Whats your opinion about iraqwar.why until now US government cannot prove anythings about iraq nuclear weapons
354602
For the simple reason that there weren't any WMD there.\n\nNow how can you be sure:\n\n1. If they had any they would've been used when US was attacking Iraq.\n2. If they were not used for fear of retaliation, then they should've been found by now.\n\nThe probability of all the WMDs being scuttled for fear of UN inspectors finding them out is very real.
851652
What WMD?\nDo you really believe that Saddam could develop them during the sanction period!\nHe only was a card to play & had been used fully to convince those who decide in the US to rush for war.\nThe real question is who actually played the game?\nMy opinion is that now the game in the middle should be completed correctly and not left for uncontrolled destiny.
611301
Fascinating. Thank you for bringing this up. It is a war crime. The whole of our involvement in Iraq then and now is full of war crimes. \n\nSeems there are no limits to the ugliness of our war. No wonder we are so despised.  \n\nThis is historic, our research with the A bomb was similar in nature; talk about opening Pandora's box...another result of fiddling with the atom. Some stuff should just be left alone.\n\nThe military has a history of testing horrible equipment and macabre medical treatments on soldiers as well as civilian populations. Just another day in the pentagon.
456735
Why we are champions of the free world for it. We must of rid the country of weapons of mass destruction because we didn't find any we overthrew a government, that should be our roll in life. Overthrowing other governments while getting 2500 of ours killed and nobody knows how many Iraqi's. Old men, woman and children was the real problem over there that is why we killed them, and best of all we have ignited a civil war. It just don't get any better then that, unless we can kill a few more baby's in a bombing.
134592
OK never mind that the supposed WMDs were never found -if they did indeed exist in Iraq after the mid 90s...never mind that it wasnt until we invaded Iraq that outside terrorists began infiltrating into Iraq where they were to get the best possible training in the world ----from their expiriences in combat against US coalition forces!!! thats right some future terrorists can now say they got their badges in Iraq!!! Courtesy of Bush!! THe Iraq War has made the world more unstable and more prone to future terrorism.
992381
Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction was not captured by US forces who heroically brought down Saddam Hussein's regime three years ago this week. It vanished before they arrived.\nIsraeli intelligence reported before the US-led invasion that starting in late summer 2002 Saddam's WMD arsenal was shipped by truck convoy to Syria. Recently, documents seized from Iraq after the fall of the regime were released to the public. Those documents revealed that under the direct command of former Russian prime minister and KGB boss Yevgeny Primakov, Russian Spetnaz forces oversaw the transfer of Iraq's WMD to Syria ahead of the US-led invasion. These reports have been corroborated by Saddam's Air Vice Marshall General Georges Sada.\n\nSo rather than being destroyed or secured, Saddam's WMD arsenal was simply moved from one rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations to another rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations.\n\nOf course, American Media will NOT report this, it will prove Bush right, and then they would look stupid.\n\nMichael Moore, thanks:\nFriday, 23 June 2006 \nWhen News Lies \n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES\nMedia Complicity and The Iraq War\n\n\nBy Danny Schechter, The News Dissector\n\n\n\nA new book from Danny Schechter offers an up to date indictment of the role media played in promoting and misreporting the war on Iraq. It is an analysis of how and why the media got it wrong that pinpoints the failures of journalism and the collusion of media companies with the Bush Administration. The author of EMBEDDED: Weapons of Mass Deception (Prometheus 2003), an account of the TV coverage of the US invasion, returns with a more comprehensive, updated and insider look at the media complicity that Schechter argues "made the war possible."\n\n\n\n"Most of the anti-war movement focused on the crimes of the Bush Administration ignoring the mainstream media, its far more effective accomplice," says former network producer Danny Schechter (ABC, CNN). "The government orchestrated the war while the media marketed it. You couldn't have one without the other."\n\n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES includes the feature -length DVD of the prize-winning film WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception). The book will also include the complete script as well as a discussion of the challenges of exposing media with media with a documentary. It chronicles the media war fought alongside the military campaign and the struggle to stand up for truth.
