WI we had found WMDs in Iraq?

One issue that would certainly arise if the WMDs were found is whether or not Americans gave the Iraqis the WMDs in the first place. According to many blogs on the issue, the WMDs were supposedly given during the Iran-Iraq War of 1981-1988. For many in the Arab world, the question becomes, why didn't the U.S. take those weapons in 1991? Why did they wait until 2003 to get them?

Second, the international community would point out, if Iraq has WMDs is justification for attack, why doesn't the U.S. attack North Korea. This would seem hypocritical since the 1994 ICBM tests...

Third, Russia and China would also point to their backing of Iran, stating, "Why shouldn't Iran launch a "preemptive strike" against Israel? They have a "proven" WMDs capability (e.g. nuclear weapons)..."
 
One issue that would certainly arise if the WMDs were found is whether or not Americans gave the Iraqis the WMDs in the first place. According to many blogs on the issue, the WMDs were supposedly given during the Iran-Iraq War of 1981-1988. For many in the Arab world, the question becomes, why didn't the U.S. take those weapons in 1991? Why did they wait until 2003 to get them?

Second, the international community would point out, if Iraq has WMDs is justification for attack, why doesn't the U.S. attack North Korea. This would seem hypocritical since the 1994 ICBM tests...

Third, Russia and China would also point to their backing of Iran, stating, "Why shouldn't Iran launch a "preemptive strike" against Israel? They have a "proven" WMDs capability (e.g. nuclear weapons)..."

Just would like to emphasize that the United States never gave Iraq chemical weapons. We had a nice long thread on the subject a while ago.
 
Dang how many times must I must I say this, we did find WMDs!!! Just because they were buried on page 11 doesn't mean they don't exist.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-iraq/

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/06/22/more-wmds-found/

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/04/02...munitions-found-last-year-were-official-wmds/

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/08/14/the-no-wmd-lie-the-sequel-and-finale/

And all this is ignoring the testimony of Iraqi General Georges Sada who says that they were shipped out before the invasion.
 
Second, the international community would point out, if Iraq has WMDs is justification for attack, why doesn't the U.S. attack North Korea. This would seem hypocritical since the 1994 ICBM tests...

I don't think this would seem hypocritical. Its not as if the US supports N. Korea. The US doesn't invade N. Korea because China has made it pretty clear that they'll protect them and stonewall any UN action in the security council.
 

wormyguy

Banned
Dang how many times must I must I say this, we did find WMDs!!! Just because they were buried on page 11 doesn't mean they don't exist.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2006/06/22/report-hundreds-wmds-iraq/

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/06/22/more-wmds-found/

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/04/02...munitions-found-last-year-were-official-wmds/

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2006/08/14/the-no-wmd-lie-the-sequel-and-finale/

And all this is ignoring the testimony of Iraqi General Georges Sada who says that they were shipped out before the invasion.
I see you rolling, I hatin', you trollin' up with sources dirty.
 
I don't think this would seem hypocritical. Its not as if the US supports N. Korea. The US doesn't invade N. Korea because China has made it pretty clear that they'll protect them and stonewall any UN action in the security council.
The question is rather why doesn't the U.S. attack North Korea, on behalf South Korea. North Korea has certainly launched acts of terrorism against South Korea and Japan (e.g. kidnappings, assassinations, bombings, et al.).

As for Iraq, just consider that China, France, and Russia had already said that they would veto any U.N. resolution , unless the nuclear inspectors were given at least 6 months more time....
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
The question is rather why doesn't the U.S. attack North Korea, on behalf South Korea. North Korea has certainly launched acts of terrorism against South Korea and Japan (e.g. kidnappings, assassinations, bombings, et al.).

As for Iraq, just consider that China, France, and Russia had already said that they would veto any U.N. resolution , unless the nuclear inspectors were given at least 6 months more time....


Because South Korea will never ask the US to do that. Why? Because North Korea has thousands of heavy artillerypieces pointed at Seoul. It's a MAD situation really.
 
You might even see a smaller Iraqi insurgency - with a (semi-)legitimate reason to invade, the population might me more convinced that we were there to reconstruct, not exploit.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't hold up at all. That sort of logic might persuade the American people, but the Iraqi's are the ones getting bombs dropped on their head. From the point of view of the Iraqi's, its a war of flat out aggression. Much as they might dislike Saddam, they're not going to buy that whole imminent threat to America thing. And its going to be hard to explain to the Iraqi's why their possession of wmd's is unacceptable given Israel's nuclear arsenal.
 
