Iraq Point

Why do liberals believe there were no mass weapons of destruction in Iraq? When infact Saddam used nerve gas (vx) against Iran during the 90s. Nerve gas IS a weapon of mass destruction so why do people think they didn't have any? also they did find plutonium right?

comments on report of weapons Mass Destruction Commission by blix,released in june? Which recommendations in the report of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission are the most important for india to support and why? How could india promote support for these particular recommendations at the United Nations?

How to punish those who lied and lied about the fake weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? A group of LIARS were given power and access to mass destruction weapons which they used to invade Iraq, and in order to do so they used a pathetic lie and claimed that iraq had mass destruction weapons, which was proven to be a lie, but these liars were never punished why ? are we living under the reign of the devil? should evil always win? are all the liars winners in the current democraties??????? the democraties where the state is in truth the terrorist

what are the weapons mass destruction in mexico? how have international organizations dealt with weapons of destruction in mexico?

discuss the historical use of weapons mass destruction by mankind in warefare?

do u think that proliferation of weapons mass destruction is the global greatest threat?

How do weapons of mass destruction damage the environment? I'm writing an argumentative essay on weapons of mass destruction. How do they damage the environment? I'm not looking for exactly what causes the damage, more like how long it takes to recover, etc.

What has caused weapons of mass destruction to exsist? 2 causes. also what is the United nations doing to attempt to resolve the problems regarding to W.M.D? What are current weapons of mass destruction problems and past?

If every country in the world had weapons of mass destruction, would any country still have a military? I mean what would be the point of having an army if neither side can win or lose, since if in conventional war one side wins and the other loses, the loser will see that his existence is threatened and would use his weapons of destruction. So neither side can take over the other. So is it possible that if every single country in the world got weapons of mass destruction all armies in the world would disappear(or at least be reduced in size by 90%)?

What are the pros and cons of weapons of mass destruction? Now weapons of mass destruction does not just mean nuclear bombs. A WMD is anything that can kill a large number of people. I need to know how this can be good, and how it can be bad. Mainly just how it could be good though.

Are you concerned that weapons of mass destruction have never been found? The Bush administration long ago stopped longer looking for weapons of mass destructions. Are you concerned that weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical or nuclear, have never been found?

Why do Cons still believe Iraq had Weapons of Mass destruction? Conservatives are the most gullible people on the planet. 1.They still believe the death panels lie. 2.They still believe Iraq had Weapons of Destruction. 4.They still believe Obama was born in Kenya. NEO-CONS BELIEVE ANYTHING ON RIGHT WING BLOG SITES.

What do you think the weapons of mass destruction acutely where? What do you think the weapons of mass destruction acutely where?

I just read "Adrian Mole and the Weapons of Mass Destruction". What others would you recommend? I just read the book and I loved it. I laughed a lot! I didn't know there were a series of books. I only found that out after I finished the 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. Are the other books in the series equally as funny? Which one(s) would you recommend? Thanks!

what exactly is weapons of mass destruction? i am doing a report for my english class about the Iraq War. and in the one paragraph i want to talk about weapons of mass destruction. what would i say in that paragraph?

Should Cheney be water boarded to find the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Cheney said "Let there be no mistake. There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq". I think he knows where they are and should be forced to yield this information for national securities sake.

What is and isnt considered "weapons of mass destruction"? When Bush or any president says some country has weapons of mass destruction, what do they mean? And do people say they never found anything? Dont they have guns, bombs, helicopters, planes and all that stuff America and most of the world has? Arent those destructive weapons? And why shouldnt other countries be allowed to defend themselves? Arent they independent countries with their own rules and their own laws? If America doesnt like it, why dont they get the hell out? Its like going to somebodies house and telling a grown man he cant keep his gun or knife!

Seriously, How many people really think that Sadam Hussain had weapons of Mass Destruction? For that matter we know that North Korea has weapons of mass destruction. We didn't invade N. Korea because Kim could level San Francisco with the push of a button. He did as much to his people as Saddam did, so why the invasion? A billion dollars a month is what we are losing. So who supports the GOP and the war after finding out the truth with the weapons of mass destruction?