14208
Yes, Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction. They are called hatred, lies and greed. Strangely, we seem to have similar weapons in this country as well. Should we invade our own country and have a regime change?
1147002
There are a lot of BS answers here.  Iraq was in no way a threat to the United States. No Airforce, No Navy, a couple of missles that couldn't reach us that they had begun to destroy when we invaded, a lousy army that we beat in about a week.\n\nThere were 2,500 people looking for WMD after the invasion. No evidence was found that there  were WMD or that they had been destroyed or moved. Do you really believe US wouldn't have been able to find evidence if it existed?\n\nThe "Bush" people wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11.  They wanted to overthrow Sadam and put in a "democratic government" freindly to US and US oil companies. They believe that if you have "democracy" in Iraq it will spread to other countries in the Middle East.  While they talk about "freedom" they really only are interested in countries with oil.\n\nIf Iraq was a threat to its neighbors, why did NONE of them join our coalition? Turkey wouldn't even allow just to use them as a base for invasion.\n\nSomeone says above that Saddam had programs in 1992. 1992?\nThat's eleven years before we invaded! Ten years later, Saddam was totally contained and had no WMD programs to speak off, and no capicity to develop nuclear weapons.
1181821
Go to the White House on the net and get Bush's speech which, after 2 years, admitted there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The UN told Bush that before the invasion but  he ignored them!\n\nIf you need other sources let me know.\n\nNo doubt on weapons as search ends\nBy Dafna Linzer\nWashington\nJanuary 15, 2005\n\nPage Tools\nEmail to a friend Printer format   \nPresident George Bush at a media briefing this week.\nPhoto: AP\nRelated\nBiological agents \nThe White House ends the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, the main justification for the Iraq war.\n\nThe hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President George Bush ordered US troops to disarm Saddam Hussein.\n\nThe top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley, Virginia.\n\nOfficials who served with the Iraq Survey Group said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort just before Christmas.\n\nFour months after Charles Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to the US Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush Administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the survey group's final conclusions and will be published this northern spring\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nBush's no-apologies speech convinces few \nCHILL AT U.N.: President defends Iraq policy to polite but firm criticism\nRobert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer\n\nWednesday, September 24, 2003\n\n \nPresident Bush strongly defended the U.S. invasion of Iraq before the United Nations Tuesday, getting a polite but steely response as world leaders warned that his go-it-alone policies could undermine the international organization. \n\nThe president came to the U.N. General Assembly in New York hoping to secure greater international support for the U.S.-led occupation as well as commitments of troops and financial aid. Based on the reaction to his speech, including open criticism from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and French President Jacques Chirac, he got few if any takers. \n\nSeeking to set aside past differences over America's decision to go to war without U.N. authorization, Bush told the assembled delegates that "the nation of Iraq needs and deserves our aid. And all nations of goodwill should step forward and provide that support." \n\nBut Chirac, addressing the assembly after Bush had spoken, strongly criticized the president's decision to wage war unilaterally, calling it "one of the gravest trials" in U.N. history and saying it "undermined the multilateral system."
928100
The CIA and the NIS were instructed by the Bush Administration to find evidence to confirm Saddam had Nuclear and Biological weapons Programs actively in use. The CIA and NIS new from the outset that they would find it impossible to do this, because they had no intelligence what-so- ever to give to the Bush administration who were demanding  proof. They managed, between them to supply Bush & Cheney a report that was`nt worth the paper it was printed on. These agencies said at the time, and have continued to admit, to this day. Saddam had NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. NONE !! The US and the UK went to war for NOTHING, It takes ONE BULLET TO ASSASINATE A TYRANT, NOT 650 000 DEAD PEOPLE. IT IS AN ILLEGAL WAR, pure and simple. If anyone would care to argue the point with me I`ll open up my e.mail for discussion, and supply ANY evidence they wish to examine.\nAnd don`t give me any crap about violating UN sanctions, they were devised specifically to entrap the Hussein regime, thus ensuring he had absolutly no choice but to violate them. \nI believe that now the US and UK have tested the water, as it were. They have set a precedent where by, you don`t actually need a viable excuse for invading another country and killing it`s people, they have devised their own set of rules. Astonishing and terrifying and truly barbaric.
