Weapons of Mass Destruction: Is this a Moot Point in Iraq at this time?

United States
October 19, 2007 10:52pm CST
Yesterday, while listening to Talk Radio on the way home from work, I heard someone say that the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction is a moot point at this time in the conflict in Iraq? Do you think that we have gone beyond the idea whether or not Iraq ever had WMD's and focusing on simply winning the war? I think this is true, yet I also believe that Iraq did have WMDs and was only a few years out from developing major nuclear weapons to be sold to the highest bidder. At the same time, I think it was an excellent statement when I heard and have always believed that Iraq was chosen as the battleground to do all that could be done and still needs to be done to wipe out Al-Qaeda and any other terrorist group that wants to "play war." Our mission in Iraq can only end in Victory and certainly there is absolutely no room for surrender.
1 person likes this
5 responses
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
20 Oct 07
I think it is a moot point at this time. I would like to point out however, that WMD's are not limited to nuclear weapons. WMD's also consist of chemical and biological weapons which we know that Iraq had, both because they were used on the Kurds several times, and also the US supplied some of those weapons to Saddam back when he was our friend. The mission has since changed from the removal of Saddam and the destruction of Iraq's ability to manufacture WMD's and is now a mission of ensuring stability in Iraq until the Iraqis can handle their own security, as well as the ever present war on terror and the fight against al-Qeada and similar terrorist groups. There is more to this as well, with the fact that we were originally fighting al-Qeada in Afghanistan, then they fled into Iraq where we took the fight to then there as well. Until recently, there was no real acknowledgment in the press about al-Qeada's presence in Iraq, but we have since learned that they had been there for several years. You are correct when you say that there is no room for surrender in Iraq, and that means staying there until the job is done, and the Iraqi government tells us they can handle things on their own.
1 person likes this
• United States
21 Oct 07
Great response. I appreciate your words and explanations. I understand that WMDs are not limited to nuclear weapons and that they do consist of biological and chemical. After 9-11, I was responsible for training my security officers about the dangers of biological and chemical weapons as well as how to recognize them. We are absolutely correct in stating that we have no room for surrender and we need to keep those who expect to surrender under a tight leash. Have a great rest of the weekend.
1 person likes this
• United States
22 Oct 07
Destiny007, how fast we learn! Compare this response to your original response in discussion "I'm tired of these games too!" and you behold an improved Destiny007!
• United States
22 Oct 07
Netsbridge...I have not changed my stance in the least. If you think I have then you misunderstood what I said in the other discussion.
@Netsbridge (3242)
• United States
22 Oct 07
Davebrown64, the fact still remains that whatever WMD that Iraq has or had was original given to Iraq by the USA, and for the purpose of destroying Iran! Why did having WMD only wrong after Saddam Hussien actually wanted to run the affairs of his own nation and was wrong when it was given to him? And remember that when the US invaded Iraq, it was in the name of "the liberation of the Iraqis", not WMD or mastermind behind 911/2001! And are you aware that no nation posesses the most lethal of WMD and profits from revenue generated by WMD more than the USA? And FYI, the US and British governments are the most terroristic groups that we have in the world. What we have in the Middle East are, in fact, freedom fighters! You want to minimize or eliminate terrorism? Well, deal with our above mentioned bullies and terrorists and you will almost eliminate terrorism!
• United States
22 Oct 07
Those "Freedom Fighters" that you are so proud of are members of "special groups" trained outside of Iraq and sent in to interfere with the elected government of Iraq. These "Freedom Fighters" are targeting civilians and killing far more of them then they are the US troops. They are in fact terrorists, and you should also be aware that these "special groups" include al-Qeada which was responsible and claimed credit for the attacks of 9-11. About the WMD issue... yes we provided some to Iraq when they were fighting Iran, just as I am sure that we provided weapons and technology to Iran when they were our friends. Iraq was also manufacturing their own weapons as well... all it takes is a few scientists, a place to work, and the raw materials which are easily obtainable. When the US invaded Iraq, it was for several reasons.... The war on terror, the enforcement of the ceasefire from Bush Sr., the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998...which specifically mentions WMD's as the main reason for that Act, and the fact that al-Qeada fled Afghanistan and went to Iraq to regroup. Saddam went beyond simply running his country and began threatening other countries including the US, and he claimed to be making nukes. We have since found out that he wasn't, although he may have thought he was by his scientists trying to placate him. America is the only remaining superpower, so of course we have the most and best of just about any weapon you would care to name, including chemical and biological weapons as well as nukes. If the US and Britain was the terrorist nations that you claim, the Mideast would pose no threat to us, because we would already have eliminated them. We have the capability and the power to do so many times over... in fact our nuclear arsenal alone is capable of effectively destroying the entire planet many times over. So tell us again how America is a terrorist nation.
• United States
26 Oct 07
The problem with your theory is that the terrorists are fighting against countries with established governments that have been elected by each country's own people. They are not freedom fighters by any stretch of the imagination, they are people led by extremists whose vision is a world under Islamic rule. This is an old vision that shall never see fruition because the world will never accept it.
• United States
28 Oct 07
They are terrorists who slaughter innocent civilians for no other reason then some religious leader told them that Allah commanded it. Their only goal is to put the entire world under Islamic rule and subject to Sharia Law. They don't care who they have to klll to do that, and anyone who does not join them is to be killed. They are not freedom fighters because they do not believe in freedom... they only believe in the slavery of Islam.
@aowaow (1517)
• Indonesia
20 Oct 07
I always hate politics and its snippets. Politics always bring the sample of War. How many woman had been victim of raping by the time of war? Imagine if in the war, your wife? your daughter?
@MntlWard (880)
• United States
21 Oct 07
In discussion of the continuing war, it is pretty much a moot point. More important issues include, but aren't limited to: the blank checks we've written to some of the contractors there who have no interest in finishing their jobs as long as they're making money hand over fist, the morale of the troops, the safety of the troops, and an exit strategy. Discussing how we got there wouldn't serve any great purpose. The best way out is a much more important topic.
• Australia
21 Oct 07
Yeah, it sure seems so despite the invasion being many years ago. And nothing really big has been found or stumbled across, so the weapons of mass destruction idea thing now seems less likely to be the main motive for such an invasion. But you never know.