Did the allied forces find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? yes, no, maybe?
443199
Yes there have been numerous documents and tapes released by the government implementing Saddam's regime talking about where to take the WMD's and how to lie to the UN.  I don't know where to get ahold of those documents though, I heard it on Limbaugh's radio show, try calling him he would undoubtedly know.  When I was there we found numerous empty carriers for large warheads and plenty of chemical and biological weapons.  But WMD's are not the only reason for Iraq, him supporting and paying terrorists is just like having WMD's.  There are many anti-American HUGE paintings on buildings displaying the bombing of America and many had mushroom clouds.  I believe since we told Saddam we was coming he got them out.  The terrorist network over there is crazy.  If you have any other questions email me
121601
The difficult part of your question is "proven". Saddam controlled the area, the media, and all the people on the scene, so obtaining definitive proof might be difficult. They are going to try to prove he did it at his trial. In my view, there is an excellent case that he did, not Iran: \n- as you said, there is no doubt that *someone* gassed the Kurds--plenty of photos, witness statements, etc... \n- They were rebelling against him. This is an excellent motive. \n- Iran is the almost the only other possible culprit, but there are too many reasons for them not to do it. (the other *very distant* possibility might be Turkey, who have their own Kurdish problem also). Iran has its own Kurds and its own problems with them. If the Iranians were going to gas Kurds, they would do so to the ones causing them problems, not the ones causing problems for their sworn enemy. Also, they would be much better off using any poison gas of their own against the soldiers invading their country, not some poor civilians far away from them. \n- The Kurds who were killed were a long distance from where the war was being fought. \n- Saddam has a history of ruthlessness. There are many confirmed events where he acted in a manner consistent with someone who would gas the Kurds. \n- Saddam did not immediately raise an outcry that *someone* had attacked the Kurds. He acted secretive, and thus acted guilty. \n\nI know this is all circumstantial, but if someone else had done it Saddam would easily have been able to prove this because he had control of the area, the evidence, witnesses etc... Often, circumstantial evidence on its own is so compelling that it can reasonably be considered proof.
634268
Have we so soon forgotten, 9/11?  Weapons of mass destruction were found by the way just not in the quanities that everyone thought he had. Along with documentation proving that his regieme supposrted AL Quedia  terrorist operations
285443
Thank you for posting the link, i never knew that it was there. there are some Fantastic pictures in this site.\nWhy are there not more pictures like these being showed to the world media.\njust go'es to show you how ONE SIDED the media really is.\nshow Blood,Body's,Explosion's,Devastated town's,Burning buildings. Certainly they will show them a hundred times over.\nNever do you see the Allied troop's doing anything positive.\nFreedom of the press, yes to only print what they want.\nand not what could print or should.\nAgain thank you for the LINK.
827210
I find it amusing to see that people are still in denial over the WMDs we found.\n\nI guess that if they pretend we did not find them they can change the truth.
855995
There is no proof. If it was we would be using Iraqi oil and paying less!
805868
It might have been, too much of the evidence is gone now.\nNo, I do not believe the story the government told us.
368225
who did it? well it wasnt the butler in the hallway wilh a candlestick. how many different arab leaders are there in U.A.E.?i wouldnt know.however, it had to be a terrorist group of the arab world. look at the names listed they were all arabic.as for the official story, what we read and saw on the tube was as official as it gets.information concerning this tragic day possibly was edited just to be on the safe side. what i mean is that the story probably had more to it than what was said ,but with the turmoil in the world today, the increasing price of oil and fingers pointed at everyone, why say anything to start trouble? personally i dont think our country is the most advanced in defense or technology.our computers are made up of japans experts and as far as i know our defense systems are made with the same technology. i think there a a few small nations in the world that have come a long way as we have but secrets must be kept.hopefully im wrong but,i have read and surfed the web,i had found many items of interest that are questionable.im not a trouble maker and i think any information gotten will be sufficient enough to sustain my curiosity. i served during vietnam and i enlisted and would do it again. this country is my home and i was proud to serve.
1052648
not declare War on IRAQ until I had solid evidence - procured by my own country's intelligence agents and corroborated by several RELIABLE sources - that a country was developing weapons of mass destruction OR actually had them.
1055257
I believe there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
808853
No, not yet. But the media hounded them to be released to the public and that's where the item about making a bomb came from. It was in the news right before the election.
1119302
Consider this. NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WAS FOUND.\n\nWhy  woud a leader of his country tell his neighborhing enemies that he has NO WEAPONS AT ALL!!!!\n\nOf course your going to lie!!! to PROTECT YOUR PEOPLE!!!!\n\nAnd if Sadams crimes were so vulgar why dont the Iranians release him to the USA? They wont cause THEY DONT EVEN LIKE THE USA GOVERNMETN INVOLVED TOO MUCH\n\nIf you want the Iraqies to suffer like we americans do, give them Celion Dion and Britney spears!!!!\n\nThey'll think twice about being americanized
607930
They did attack us.  Of course, by us I really mean our soldiers, who were in the process of bombing them at the time, but clearly they started it since it didn't count that we were bombing them until they tried to fight back.\n\nActually, I haven't heard anyone claim that Iraq attacked us.  I do hear a lot of people claim that they did have weapons of mass destruction, though, even though the White House official said they were wrong about the WMDs and the CIA said their information was fake.