963712
Politically, it obviously wasn't a very good move, but other than that?  People seem to have forgotten the satellite images-they were hauling something...could this have been the WMD that was gone before the war was started?  Aside from that, though, we went in by using the UN resolutions as justification.  These **NUMEROUS** resolutions did not state that we could attack if Iraq has WMD, they put the burden of proof on Saddam-he had to prove that he didn't have WMD; that he had destroyed the KNOWN WMD from the 1st Gulf War.  He couldn't account for the WMD, therefore, we went in to uphold our side of the resolutions.
1034476
yes I agree. Why should we give a fuck about Iraq when no one country does and the UN didnt even stand behind us? oh wait I know the answer to this! it wasn't a war to find nuclear weapons Bush JR wanted to finish what Bush SR started. I know A LOT of soldigers in Iraq and they say its bullshit. They don't even know why they're over there anymore... thats reddikulas!!!! We shouldn't step in everytime a country isn't running the way we want them to. How would we like it if a country sent in their troops to us and said hey, we don't like the way your running your country, we're going to make you into a comminust country.... we wouldn't like it just like they don't like it. And give me an f-ing break saying this is a war on terriorism... if that is true why didn't we go for Osama (the PERSON freaking responsible for the attacks on USA) instead of invading Iraq for Bush to finish his daddys war! UGH I can go on and on hehe.
619407
Did US find nukes in Iraq? Do you think USA is right? How many more dead soldiers (iraqies/iranian/american) will stop wars?  USA will not nuke iran.
50168
Following the formula of something yet to be discovered must be there defies physics. The analogy of losing something in your home and knowing it's there doesn't work because we didn't live in Iraq and physically lose, misplace or hide weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not have plenty of time to hide weapons because resolution 1441 from the UN recalled previous resolutions that stated what would happen if there were weapons found and that sanctions should be applied unilaterly through the UN. It is doubtful that our sattilites and other technologies could not track these weapons, but could accuratly find them and define them with great detail before the war. Powell when addressing showed pictures of trucks "where" chemical weapons were made. But you can't track semis through the dessert?  There were wmd's in Iraq which came from various administrations in the 80's that were used to fight Iran. But most of that was used and the rest accounted for and destroyed by weapons inspectors. I find if very interesting that Saddam had these weapons at his disposal and decided to "hide" them instead of using them against the troops when we invaded. Not only were wmd's not in Iraq, but Iraq lacked the capabilities to launch these missles to isreal let alone the US as he had no missles with a range further than 90 miles and once a missle hit it's target there was no way to deploy the warhead (wmd) without vaporizing it. What is also interesting is that bush claimed Saddam had at his disposal airforce training planes that would spread these weapons. How is it a single engine prop could not be detected especially if we knew about them and not destroyed before refueling 40 times and days later if it were to attack the US? Yeah I agree Iraq is better off without Saddam, but one cannot change the motive after an action to justify the lack of a motive in the first place. He should be allowed to run his mouth as even he is entitled to free speech, but then again few could listen and find justification for what he did.
1186689
It's because people believe the liberal media's antiwar message that they have been putting out since 911 to sway public oppinion against the war.  Add in a dose of several well put together, but poorly researched conspiracy theories and you get a reciepe that makes bleeding hearts and peaceniks think that the US Government is conspiring against them.  \n\nThanks for doing your part in helping to spread the truth.  You are a true American.  \n\nAnd if you have not seen this yet check it out\nhttp://www.iraqitruthproject.com/
13827
Because David Kay and the CIA's Iraq Survey group, appointed by President Bush to investigate WMDs in Iraq, concluded that at the time of the US Led invasion in March, 2003,  Saddam Hussein did not possess chemical weapons stockpiles, having destroyed them in 1991.  \n\nIn the Key Findings section of this report, the following paragraph can be found:  \n\n"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered."\n\nThis document can be found on the CIA's web site. (see sources below)
593642
There is good article on the BBC website that gives two views on the future in Iraq.\n\nIt summarises both sides of the argument.