What do you interpret Weapons of Mass Destruction means? The term is vague but I alway assumed it meant chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Or any other weapon that has a large effected area and kills indiscriminately. But that can't be right because everyone says there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when there were chemical weapons. Husein made no attempt to hide that fact.

How did Bush lie about the weapons of mass destruction? was told by many leaders that there were weapons of mass destruction. So how was it a lie? He did what he felt was right for this Country at the time. What if he ignored the warnings, and said "naa I don't believe you all" and something happened? Then you would be bitchen that he didn't do anything. This poor man can't win. What would you have done in his position? amit, I am sorry. Did you not comprehend the question?

Should science be used for constructive purposes or for weapons of mass destruction? Science debate, free to all...should science be used for constructive, positive purposes such as peace programs, poverty, etc. or should it be used for the construction of weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear power/weapons?

Should the united states keep its weapons of mass destruction? Should the united states get rid of the weapons of mass destruction or should we keep them? why?

Will America respond to Obama's fear slinging Economy of Mass Destruction like Bush's Weapons Mass Destruction? Are we all just wooses standing in line for what ever the Government says.

Was there such thing as weapons of mass destruction? Because I thought that Saddam is dim witted. He couldn't have made such high technology weapons. Was it because of the weapons of mass destruction or oil that they are attacking Iraq.

Who are some US senators who support the dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction? Who are some US senators who support the dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction? Or senators who oppose North Korean military development?

Adrian Mole and the Weapons of Mass Destruction - in London or not? I am preparing a presentation and I have to submit bibliography a few weeks in advance. It has to be about different views on London. I wonder if the action of Adrian Mole and the Weapons of Mass Destruction by Sue Townsend takes place in London?

How come the Bush administration doesn't say or use the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" anymore? why? How come George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of the administration don't talk about weapons of mass destruction anymore? When was the last time they said it? It's been like 2 or 3 years since the last time they used that phrase.

What can we do to stop weapons of mass destruction? what else besides protesting can people do to try to stop weapons of mass destruction being used?

What is the point of the United States having nuclear weapons of mass destruction? I can see the use for smaller, tactical nukes whose purpose is to strike a military target, and does not decimate civilian populations or endanger the planet to any great extent. I do not see the use for having a very large "total annihilation" nuclear weapons system. What is the point? Are we trying to frighten everyone in the world? Doesn't that just make them want to build nukes of their own? This isn't the cold war, Mutually assured destruction doesn't work with terrorist states, they want to die. Meanwhile, we are just scaring people with these things. What were we going to do with them? Nuke enemy cities, where the civilian populace is not a threat to us? So what about China and the European Union, are we afraid of these people, so much so that we must be prepared to obliterate them? I say it's completely nuts. And I am a conservative "hawk" who is pro-strong defense and border security. I would ask for total worldwide WMD disarmament, starting with nukes and pathogens and chemical agents. I would encourage beefy border security, offer aid to our allies, support UN troops for peacekeeping, and build strong missile defense systems in our nation and encourage our allies to do the same. Conventional weapons will do for peacekeeping and thwarting terrorism. And disarming these things which I would hope we have no intention to use should be a priority, and it would encourage other nations to disarm as well. I'm not a pacifist when it comes to defense. I believe in strong defense, and some offensive capability where needed. But WMD is something we should NEVER use. What if China were able to nuke the United States, most major cities? Would nuking Chinese cities bring those people back? Or would it create the destruction of all mankind? Vengence is not worth a billion lives. I would appreciate your thoughts on my question. (It's at the top of the page, please don't give me the "what was the question" lecture) Whether you agree or disagree, please state your reasons, keep it civil, and dont use personal attacks, thank you. If it came down to this, and several US cities have been nuked by a foreign government, my first concern is for the surviving American lives. I would do anything to spare their lives. Come on, let's face it, what is the point of "winning the war" when we're in danger of losing every American life? I'd counterstrike, of course, against military targets. But no nukes, certainly not against civilians. The survival of the biosphere and the human race, as well as American lives are hanging in the balance. I would not launch nukes, ever. Erehwon- Deterrence doesn't work. Other nations are arming for nuclear conflict, and placing more American lives in danger in the process. No, I wouldn't do it if other nations didn't do it as well, but the nuclear standoff is pointless. Someone has to make the first move. Deterrence isn't a deterrence to terrorist states, either. And I still wouldn't nuke Iran, those people are not anti-USA their government is. Point is, civilians don't need to be in fear of nuclear attacks. That's idiotic. Tuugalik- If you seriously believe "nuking our enemies back" will do anything to spare American lives, and will not affect the survival of the human SPECIES, then you my friend are the one that is drunk. Nuclear retaliation does what? What does it do? If it's just there as a BLUFF then why have nuclear material inside? What would nuking the civilian population accomplish? If you don't have reasons for disagreeing, don't bother posting. Miss Manners- What is the point? I didn't say I would lay down and die. I said counterstrike against military targets. And by the way, in the unlikely scenario that the entire world would attempt to nuke us at once, what would be the f---ing point in nuking everyone back? Do you want to see the end of the human race? IF we were unable to stop those missiles from striking us, nothing we do will protect our civilians anyway. So what is the point of hitting back? To cause more innocent people to die? I'd aim for every missile, silo, submarine, aircraft, etc. But I would not aim for civilian people who did nothing to harm the United States. I do thank you for your answer, you did at least state your reasoning. I strongly disagree. I'm more than willing to debate this in a civil fashion, just message me or send an email. Civil comments only, please.

