why did the coaslition forces not get the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as earlier alleged?
81361
when was the last time you heard pres bush utter the words weapons of mass destruction. the lie served its purpose in its day
1152894
Bad planning in 03.For some assinine reason our higher-ups thought all of Iraq would be out there tossing flowers and dancing in the streets of every city and village ala occupied Europe when the Allies went through following D-Day, they didin't have a contingency plan for the Baa'th  party members and former Reuplican Guards and others who didn't want us there.\nSo they dispatched 150,000 troops instead of thrice the number needed to stabalize the country and get the Iraqis back on their feet.
1006249
Q Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq ? \nA Because they had weapons of mass destruction. \n\nQ But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction. \nA That's because the Iraqis were hiding them. \n\nQ And that's why we invaded Iraq ? \nA Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections. \n\nQ But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we? \nA That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll  find something, probably right before the next election. \n\nQ Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction? \nA  To use them in a war, silly. \n\nQ I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them? \nA Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves. \n\nQ   That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had  all those big weapons with which they could have fought back? \nA It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense. \n\nQ I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did. \nA Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway. \n\nQ And what was that? \nA Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country. \n\nQ Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country? \nA Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people. \n\nQ Kind of like what they do in China ? \nA Don't go comparing China to Iraq . China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops and help make US corporations richer. \n\nQ So if a country lets its people are exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people? \nA Right. \n\nQ Why were people in Iraq being tortured? \nA For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured. \n\nQ Isn't that exactly what happens in China ? \nA I told you, China is different. \n\nQ What's the difference between China and Iraq ? \nA Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist. \n\nQ Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad? \nA No, just Cuban Communists are bad. \n\nQ How are the Cuban Communists bad? \nA Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured. \n\nQ Like in Iraq ? \nA Exactly. \n\nQ And like in China , too? \nA I told you, China 's a good economic competitor. Cuba , on the other hand, is not. \n\nQ How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor? \nA Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, the US government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us. \n\nQ But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba , and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists? \nA Don't be smart.\n \nQ I didn't think I was being one. \nA Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba. \n\nQ Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement? \nA I told you, stop saying bad things about China . Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway. \n\nQ What's a military coup? \nA That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States. \n\nQ Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military
1084897
WE ALL KNOW IRAQ NEVER ATTACKED THE USA. Pres. Saddam Hussein was trying to make sure the flow of oil to the Zionists and America wasn't as fluid as America would like. Hence the reason they got rid of him. The pretext of saving the Iraqi people from Saddam is nothing but a lie. Just like 9/11
1066054
When america coerced the un to enter vietnam under the guise of atrocities commited by the north against the south. it was the south who tried to set up a puppet govt. When vietnam won indepenence from france it was only one country.Liberated by the communist regime.The usa could'nt coerce the un to invade iraq they went ahead anyway for some ulterior motive. Certainly not the stated reason In both wars it was absolute banditry they will be deafeted.No matter how strong you cannot break the will of the people
708556
the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with demorcay, which was a front, or making the world a safer place, it had to do with a personal vendetta against Hussien by Bush, who tried and tried to tie Iraq to 9/11 but couldnt , who insitsted there were wmds, but couldnt find any, and anyone who said they did, please cite the source, it was also for oil! Meanwhile Bin Laddens boys continue to operate, why vbecause instead of pouring the amount of troops needed to kcik their butts in Afghanastan, we decided to invade Iraq! That alone should raise eyebrows, but it gets worse if you investigate just how the twin towers colsaapsed, when steel does not melt at the tmp that  the building got to, nor should it of free fell! SO someone hide something, and used Hussien as a shield so that they could accomplish their goal, which was $$ oil all powerful presidency, curtailing civil rights!
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.
717250
No, I knew there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and so did Congress, it took disciplined denial and cooperation with the warmongers to not see that.  I also know that there is no link whatsoever between Saddam and 9-11.  I also know that the US government is lying about President Hugo Chavez by leaking to the press outright lies and all these stories in the NY Times and Washington Post are flat out lies.  It is a build up for the coup they will be attempting in November or so to oust the democratically elected Chavez so we can use the oppressive opposition forces in Venezuela to get the oil profits out of the hands of the poor people in Venezuela and into the multinational corporations hands.  \n\nSo no... ya  see.
