetter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. \n\n"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." \nSen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 \n\nNOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!! \n\nAnd now.....Reported on FoxNews 6/21/2004\n\nWASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday. \n\n"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.\n\nReading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."\nHe added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.\n\n"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.\n\n"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.\n\nThe weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it show