What happend with the whole "Weapons of mass Destruction"? I thought that is why we went to the middel east, yet! They mass weapons were never found...hmmmm interesting. Yet now almost 3000 troops are killed so far...why are we in a middle of a war in the middle east? I thought we were searching for bin laden...I think he brain-washed people that they were the terriost and we really need to be over there! Any thoughts?

I need a summary on the book "Adrian Mole and the Weapons of Mass Destruction"? I need a summary, or better yet a chapter summary of "Adrian Mole and the Weapons of mass destruction by Sue Townsend. Know of any good sites? I have tried several, but they do not seem to come up with any answers. Thanks!

after we failed to find weapons of mass destruction? this might be a dumb question but i am just a little mislead. what happened directly after we failed to find weapons of mass destruction in iraq? how did people react?

How would you get rid of weapons of mass destruction? If you had the power of getting your hands on ALL the weapons of mass destruction in the world and your mission was to get rid of all of them, how would you do it?? This includes nuclear weapons. :) ****WITHOUT ENDANGERING OR HARMING PEOPLE****

Persuasive Speech and Weapons of Mass Destruction? I have to write a persuasive speech and I want to do it on weapons of mass destruction. My argument is that WMDs should be legal. Does this topic seem hard. The only reason I want to do this topic is because most people would disagree with me. Anyone know of any pros to this topic? Or any variation of this argument that would be easier?

What happened to all the weapons of mass destruction that were developed in the cold war? Obviously, during the cold war, there was tension among the US and the USSR, and many weapons were developed for this war, especially nuclear weapons. But those weapons were never used, what happened to the unused weapons of the cold war?

would this concept of eliminating weapons of mass destruction work? I thought of it one day when i realized everyone was a hypocrite. what if there was a pact that every country signed(or majority of the countries because it would still work that way) to dispose of any weapons of mass destruction and agree to never use it under any circumstance in the future. any country that did not sign or abide by this world agreement would immediately be searched by every nation under this agreement to destroy there weapons of mass destruction. so if one country had nukes then every other country would have to attack confiscate the one opposing country.

Since Bush clearly said there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, do you neo-cons say he is a liar? "Not having weapons of mass destruction was a significant disappointment." A direct quote from Bush at his last news conference.

Do you think it is hypocrisy that we attack countries for having weapons of mass destruction? Don't we have weapons of mass destruction? Didn't we drop the H-bomb on Japan? Or are we trying to keep that on the down low? Actially the Russian Army was set to invade Japan at the time we dropped the A-Bomb (sorry wrong letter) which would have effectivly ended the war. But we have kept that little fact out of our history books. It's allways fun to be corrected by people who think they are smart because they use fancy words and can regurgitate stuff they were spoon fed in high school.

