Iran And Venezuela Launch Anti-us Fund

@ferret
WMD's were NOT found. Thats the whole reason people are pissed about it.

 

as long as they don't have nuclear weapons, us has nothing to worry about right now

 

Yes, they were. Just not the nuclear weapons that everybody happens to be so pissed about. Even Ansar al-Islam had them and they weren't even Iraqis for the most part, just happened to be on Iraqi soil.

Fear that Saddam Hussein might use his chemical/biological weapons was a reason the US gave for launching the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. A reason, but not the only one.

As of June 2006, three years after the invasion, some 500 weapons had been found (artillery shells, canisters for helicoptors to deploy the weapons etc.) in addtion to the plants that manufactured them. That's weapons, as in the readily deployable stuff. That's not counting the stockpiles of the chemicals found in storage. These were just the ones in the former Iraqi government's posession.

1,500 gallons of sarin can do a hell of a lot. I wonder where they got these?

Roadside bombs with sarin? You don't make this stuff at home, Lennox.

 

Please find me a link that supports what you say... and btw Chemical weapons in iraq, everyone knew about them LONG ago, the US specificaly said that they were going to Iraq because of "Nuclear" WMDs

 

Link proving this? The stated goals for the invasion can be found at this link, specifically the "Rationale" section. If you don't want to read up on it, I will post them here. According to former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld:

Self-defense
- find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, weapons programs, and terrorists
- collect intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists
Humanitarian
- end sanctions and to deliver humanitarian support (According to Madeline Albright, half a million Iraqi children had died because of sanctions.)
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution
- Resolution 1205, made in 1999.
Regime Change
- end the Saddam Hussein government
- help Iraq's transition to democratic self-rule
Other
- secure Iraq's oil fields and other resources

Those were Secretary Rumsfeld's, and subsequently the Coalition's reasons, for invading Iraq. Numerous press conferences also back this up. Nowhere were nuclear weapons given as the sole reason or only reason for the invasion. Weapons of mass destruction are:
- Chemical weapons
- Biological weapons
- Nuclear weapons

Your turn, Apostle. Where did the US say that we invaded Iraq soley over nuclear weapons? Sources? Links? News articles? Thanks for playing, Apostle. Please try again.

Chemical weapons sources:

Washington Post, 14 August 2005. Iraqi Chemical Stash Uncovered

FOX News, 24 March 2003. 'Huge' Suspected Chemical Weapons Plant Found

DefenseLINK News, 29 June 2006. Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria

Washington Post, 22 June 2006. Chemical Weapons Found Buried Near Iranian Border

FOX News, 17 May 2004. Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered in Roadside Bomb

Would you like more, Apostle?

 

From the Whitehouse itself.

Like I said, EVERYONE knew iraq had chemical/biological weapons LONG ago, its not wasnt something new they found out in 2003.... the invasion was BASED on "Nuclear threat"

oh and spare me the FOX news bull----

 

Reading comprehension is not your strongpoint, it seems.

Nowhere in that article does it say that the invasion was "based on nuclear threat." However, here's Secretary Rumsfeld's words:

Secretary Rumsfeld's testimony before the Senate on the Iraq invasion, September 2002

That testimony gives the reasons for the invasion. Do me a favor and read through it and find in there where it says we invaded over nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons were widely-known, but they were still illegal. Just because they're known makes them OK?

You will read that his regime "has an active program persuing nuclear weapons." Reasearch on this was found. In fact, the Israelis destroyed a reactor at Osirak back in the eighties. He still kept the program, but he had to start over.

A WMD is:

Learn to read instead of blindly claiming things that fit your agenda.

As for the FOX news "bull----," would you rather it come from the Washington Post, AP, Reuters, or the LA Times? All are running off the same news wire. The information will be the same, regardless of whose it is, just with a few minute details changed. That's the way news sources work.

 

as I said, the entire instability issue in the middle east isn't entirely any individual groups problem, the region has been fought over since the dawn of mankind for various reasons. After the collapse of the ottomon empire after WWI and the British occupancy, the area was ripe for radical ideology and the US wanted to protect the area from communist interest while advocating its own controll.

Right now, the US has interest in the region much like before. The diference is that now we want democracy since it is the most stable form of rule, and any instability ina world with nuclear weapons woudl result in the US, along with the rest of mankind being eradicated. Even lesser WMD can do a lot, if the bubonic plague reoccured it could potentially kill hundreds of milllions

 

the world is chaos

there will always be someone who hates others

 

You must be plain retarded if you think the President or Rumsfeld, would have gone out and said "we are invading iraq based on a nuclear threat"
Politics isnt your strongest point either

 

And you are the omniscient God that knows each politician's actions and why he or she does them? You really must be naive to believe everything that is fed to you. What I showed was facts, the only things I happen to base my opinions on politics about. What you, however, are showing is an agenda and a bias. Not only that, you're using the same line of thought that those conspiracy nuts that think 9/11 was a government plot use; the government isn't telling us, so therefore what I think must be true. Sometimes I wish I could be that naive...

Please, do us all a favor and back up your claim that we went in over nukes. You haven't done that to this point, so I'm taking that opinion as you rambling off your little agenda again.

 

I dont claim to know each politicians actions and why they do it, but sometimes things are so obvious that even a retard will notice....
There is no agenda or bias on my side, they went in Iraq looking for nukes and found none, then it was toppling the evil saddam government(which he desreved it btw) , then now its Al-Qaeda and Iran (All these are facts)..........
The adminstration you are so willingy fighting for, seems to be very incompetent, defying congress, the UN and the people

And no iam not a conspiracy nut that believes 9/11 was a government plot.

 

Big news, someone else hates the United States.

Join the 4 billion others. xD

 

and the 2 billion which doesn't hate the US has the majority of the worlds nuclear arsenal and the strognest militaries...

 

OK, it's so obvious to you. It isn't to me. Why is it so obvious? Is it so obvious that you shouldn't need to back up these claims? Please...

And the administration didn't "defy Congress" if it invaded Iraq with Congress's support, either. The world isn't full of people that think the same way as you, you know. At the time, Congress supported Bush's actions (the majority did, so the votes passed and we went to war). Whether or not you or the guy down the street did doesn't matter; you and people like you voted them in the office expecting them to make decisions that would benefit you, the voters.

As the stated reasons said (you know, the reasons that Congress supported enough to send us to war over), the US went in over Saddam, his regime, WMDs, terrorist actions, and to bring democracy to the country. Like it or not, that's what we went to war over. Congress didn't vote for "We're going to Iraq to find nukes." And if you had any clue how the American government worked, you'd come out of your little shell and realize this.

If they're "facts," back them up. I've backed mine up as you've asked me to do so, yet you refuse to do so yourself. Sometimes people can be so blind. You can't even back up what you claim, instead choosing to call those who don't believe as you "retards."And if you can't tell that there is no agenda or bias on your side, do me a favor and don't ever try to take political science courses whenever you get yourself to university/college.

I didn't say you were a conspiracy nut. I said you use the same logic. As I've said before, reading comprehension is not your strength.