Gee, if UN weapons inspections didn't work, how come Saddam didn't use any WMDs when the US attacked in 2003?

At first, that's why we went in or at least that's what trustworthy people like Cheney and Rumsfeld said. And Hans Blix has the nerve to call them 'bastards.'


so one of you geniuses out there is claiming they may have been shipped to Syria or somewhere else, and US satellites which surveil the entire globe and can tell if a dime is face up or down, couldn't spot a few trucks carrying a few WMD's? plausible. and as for the inappropriate posting in religion & spirituality, yes, it is. and yes i did.

7 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    why is this in Religion and sprituality?

  • 1 decade ago

    Aren't you people sick of being lying to all the time?

    The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (…). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."12 (National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, )

    To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security Doctrine requires the "fabrication" of a terrorist threat, --ie. "an outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist threats to "State sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states."

    But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events" allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are part of the National Security agenda.

    In the months building up to the invasion of Iraq, covert 'dirty tricks' operations were launched to produce misleading intelligence pertaining to both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Al Qaeda, which was then fed into the news chain.

    In the wake of the war, while the WMD threat has been toned down, Al Qaeda threats to 'the Homeland' continue to be repeated ad nauseam in official statements, commented on network TV and pasted on a daily basis across the news tabloids.

    And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" terrorist occurrences are being upheld as a justification for the next phase of this war. The latter hinges in a very direct way:

    1) the effectiveness of the Pentagon-CIA propaganda campaign, which is fed into the news chain.

    2) The actual occurrence of "massive casualty producing events" as outlined in the PNAC

    What this means is that actual ("massive casualty producing") terrorist events are part and parcel of military planning.

  • tjjone
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Saddam actually did use some of the weapons that were on the BANNED LIST. While those weren't all WMD's it did show that he was in possession of weapons that he was not supposed to have.

  • 1 decade ago

    Hellooo? 2006 calling!

    Get over it.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Well gee......maybe they got sent to Syria? Or maybe one of the other Muslim countries that want the Israeli people gone ( and us too ). Duh!!!

  • 1 decade ago


  • 1 decade ago

    Does it matter .... ?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.