Attention Tea Party members , where were the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq we went to war to find? Where were all you hell raisers when there were NO weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq .

Where are those weapons of mass destruction that Bush swore up and down were being stockpiled in Iraq? This is what the man took us to war over in Iraq for, and this is why over 3,000 young Americans have laid down their lives for. Remember when Rumsfeld said "I know where they are. They are in or around the area of Tecrit." Why haven't they found any of these weapons of mass destruction?

Did we ever find those weapons of mass destruction? Did we ever find those weapons of mass destruction that we invaded Iraq to get? I'll post whatever I please. If you don't like it, don't answer. God Bless.

Is there any actual defense the Untied States has to stop weapons of mass destruction? Do we have a missile defense system? I've literally even checked at the Department of Defense home page at the white house web page and all I can find is that we want to stop people from getting their hands on the weapons but well what happens if that fails?

Did Obama hire the man that said there were weapons of mass destruction? If so, why would he do that if he doesn't believe there were ever any weapons there? Won't that get us into more wars and mess?

How vulnerable is the United States to weapons of mass destruction (biological, chemical, nuclear weapons)? Could we have been better prepared for the earlier anthrax outbreak in the U.S.? Would you consider WMD truly biological, chemical and nuclear weapons OR just nuclear weapons?

Now that the US has found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? What do you think? Did bush, Retired Iraqi Supreme general Sada, and the CIA lie about weapons of mass destruction? if so, explain how certain weapons of mass destruction do not meet the criteria of being weapons of mass destruction. Be aware that your conspiracy may be a conspiracy in itself.

Is this the correct definiation of Weapons Mass Destruction? A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technnical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CRBN). then by that silly definition, any ammo that is incindiary is a WMD. In the words of the great John Stossel "Give me a break!" And by that definition it looks like the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, WW2, and WW1 all stopped enemies with weapons of Mass destruction. What a farce!!!

What did the USA do with all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? I remember seeing President Bush on television talking about the huge caches of hidden weapons and the enormous manufacturing facilities. What did the USA ever do with all of them? Are they still being cleaned up? Never were any? Depots into Syria? Look, if you guys can't give me a straight answer, then don't bother. I just wondered what happened to this giant amount of weapons President Bush warned us about. None of the things you are saying are possible based on what he said. Please, serious answers only.

How do you feel about chemical weapons, or weapons of mass destruction? How do you feel about countries having chemical weapons? Do you feel we should just abolish them all togther or what? Give me some feedback!

If weapons of mass destruction are the biggest problem in the world, they why are nations still using them? Why are nations still using AK-47's, depleted uranium bullets, long-range missiles, M-16's, grenage launches, bombs and so on. All of these weapons are responsible for mass destruction.

Did they ever find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I've always heard none were ever found. Last night a couple of my friends said there were. Please list websites that say if there were any, and what kind of weapons they were.

Why and how nuclear and mass destruction weapons still exist? Why There are countries having nuclear weapons and their governers think they must have? Why there are countries trying to achieve nuclear weapons? why there are scientists looking for and trying to create new mass destruction weapons? All them are evils. Judge them! Claim Them! Order them to change their minds!

Why do people say China doesn't have any nuclear weapons of mass destruction? I'm from AUSTRALIA, they're our largest traders, trust us they've weapons of mass destruction.

Why USA’s Weapons of mass destruction are never mentioned? United States invaded Iraq using the false argument that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction. However United States is the country with most WMDs in the entire world and nobody mentions it. Is there a specific reason for this silence?

how is it that we can have weapons of mass destruction, but when someone else does, its really bad? we have weapons of mass destruction, and it seems like noone else cares. but when someone else does, we go to war with them. i just want to know why we care so much. i understand that people are going to say, because we dont want to get blown up, but how do you think the other countries feel? i mean, its like we are trying to take over the world, and world leaders are getting sick of it.

Did Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Something to keep in mind . . . Sadam used chemical and/or biological weapons on his own people and televised it on his state controlled tv as a warning to other Iraqis. He also used the same WMD on the Iranians during the Iran Iraq war. In the early eighties, the Isrealis bombed Iraq's nuke plant just before it went online. By the way, for those who don't know . . . Biological and Chemical weapons as well as nuclear weapons are considered WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction).

