I thought Iraq didn't have any WMD
 

I guess that was all just a lie?

http://news.yahoo.com/uk-experts-hel...144204378.html

If they were usable, he would have used them against the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_an...09_Declaration

We were told there were no WMD's in Iraq. Obviously that isn't true.

So our postwar justification is now down to residual material in a pair of bunkers that were destroyed beyond futher use twenty years ago. Okay.

My question is why we didn't do anything to help clean those up while we were there all this time? It sounds like an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Seems to me that it would be the decent thing to do in both nation building and winning the hearts and minds of the people.

I had a friend in the weapons inspection team, he said that it was futile, the Iraqis knew when they were turning up and moved it. They knew it, we knew it, but what can you do?

Here's my friend next to a waxwork of Saddam, can't think why he was chosen for the team.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4789/petesaddam.jpg

Agreed on both points. To even imply that previously secured remnants justifies the conduct of the Iraq action is straw grasping in the desperate extreme by Bush apologist. The American people were lied to and our military servicemen have paid the price...

As for cleaning up, that is a very good question. In all the Bush years in Iraq and in the Obama years it does appear there was "no rush" to neutarlize what, as Takeda points out, is a potential environmental disaster. Particularly given the Bush administration's fervent frenzy about AMDs and the possibility of them falling into the wrong hands, it is indeed curious the AMD remnants were not destroyed/neutralized as a top priority. Also, why is the UK taking point on the disposal? It seems the US would bee the more likely entity to take the lead...

...

There is a slight difference between weapons and materials remaining from them. If these are weapons, then so are all the B-52s sitting at Davis-Monthan with their wings cut off, flagrantly in violation of previous treaties regarding them. Cause, you know, they'll be up and flying in no time...

Either way, the fact that Saddam DID have WMDs and did use them is not a question. The question is when. This doesn't add any evidence to the idea that he had any in 2003.

Probably because we were the first to use WMDs in modern(ish) warfare, and that was against Iraqis.

Or because we sold them to them in the first place, when they were good guys against Iran.

LOL :D

Did he ever dress up as Saddam to gain access into their facilities and/or Iraq's finest pubs? :O:

That's the only pic of him with Saddam that I've seen, I've not seen him dress up, but surely it's only a matter of time. Maybe he was waiting for the threat of assassination to move on. :hmm2:

Wow. It's almost a perfect double. :haha:

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg26/...pg&res=landing


"BUMMER OF A BIRTHMARK, HAL"


EDIT:

Got the picture, but the caption didn't come with...


...

Who said anything about justifying a war? The claim was made that Iraq had no WMD's. Not "No new WMD's", no WMD's. Obviously this is not true whether you want to admit it or not

Invalid comparison. There's a big difference between the remains of an aircraft and the remains of a Chemical weapon munition. For one thing just walking by the aircraft isn't likely to kill you...

Well, there's lots of things that can kill you when you walk by them. Spent nuclear fuel, industrial waste and large farm animals among these. The issue is whether you can put it in a warhead and launch it at a target. My understanding is that these did not qualify as WMDs anymore by that definition.

What WMD's did we use against the Iraqis?