Poll: Did Iraq have WMD in 2002/3?

shotamoose

Did Iraq have Weapons of Mass Destruction (nuclear, chemical or biological) shortly before the war, ie in late 2002 / early 2003?

My own opinion is that they didn't. Saddam would probably have been delighted to have some, but the evidence seems to point to WMD programmes lying dormant since 1998. What do you think?

(obviously, it's too early to say for certain. so just give your informed / wildly uninformed opinion)

Relevant story: Scientists deny Iraqi arms programme

wobble

I believe that they did not have WMD. However I still think the war was a good thing. This regime needed to be removed.

TBH I think that the US gets alot of bad press even when they do good. I know how they go and ruin countries for their own political/capital gains. However they sometimes have the balls to go do something when everyone else ignores it. You only have to look at eastern Europe. Bosnia/Coratia/Kosovo, what state would these countries be in now if not for US intervention (Especially when the rest of Europe saw what was going on and ignored it, even pulled troopes out before things got to hairy)

Again just because the US may have its own motives for going to war that does not make it right or wrong.

I am glad that they went to war in Iraq and I am glad also that they did so without the UN. This way they have politically obliged them selves to stick it out there until there is stability. Had it been a UN force that went in it would have been easy for the americans to pull out after the job was done and leave the rest of the UN to pick up the bill for peace and stability.

Another good reason for the war without UN support was that it really has shown how powerful the US is. Which really needs to be addressed. It gives more backing to an EU armed force i believe.

Let me just state that I am glad they went to war without the UN but I still think they were wrong to do so. I am just glad they did because of the possible results from it.

My biggest problem with the US is how they go to war with a country like Iraq (on a lie of WMD) and ignore the biggest problem in the region Saudi Ariba. Also what they have been trying to do in Iran since the 70's is questionable.

w

Victor

I think a lot of it was down to bluff. Saddam playing hte big boys game, so as not to loose face.

mike65

er is anyone on this board in a position to know either way...?
(cue endless repetition of rants and raves about wisdom of Iraq war)


Mike.

Ivan

Originally posted by wobble
I believe that they did not have WMD. However I still think the war was a good thing. This regime needed to be removed.

Thats not really the point though is it. Need to be removed or not, what gave the US to decide another government need change, and furthermore what gave them the right to use armed forces to take them out?

Whose to say they wont come into our country and remove our government. Its funny they'll allow Neo-Nazi's to run around their country with guns, but threaten having your own nuclear weapons program & sirens start to go off.

The way nuclear war is prevented is because both sides are afraid of being nuked - its mutal self-annihalation, a lose-lose situation as you will. But if one of these countries (i.e. America) starts going around removing other countries weapons programs then they have an obvious advantage and no longer are prevented from using nuclear weapons.

Obviously Saddam was a madman, akin to Hitler - but was removing him worth the human casualties on both sides? I dont think so... and 10 million people world wide tend to agree with me.

(to prevent being labled a troller/spammer) I voted for no, but had programmes...

Lennoxschips

Well, if they had WMDs, they would have used them against the US during the war. Also the US wouldn't have invaded if they thought Iraq had WMDs. This is why the US won't go near North Korea.

So, the message this war has sent out to dictators is a clear one: Get yourself some WMDs and the US won't attack you.

popinfresh

*cough* oil....:) As you said Lennoxchips if US thought Iraq had the WMDs they wouldn't have invaded. It's really that simple. It would be naieve to think that this war was actually about WMDs. And well, they didn't even have any. Or at least they didn't have the means to be a threat.. The war was a disaster, which probably set a negative trend for the next 20 years or so in world politicts.

sovtek

It's all a mute point anyway.
Saddam was a baddie, but not worse than some other people out there, that both America and Britain have supported or even put in power (and yes other European countries aren't guiltless either, difference is they aren't starting world de-stabilising wars).
It's quite obvious that WMD's were a ruse and the Bush regime isn't exactly trumpeting that line anymore.
They now want to point to mass graves as justification (although alot of them were populated by the Shiites that rose up against Saddam, at Bush 41's insistance in '91). Now those mass graves and other such atrocities were happening when Rummy went to get Saddam's ok for a pipeline (which would monitarily benefit just about every senior member of the current Bush regime) and continued military aid for the war against Iran.
All these facts make it quite obvious that concern for oppressive dictators, or safety against WMD's, or out of concern for national security had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the invasion of Iraq.
It's becoming obvious that the aims of the Bush regime in regards to Iraq mean they will have to resort to somewhat lesser atrocities than Saddam employed.