Was attacking Iraq a correct decision for the president to find the so called weapons of mass destruction? The Iraq War, sometimes called the Second or Third Gulf War or in the U.S., Operation Iraqi Freedom, is an ongoing conflict which began with the United States-led 20 March 2003 invasion of Iraq. The main rationale for the Iraq War offered by U.S. President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and their domestic and foreign supporters was that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. These weapons, it was argued, posed a threat to the United States, its allies and interests. In the 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush claimed that the U.S. could not wait until the threat from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein became imminent. After the invasion, however, no evidence was found of such weapons. To support the war, some U.S. officials cited claims of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. No substantial evidence of any such connection has been found.

Do you believe Bush, when he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Or do you believe Clinton when he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, The thing is they both said it! or do you believe congress when they said Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction? Who's right?

What is USA doing to stop the weapons of mass destruction? Hi I want to know if someone can help me and tell me what is the USA doing to avoid the masive weapons

Responding to Weapons of Mass Destruction? Responding to Weapons of Mass Destruction, is this proactive or reactive? Describe the Strategy, and what 3-5 officials or agencies are involved? Can this strategy be applied to Osama bin Laden’s militant manual?

Rummor has it that Bush has found weapons of mass destruction at disney land, should we bomb or invade? Ok its out of the closet (Bush is thinking of coming out as well)Disney Land IS producing Weapons of mass destruction, the Americans have spoken with Disney spokesman (Mickey Mouse) and he has refused to let inspectors in! Should we bomb or invade? Only serious answers please! Sorry about the miss spelling Rumour

Why was Iraq attacked for allegedly having weapons of mass destruction? When the US and Britain have enough of these weapons between them to wipe out the world many times only. What is more is that the US and Britain sold chemical weapons to Saddam in the 1980's for use against innocent people. The US and Britain continue to sell weapons of mass destruction to third world countries who use them against their neighbours and own people on a regular basis. The hypocracy of these two countries never ceases to amaze me A few people have commented on what Saddam did to the Kurds. I agree that this was terrible but people must remember that these chemical weapons that were used on the Kurds wre supplied to Saddam by the US and Britain. That makes these two countries partially responsible for what Saddam did to the Kurds

Why is it okay for America and it's allies to possess weapons of mass destruction? I know their are certain sanctions about weapons created by the U.N but We all know that if America wanted to They could blow a hole in the earth and end life on this planet Why the double standard?

Do all nations have the right to build nukes or other weapons of mass destruction? Several countries have nukes or WMD's now, but it seems that certain countries aren't allowed to have nukes or WMD's. Do you think that is fair or right? I mean the country may not be friendly to your country, but do they not have the right to build WMD's as a deterrent? Lets face facts, a smaller country could never truly defend itself from a country with WMD's that was willing to use them. For example, if the USA just drop tons of nukes on N Vietnam rather than sending in tons of ground troops, there would have been no contest. This is not meant to be a comment on the war, just a random example. WMD's could also be an equalizer against a larger country. Much as a gun is an equalizer against a person of superior strength or hand to hand fighting skill. So with that being said, do you think that all nations should have the right to arm themselves with whatever weapons they please? Or should some countries not be allowed to develop certain weapons? Why? Or should no one have WMD's?

Do you think that all countries should destroy their weapons of mass destruction? ? Such as Atomic Bombs, nuclear weapons etc.. Think about it, if no countries had such weapons as these then war would be practically be impossible.

Who is sick of hear about Weapons of Mass Destruction.? I think I'm gonna loose An Army Of Lipstick if I hear that again! Republicans are Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Will they ever find the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ? I can't believe Bush has never found them . I betcha Obama can find them in a jiffy cause he's intelligent . Will we finally get true change and conclusion America deserves when Obama finally finds those weapons ? If Obama goes there and studies the terrain for a month will that help him find them faster ? Will his team of experts be able to control our planets temperature if he can stop the use of SUV's in America ?

Where exactly are the weapons of mass destruction? Does anyone know? Did they exist? The price paid for them seems pretty high. Lives lost--billions spent--I want to see them.