88191
Evidence?  Why would US need evidence for something? They didn't found evedence in Iraq. And there they didn't killed a guy, they killed a nation. They do not care. For their concern all the rest of the world can go to hell as long as they are ok in their stollen land. Check ur history books!
836520
some people amaze me .Its a long known fact that Saddam only got the power he had by being helped by the US , its also a long known fact that the weapons he had which he used to attack Kuwait and also to kill his own people were sold to him by the US and Europe Its another fact that the nuclear knowledge Iraq had was given by those i`ve already mentioned If the Kurds hadn`t stood up against Saddam which they only did because America gave them the impression they were going to join in and help them (which they had no intention of doing )they wouldn`t have been slaughtered for their punishment  Iraqi`s didn`t ask for their country to be destroyed, news programs on TV have interviewed countless Iraqi`s who say how much worse it is now than with Saddam The threat to America came because of decades of interference in the middle east . According to international law the Iraq invasion is illegal and an act of hostility
20673
If they've caught BinLaden they would have made sure to publicize their "victory" to everyone as was the case with Saddam Husseing. But surely they haven't and anyway the US was the one who got him in order to use him to fight Russia and then he turned around on them!!!!
943524
You know, there were a lot of people in the U.S. Armed Forces (myself included) that would have jumped at the chance to go in to Rwanda and put a stop to the genocide.  I'm not 100% sure about this, but I believe the reason we did not get involved is the U.S. has a long-standing policy of not getting involved in civil wars like the one in Rwanda unless we're asked for help.  The governments of Bosnia and Kosovo requested U.S. aid, including military aid, in the mid-1990's when their civil war was raging with Serbia and Herzegovina and we responded.  There was no such request made by the Rwandan government.\n\nP.S.:  I'm very sorry to hear that your days left here on Earth are few in number.  Don't know if you believe in God, but I hope and pray that He will be with you and comfort you in your last days.\n\nP.P.S.:  Please DO NOT believe everything the mainstream media is trying to sell you.  It's almost entirely a tissue of lies.  There WERE stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction recovered in Iraq, we DID capture or kill hundreds of al-Qaeda operatives (I have colleagues in all the branches of the service that have seen the WMD stockpiles and the captured/killed al-Qaeda operatives with their own eyes), and the assertion that our military members are killing innocent men, women and children is an out-and-out falsehood -- it's the terrorists and the factions that are fighting for power that are killing innocent civilians.  Our troops are doing everything humanly possible to keep the number of injured/killed non-combatants to a minimum.
1001375
Looks like you answered your own question...\n\nMoney and resources were diverted because of the war.
20915
No, the comprehensive report from the CIA in October of 2004 concluded "Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them"\n\nAlthough WMD was one of the reasons for the coalition invasion of Iraq (It was a open question at the time of invasion if Iraq did posses WMD or was close to possessing it).  The overall reason was more for the removal of Saddam Hussein, then the specific WMD charge.  \n\nFor more information and theories to the cause of the war, check the wikipedia \n\nIn addition, it is important to note that the US was not the only country that supported the war.
364171
If the President truly believed that "Saddam was a tyrant and used violence to exacerbate sectarian divisions to keep himself in power, and that as a result, deep tensions persist to this day", then why did he fail to send enough troops to keep the warring factions under control? Since our invation in 2003, almost 2400 of our brave sons and daughters have died in this misadventure. I think it is appropriate to ask President Bush to explain why he was unprepared to deal with the sectarian strife since he knew that Saddam's dictatorial polices sowed the seeds of civil war. Or, is this something he just got briefed on.
877228
Excuse the ramblings of a Conservative Gulf War Vet but there were WMD's there in 1992 when I was there - I saw some that were left behind in Kuwait when the Iraqi's bugged out.  I haven't heard or seen any firm evidence of their destruction - perhaps not public info.  Since they were there and there is no record of their destruction - where do you think they went?
269661
being armed in Iraq is a crime, since the days of saddam Hussien. civilians cannot have weapons at all. but at the end of the previous regiem, the people there armed them selves with the weapons left by the army, some were being ready under the past government to protect Bagdad when the american forces enter. thousands of iraqis are illegally armed.