they dont care, they can spin and belittle it all they want, but the fact is he had them, used them, and they are still there.

No, people just know that he was never a threat to America. People know that Bin Laden was responsible for 911 and Bush shifted the blame on Iraq so people would back his war.

First off they didnt find WMD's , they found one small shell that went off and hurt no one thats not mass destruction. Colin Powell said we had bad information today. Also if blood thirsty, Hitler wanna be Saddam had these wmds. Why didnt he use them when we invaded them ? Knowing the US would bring a end to his reign of terror, he doesnt use these tools to send the white demons back to hell? Use your fucking brains dont be sheep.

So who's a saint then, Bush? Is Bush a "good guy"? You are a fucking sheep.

Great argument, The United Nations destroyed thousands of litre's of chemical weapons, thousands of munnitions that were modified for chemical weapons after the Gulf war, Why didn't he use them in that war? just because he didn't use them, doesn't mean the weapons did not exist?

Every country probably has some amount of sarin somewhere.

I think it's pretty well known information that he did use them in the Gulf War. Recall Gulf War Syndrom?

It's also pretty well known information that he doesn't have WMD's at the present because they were destroyed in 1992's Gulf War. They miraculously found the facilities used for producing the weapons, and amazingly the last date was... drum roll please... 1992.

Sheep. Baaaa.

Does anyone on this board remember why we went into Iraq in the first place?

Al-Qaeda came to Iraq and brought WMD's with them. It's a known fact that they've been working on Sarin Agent but I doubt that Al-Qaeda have lots of such chemicals.

United States was much better prepared for chemical war fare then the Saddam loyalist. By using chemical WMDs during the war Iraq would of inflicted more damage amongest themselves then opposing forces.

For one it would confirm the WMD and justify the war immediately. Other countries would have gotten involved if Iraq deployed chemical weapons

Your not thinking , its the end of his reign this monster wouldnt use them stop this or to go out in a blaze of glory straight to Allah. He was a paper tiger and easier to find and hit then Osama bin Laden whose family Daddy is in business with. 9/11 was all arabs the saudi government has funded terrorists, why havent we hit them? Instead of some weak old man. We supplied all the wmds he had and he killed all those kurds after the us told them rise up and then abandoned them.

I really don't think the terrorists are too concerned about inflicting damage upon themselves. :2 cents: We are there to "fight the terrorists" right?

Almost 800 Americans and 8,000+ Iraqis killed during the past year-odd alone and a single shell claimed to contain Sarin has turned up.

If this claim doesn't turn out to be an outright lie or another false alarm (as all the previous "finds" have done), who in their right minds can believe that it justifies so many dead? Forget the Iraqi dead if you must: can you seriously imagine visiting 800 US families and explaining that this is what our own people died for?

"Gulf War Syndrome" was also blamed on DU, and seeing as no one has come up with scientific data that concludes either were the cause, I'll file that under S for "speculation"

I'll also file the "1992" under speculation seeing as the United Nations Chemical Destruction Group were still destroying Chemical weapons in Iraq in 1994.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/ik/ik171.htm

How many Iraqis were killed a year by Saddam and his son on average?

And you think that the " evil" Saddam would have cared??/
Hummm: I lose 1000 troops for every 10 US troops I kill" If he had them, he would have used them, as he used the " scuds" in the Gulf War.

LOL... That would have bothered him with the US invaders 50 miles from Baghdad ....
Oh.. other countries??? Didn't you already have all the wothwhile countries in your coalition of " the willing"... A few more would havbe been bad news for Saddam???

You know, it is not because you don't see an elephant in my office that there is none in my office. In fact, I maybe have a full herd of them.

Like I said in above, they destroyed all types of Chemical weapons after the Gulf war, why didn't he use them then? the fact he used didn't use them doesn't prove a thing.

You can file everything that comes out of Bush's mouth as "speculation".

All we know is that the American people are a huge herd of sheep, that will follow a religious leader without question. Such is the definition of being religious, to have faith... blind faith. Such is to NOT question motives, for questioning motives is to question your religion.

So until America can get beyond blind faith, and learn to raise some eyebrows, we will have a bunch of sheep that will follow anyone such as Bush.

Last time I checked, we were still in Afghanistan or maybe my military buddies that I served with for eight years are lying to me....