Should we be worried that we have weapons of mass destruction in Scotland? If you know what I mean.... Maybe we should push them all back below the border again, before they get wind of it. Good idea Mr Peanut. Do you think they'll swallow that as an excuse? Mark W. It was 270 Prince. I don't think I could manage the whole navy! I mean, I like the odd sailor but.....

If Saddam Hussien really had weapons of mass destruction, why didnt he use them on the USA? Instead he supposedly shipped them to syria. Usually when someone has kick ass weapons and their country is being invaded, they usually use them.

Should I have faith in God just as I had faith that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling Weapons of Mass Destruction? Since the majority of Americans believe in it, and even though there is no credible evidence for it, therefore it still has to be true?

What are the worst weapons of mass destruction out there that are causing global warming? It's for a reserch peper.

Long after Claims were made that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction Will Tony Bliar be reimbursing us with? MOD administration costs? I should have phrased that better half asleep you know I meant he gave this excuse to invade Iraq at all our expense. I shouldn't have to explain really dears. To Rayhere The US sold him those weapons in the first place so how can you possibly prove that he used them just because the BBC told you he did?

How come America can have Weapons of Mass Destruction and others are not? When Iraq was alleged to have WMD, there was an international and American intrusion. But we all know that America has its own WMD and its arsenal is second largest to the world (first being Russia) How come no one objects to this? And we also think that the American government is probably one of the worst violators of human rights throughout third world countries. Do their government represent the majority of America's voices? Because I would hope to think it's the actions of their government officials alone and the citizens have got no clue.

Why dont they totally ban weapons of mass destruction all over the world? It is high time all countries join together and totally eliminate all types of WMD from this world.Like america attacked Iraq to eliminate WMD, any country should have the right to enter other country to eliminate WMD. What do you say?

Have we found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq yet? I mean - we have lost thousands of lives and a TRILLION dollars looking for them. (more money than the bailout of Wall Street). So I am curious - did we FIND the weapons? The ones we were told we needed to go in and get. The ONLY reason for the "war"? Where the #$^ ARE they?

Why can the US have weapons of mass destruction, but nobody else can? Cleary, the US is the only remaining super power left in the world. In the forefront of international events, Korea and Iran (among other nations) are talking about their progress in developing nuclear energy and is under considerable scrutiny over weathe or not their intentions are for WMDs, but for energy. Ronald Reagan and Mikail Gorbachev are commendable in their efforts to reduce their arsenals of nuclear warheads. Why do we now insist on keeping ours, but jump on anyone else who hints at developing such weapons.

Did you ever wonder where the Weapons of Mass Destruction went? Right here: Story: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/6/105528.shtml Pictures are included in the link. Why do you think this story has been kept since 2003, from us? (The website works. I just tried it again) It took a few seconds to load. Perhaps use the refresh button. Thanks.

will the us send troops to Pakistan to destroy weapons of mass destruction? the religious clerics of Pakistan are making innocent girls and boys as weapons of mass destruction. the capture of students in lal maszid proves this. Pakistan had become a training center to recruit terrorists and has become a problem to india. recently the religious fundamentalists kidnapped some Chinese people and due to high level of influence exerted by the Chinese government, they were released.

If Saddam Hussein is dead, then why are we still in Iraq? we did not find any weapons of mass destruction? We removed Saddam Hussein from power instantly, Bush and Cheney said we were only going into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and look for weapons of mass destruction which did not exist. Do Bush, Cheney, and McCain want the war to continue because they are stubborn and they refuse to admit the war was a mistake? They do not want to U.S. to come home in defeat like Vietnam? do they want the U.S. to be victorious in every single war?

What Evidence Do You Have That Saddam Possessed Weapons Of Mass Destruction When We Invaded? I know there are a fair amount of people who believe he did, despite the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq (Hans Blix and Scott Ritter) reported many times that he didn't. Since the invasion the U.S. hasn't found any trace of a ongoing WMD program. No mobile chemical or biological weapons labs have been found. No trace of a nuclear program that didn't date back 1990 has been discovered. There have been no admissions of scientists or high-ranking officials that there was a WMD program. Meanwhile, intelligence officials and the Bush administration have failed to share the pre-war intelligence that supported their decision to invade. So why do people still believe he had them or shipped them off to Syria? Do you have any evidence to support your claim or is it just something you "believe"? Hey, Sarge. That's B.S. Thanks for your service and all (if you did serve), but if you think that Bush wouldn't be on TV within twenty minutes of finding WMD's to rub the Democrats nose in it you're an idiot or a liar.