Because South Korea will never ask the US to do that. Why? Because North Korea has thousands of heavy artillerypieces pointed at Seoul. It's a MAD situation really.

Funny how the arguement of "why not North Korea" keeps coming up despite this painfully obvious reason of "why not".
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Funny how the arguement of "why not North Korea" keeps coming up despite this painfully obvious reason of "why not".


Well most people simply don't know. Add to that the fact that most people have very little knowledge on military strategy and global geopolitical problems. There are alot of people saying that we should do something about Darfur and Zimbabwe not knowing that it is impossible because of reasons we simply can't do anything about.
 
Well most people simply don't know. Add to that the fact that most people have very little knowledge on military strategy and global geopolitical problems. There are alot of people saying that we should do something about Darfur and Zimbabwe not knowing that it is impossible because of reasons we simply can't do anything about.

Most people aren't on forums like this.;)

I suspect most people who pose such questions have heard the obvious answers before, but conveniently forget them over time and logically wander back to their original thinking.

I never see anyone go, "Wow, that clears that up, thank you for teaching me".;)

I, of course, have done that, but, well....:D;)
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Had Iraq had WMDs the situation would be a lot different. France and Russia would have been less willing to back up Saddam, Hans Blix and the other inspectors would not have been allowed near Iraq, and if Saddam had chemichal weapons, they would have been used on Coalition troops during the invasion.

However, as I said, the situation would have been a lot different. Saddam would probably not have cared to keep them much of a secret, since their existence would be a good way to keep Iran from trying anything stupid. And since there would have been few doubts about their existence, Bush would face much less problems from the International Community and from liberals home in the US.
 
This question of how much McCain lost by is interesting. Wikipedia says it was 10 million on one page and 8 1/2 million on another. I can't seem to find a definitive source (or in fact anyone who agrees with anyone else), but the sources I have seen (Foxnews, CNN, and a few other election tracking sites) put the number between 8 and 10 million votes, not the 3 million originally asserted. Perhaps the person who originally posted that number got it confused with 2004 where Bush beat Kerry by 3 million votes.

edit: I mentioned wikipedia because that seems to be where the 10 million vote margin number came from, I personally do not find quoting wikipedia to be very authoritative
 
If the US had discivered WMDs (particularly nuclear weapons or the makings of them), I think the following might occur:

Governments of other US allies (like France, Germany, especially) might be more willing to assist in the Iraq cleanup and reconstruction activities. The credibility of the Bush administration would not be instantly crippled. There would still be opposition to the unilateral invasion, but at least opponents would have to accept some of the justification.

US public opinion would turn against the Iraq invasion and occupation much more slowly - if at all.

The Bush administration would have more credibility in dealing with Iran's WMD program

McCain would be elected in 2008.

In fact, I am frankly surprised the Bushies did not have an elaborate contingency plan to fake the discovery of WMDs from the get-go. That, more than anything, leads me to believe they actually believed their own propaganda.
 
This question of how much McCain lost by is interesting. Wikipedia says it was 10 million on one page and 8 1/2 million on another. I can't seem to find a definitive source (or in fact anyone who agrees with anyone else), but the sources I have seen (Foxnews, CNN, and a few other election tracking sites) put the number between 8 and 10 million votes, not the 3 million originally asserted. Perhaps the person who originally posted that number got it confused with 2004 where Bush beat Kerry by 3 million votes.

edit: I mentioned wikipedia because that seems to be where the 10 million vote margin number came from, I personally do not find quoting wikipedia to be very authoritative


The Government website says about 10 million.
 
Nothing much changes, as they likely wouldn't be discovered until long after the occupation began at which point the insurgency is well advanced. Indeed it might be even worse, as coalition troops would possibly spend even more effort hunting for WMD's.

It would probably remove much of the political pressure that fell on Blair and Bush, but as time goes on it would still become an unpopular quagmire as the body bags pile up. I doubt the international scene would change much, the Bush administration still remains very unpopular. In America probably the mess of Katrina becomes a bigger issue.

I doubt it would mean a McCain victory, as Iraq and Afghanistan are still most likely a mess and the public at large are sick of war. It could prevent Obama winning, in which case we are looking at President Clinton...
 
Top