992381
Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction was not captured by US forces who heroically brought down Saddam Hussein's regime three years ago this week. It vanished before they arrived.\nIsraeli intelligence reported before the US-led invasion that starting in late summer 2002 Saddam's WMD arsenal was shipped by truck convoy to Syria. Recently, documents seized from Iraq after the fall of the regime were released to the public. Those documents revealed that under the direct command of former Russian prime minister and KGB boss Yevgeny Primakov, Russian Spetnaz forces oversaw the transfer of Iraq's WMD to Syria ahead of the US-led invasion. These reports have been corroborated by Saddam's Air Vice Marshall General Georges Sada.\n\nSo rather than being destroyed or secured, Saddam's WMD arsenal was simply moved from one rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations to another rogue regime with intimate ties to terror organizations.\n\nOf course, American Media will NOT report this, it will prove Bush right, and then they would look stupid.\n\nMichael Moore, thanks:\nFriday, 23 June 2006 \nWhen News Lies \n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES\nMedia Complicity and The Iraq War\n\n\nBy Danny Schechter, The News Dissector\n\n\n\nA new book from Danny Schechter offers an up to date indictment of the role media played in promoting and misreporting the war on Iraq. It is an analysis of how and why the media got it wrong that pinpoints the failures of journalism and the collusion of media companies with the Bush Administration. The author of EMBEDDED: Weapons of Mass Deception (Prometheus 2003), an account of the TV coverage of the US invasion, returns with a more comprehensive, updated and insider look at the media complicity that Schechter argues "made the war possible."\n\n\n\n"Most of the anti-war movement focused on the crimes of the Bush Administration ignoring the mainstream media, its far more effective accomplice," says former network producer Danny Schechter (ABC, CNN). "The government orchestrated the war while the media marketed it. You couldn't have one without the other."\n\n\n\nWHEN NEWS LIES includes the feature -length DVD of the prize-winning film WMD (Weapons of Mass Deception). The book will also include the complete script as well as a discussion of the challenges of exposing media with media with a documentary. It chronicles the media war fought alongside the military campaign and the struggle to stand up for truth.
1090762
Yes, I think so. I’ll give you a few reasons, but first let me give you a little history. I don’t know how old you are, but you may recall that Saddam Hussein had a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction during the first Gulf War. In fact, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he actually used these weapons in battle. That’s where the whole WMD scare came from.\n\nThe United Nations ordered Saddam to stop the invasion, but he refused and eventually the U.N came to Kuwait’s defense. Saddam’s troops were beaten back to Iraq, all the way to Baghdad. But rather than invade Baghdad and remove Saddam from office, the U.N. called a cease-fire on the condition that Saddam give up his WMDs and not re-invade Kuwait. Saddam agreed to these terms, and so the Gulf War ended.\n\nIn 1992, Clinton was elected and over the next two terms he discovered just how dangerous Saddam was. For starters, Saddam broke the condition that the cease-fire was based on. U.N weapons inspectors were repeatedly blocked as they attempted to verify that the weapons had been destroyed. When the inspectors went to a location where they thought WMDs might be stored, Saddam basically told them to wait at the front door. Satellite images taken while the U.N. weapons inspectors were forced to wait show convoys of military trucks slipping out the back door. It’s not clear whether there were WMDs in these trucks, or if he was just trying to make everyone think there were. But either way, everyone thought he still had WMDs. \n\nIn 1998, Saddam raised the stakes even higher by completely kicking the U.N weapons inspectors out of the country. He no longer made them wait at the front door; he didn’t let them come into the country at all. This was a clear violation of the agreement that he made that the Gulf War cease-fire was based on, and President Clinton didn’t like that one bit. In that same year, he ordered the U.S Air Force and Navy to bomb Iraq, because Saddam refused to let the weapons inspectors back in. That softened Saddam up a bit, and he finally agreed to let the U.N weapons inspectors back in. Clinton told Saddam that if he tried anything like that again, the U.S could bomb him without warning.\n\nWhat’s sad is that at the time, Republicans accused Clinton of trying to distract the U.S from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, instead of crediting him for doing what was in the best interest of security – both for our country and other countries around the world. Why would Republicans do this? Anytime you credit the opposing political party for doing something well, you increase the chances that they will be re-elected, which obviously reduces your own party’s power.\n\nAfter Clinton left office, Saddam started playing the “wait at the front door” game again. Bush now had to make a decision as to how to deal with Saddam, and since we were already “next door” in Afghanistan it made sense to remove Saddam from office. Saddam was still playing games to make the world think that he had WMDs, and that coupled with the genocide that Saddam committed were two darn good reasons for invading the country.\n\nIt turns out that we never found WMDs; Saddam was only bluffing, but we did find mass graves of people that Saddam murdered. If anyone ever opposed him, Saddam had him or her killed and dumped into a pit. This is why there was enormous support for the war right when Saddam was removed from office. He was a mass murderer, and a huge majority of Iraqis were thrilled to have him removed from power because they could not do it themselves. They ran out into the streets and danced and celebrated. \n\nSince then a lot of support has eroded because of the ongoing war. Even though the original invasion was justified, “war is hell” and people start to get tired of all of the bloodshed. \n\nThe majority of the insurgents are Saddam loyalists - Sunnis that are no longer enjoying the power that they had for several decades. Sunnis only make up about 20
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!
36223
I will not apologise.  He said there were WMD's based on the fact that he knew where they would be. It's been two years so if he does find them it's more likely that the US planted them there!  Bush has lost all credibility on Iraq.