Iraq's lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction? Does anyone know if either George W. Bush or Dick Cheney ever acknowledged the lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and if so exactly what they said & when they said it?

Weapons of mass destruction found???? The weapons of mass destruction was used in November 2008 against the United States. The WMD was discovered to be the Dumocratic party. Their liberial spending policies and their overall poor management of our country since January has proven to be THE WMD. DEMOCRATS THE WMD WE ALL BEEN LOOKING FOR.

Does Israel have weapons of mass destruction? If that is the case, why isn't the USA calling for Israel's nuclear disarmament, having in consideration that Israel is more belligerent than North Korea or Iran and Israel is a clear threat to peace in the Middle East and in the world? If the Israelis are treated by the USA with favouritism then North Korea and Iran have all the right to feel indignated. Thanks for your answer.

Where were the weapons of mass destruction? the ones in Iraq?

Why congress investagates sports for use of enhancement drugs but not the false weapons of mass destruction?

So after all, why is the US allowed to have weapons of mass destruction but the Irak is not? I know the course of events, but I don't understand why western countries are said to be more responsible (Hiroshima, Nagasaki) when it comes to possessing WMD.

What happen to the weapons of mass destruction? That the American government said the they would find in Iraq....Did the American government lie?

So do you think the United States acutally ever believed Iraq had mass weapons of destruction? We accuse iraq of mass weapons of destruction, we then invaded them immediately. We don't however don't do anything about the soviet union in the past and north korea currently. Why? Because they are freakin powerful. Why are they freakin powerful? Because they have weapons of mass destruction. If we knew iraq had weapons of mass destruction we wouldn't have invaded them. We knew they didn't have it. iuno just a thought that hit me right now

Does North Korea Still Weapons of Mass Destruction. What response will America take to that? Why is North Korea asking for Fuel? Does North Korea have the Capability To build modernised build war planes?

Where are the weapons of mass destruction, and where is Osama? I'm still waiting for results, after all I'm spending massive tax dollars on this war. Well, where are they?

Are there any weapons of mass destruction in your underwear? If so, what color are they?

Can I have a list of the major weapons of mass destruction? this is for a college paper.

Where are the weapons of mass destruction ? Iraq invasion, George Bush , Black wather, hallyburton..???? we havent forget why we are there ? show me the weapons...any fanatic soldier,, did you see the weapons ?

Have they found the weapons of mass destruction in Vietnam yet? I don't even get the point of this stupid war going on. The public needs to realize Nixon is just trying to get revenge for his dad and the way this country is headed we'll never find Saddam. Stop the war already!!!

is it smart to join the military with all the mass destruction weapons now? i leave for the navy very soon. my rank will be nuclear engineering. 6 years service and 2 in reserves. what are the chances that i will be obliterated in a war, if there is one? is it smart to join the military for such a long period now days? i like to take risk, but now stupid risk. plus. i have to be on a nuclear sub or an aircraft carrier so that is i great target for an enemy. *a great target

what exactly is the issue regarding weapons of mass destruction? i need to write a paper regarding WMD's. then i have to give a speech either pro-WMD's or anti-WMD's. i've been doing research, but i can't seem to find what the issue is.

What was the last year there was actual evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? The answer may surprise you. Barney, it's not a yes or no question. Please read it again. sorry todbod, perhaps you only watch Fox, but they didn't find any WMD in Iraq after the invasion.

Gee - Where are those weapons of mass destruction that the republicans drug America into war over? Remeber when bush drilled into America's head that Iraq was stockpiling those weapons of mass destruction, and that they could use them on us within 45 minutes, and that the bush regime knew exactly where these weapons were being hidden? "Somewhere in the area, in or around Tecrit." - Donald Rumsfeld