Can you prove Iraq didn't have WMD's?

I can't. I bet you can't either.

There is about as much evidence that they did as they didn't. Yet, when ppl say 'WMD's were a lie to get us into a war', few call it conspiracy theory. When ppl say 'senators, congressman, intelligence agencies news reporters and multinational corporations conspired to perpetuate the lie', few call it a conspiracy theory. But wheres the proof? That war resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and global destabilization. Did anyone go to jail?

But don't say 'Trump won' without irrefutable proof... lol.

 

Aren’t you asking people to prove a negative here?

 

Not sure. Do you believe WMD's were a lie to get us into a war? Can you prove it?

...does it matter whether its a 'negative' or not?

 

Well..... he sure used something on his Kurdish population AND in the 1980-1988 Iran/Iraq war! As for where he got 'em, who do you suppose was "our SOB" during that little conflict?

 

I believe no substantial evidence was found to back up the claim that there were WMDs. How that translates to motive I’m not going to speculate on, though you would think we would have made sure we had undeniable proof before we decided to go off to war, huh? Shame we didn’t.

Only if you’re hoping to have a conversation with realistic goals.

 

Current usable WMD? Not much because in his attempts to hide what he had from inspectors it was not stored very well and deteriorated. But that was not the point. As the investigations showed he had the necessary and illegal materials to quickly rearm and rebuild his chemical and biological stocks and that was his goal as soon as he could hoodwink himself out of the sanctions and inspections. Even the Clinton administration warned he would ALWAYS be a WMD threat and would always try to posess them. That's why he had to be removed.

 

Can you prove Iraq didn't have WMD's?

Negatives of any sort can't be proved.

 

You have a very weird misconception of what "conspiracy theory" means. "Conspiring to perpetuate a lie is not the same as falling for the lie.

In any case, if they did conspire at any point... given that we know there were no WMDs in Iraq, that would not be a "conspiracy theory". Just a conspiracy.

Your terminology is very confused.

 

Actually we know there were no WMD's when we went looking for them. There could well have been WMD's prior to that. Some defense and state department know-it-alls suggested that the WMD's used by Syria came from Iraq.

 

That's not what we were told. We were told a lie.

 

This is a false narrative. We didn't "go off to war".

We re-enagaged a war that previously stopped at Saddam's borders in a concession to utilize sanctions to deter future threat from the country.

Having WMDs was not the justification to remove Sadam from power. Violation of sanctions intended to prevent him from manufacturing WMDs was.

There is a difference.

After the UN ran his army out of Kuwait and pushed him back to his border, all he had to do was comply with sanctions and UN oversight.


He elected not to comply.

 

The cult leader has spoken and said there was no WMD.

 

No one is going to proove a negative.

 

How do 'we know'?

Im guessing the folks claiming:

will be as interested in your response as I.

I also have to wonder whether the conspiracy theory is now yours or theirs...

 

This was answered years ago when the UN found stockpiles of shells with poisonous gas in them.

The left whined that they weren't nukes but the UN classifies them as weapons of mass destruction.

So yes, there is undeniable proof from an independent source that Iraq had WMD's.

 

No they didn't.

 

Actually they did find stockpiles of very old canisters so unstable they couldn't safely destroy them so they buried them in situ in concrete. They were not viable as weapons by any definition.

 

I thought there may have been weapons right up until Powell did his dog and pony show for the UN. An artist's rendition of what it might look like and pictures of a place where one day a truck was parked and the next it was gone is not proof and if that is what you are going on that must mean you got nothing. I was most definitely a 28%er*.

72% were pro invasion.

 

Can you prove Iraq didn't have WMD's?

~ They would have used them if they did. Not really "proof" but that's as close as I can get.

 

I should add that they "found" them by looking at a map supplied by the UN showing where they were, a map created before the invasion because Saddam was in fact complying.

 

Seems you’re just interested in a thread where you get to move the goal posts as you wish.

What’s next on the agenda? Prove God doesn’t exist?

 

As the U.S. had the receipts for the weapons it sold to him, of course there is 'proof'. That does not make the U.S. invasion legal or moral. It does not absolve the war criminals who voted for it.

 

OK then I was told that and you were not. We don't interact with the same media.

 

You are confused - The question was not whether or not Iran had WMD - we know they did - and we were allies with Iraq while using these weapons under Reagan.

These weapons were mostly destroyed after Desert Storm - There were some of these chemical weapons that were found .. buried and unusable .. bad disposal technique essentially - but if one wants to call these WMD - as some folks try to do - I suppose you could.

This however was not the "WMD" justification for the war .. that Saddam had a few chemical weapons buried underground.

The charge being laid at Saddam was that he had an "Active Chemcical Weapons Program" one that included trying to build a nuke.

This charge was preposterous nonsense - at least in that all the evidence provided by Cheney turned out to be fake or phony in some way.

There was no threat of a "Mushroom Cloud" any time soon from Iraq. as touted by the Bush Admin No threat to the US homeland.

and - at the time - we had inspectors running around all over Iraq and were in control of Iraqi Air space.

There was zero threat to the homeland that required waging war on Iraq for 10 years - an action which ended up creating a much bigger threat than Saddam ever posed.