So what did you say when Clinton was President?

Even coalition officials are saying that this is not prove that Saddam have WMD's.
Sarin has a shelf life of about 2 months. This could've been something remaining from the Gulf War that insurgents found and used without knowing that it was pretty much useless.

Yeah, I think your credibility is a little shot now, after your other statements you're not resorting to blaming bush and the american "sheep" btw is this another one of your "known facts" in this post? because your other "known facts" were pretty laughable.

It was stored in binary form, not mixed so "shelf life" may not even come into it.

I thought we left the two wrongs make a right bullshit behind when we were 8 or 9 years old. But to answer your question, no-one knows for sure. There are any number of estimates, but if you want to quote a us.gov site, the number is put between 70,000 and 150,000 dead since 1979. 6,000 a year, if you take the higher figure.

Of course it is convenient to forget that violence in Iraq preceded Saddam Hussein by 20 years. So did US involvement there. Back in 1963 several thousand people were murdered as a result of the CIA handing over a list of supposed dissidents to the military authorities. Thousands more died when we left the Kurds to their fate in 1975, having previously encouraged them to rebel against their government. And whether or not you buy into the argument that only someone like Saddam Hussein could have held Iraq together at all, the fact remains that he received US money and practical support for the first fifteen years he was in power: a period which included almost all his worst - and never secret - actions.

If you do want to trade numbers: 200,000 Iraqis died during the first invasion of Iraq; 1.2 million are estimated dead as a result of a decade of sanctions, unexploded cluster bombs, depleted uranium warheads, ongoing bombing, etc; and 9,000+ have so far died this time around. Our hearts may be pure, but we know how to rack up the dead...

Got to hate facts :1orglaugh :thumbsup

The United Nations sanctions killed millions of Iraqi's? no Saddam Hussein killed millions of Iraqi's during the United Nations sanctions:


Then in January 1995, I met Hussein Wael a masonry builder who bribed his way out of Iraq at the cost of $5000. His testimony confirmed the claim that Saddam spent £1.22 bn building new palaces and renovating old ones, while his people were starving.

We've all seen these palaces in the news, complete with gold faucets, marble floors and splendid art works, he built quite a few of them after the Gulf war, while people in his country starved to death.

Saddam also managed to shell out $25K a pop to families of Palestinian suicide bombers and $10K a pop to 'martyrs' of the conflict while the sanctions apparently starved Iraqi citizens. $35,000,000 in total rewards from Sept. 2000 on.

But, of course, there's no direct evidence he supported al Qaeda terrorists, so his support of other terrorist groups is apparently moot and he should have been left in power to go about his business. Especially seeing as how he was surely about to give into the demands of the U.N. after twelve years.

I think Saddam was just misunderstood.

i ain't reading this entire thread but what they found was hardly weapons of MASS destruction.

One round of Sarin, you call that WMD? UN removed hundreds in the 90s, some are bound to get left behind. This is not newsworthy, but rather to obscure the fact that the President of the Iraq Council was assasinated yesterday, that piece of information seems to be buried now because of this. Thanks for helping spread disinformation..

terrorists are in Iraq now that Saddam is out... and that wasn't even an operational serin gas shell. It was from pre-1991 and they rigged it up to explode. Hardly a WMD...

Weapon of Mass Deception maybe?

WASHINGTON, May 17 (Xinhuanet) -- US Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that intelligence provided by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) about mobile biological weapons labs in Iraq before the war was wrong.

"In the case of the mobile trucks and trains, there was multiple sourcing for that," Powell said in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" program recorded Sunday in Jordan and aired in the US several hours later. "Unfortunately, that multiple sourcingover time has turned out to be not accurate."

Powell said his February 2003 speech to the United Nations -- during which he showed what he called sound evidence of Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction -- was based on "the best information" provided to him by the CIA.

"At the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading," he said.

"And for that I am disappointed and I regret it," Powell said, disclosing that the information about the mobile biological weapons labs came from an Iraqi defector and "other sources" corroborated it.

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the beginning of the war. President George W. Bush, who used the claimed existence of such weapons as justification to launch the war, has appointed an independent panel to look into the intelligence failure.

Powell acknowledged April 2 that the information he used in hisUN presentation was not solid but stopped short of drawing clear conclusions.