Is this an Illegal War?, page 3

Originally posted by Muaddib

These missiles are only used for chemical weapons and they were not supposed to have...yet they had them? why have something which is banned? Why have something which they were not going to use and were supposed to have destroyed a long time ago?....

I think the anwser is crystal clear. They intended to have these because sometime in the future they were going to use them.

[edit on 30-5-2005 by Muaddib]

Well, lets look at this properly.

They had 'chemical' warheads, which were empty, so they had Warheads that could be used for chemicals. It doesn't mean they had them and it's conjecture to assume they were to be used that way.

Since it's been officially pronounced that there have been NO WMD's found in Iraq, then these warheads must NOT be considered as being associated with WMDs or any breach supporting the WMD claim, otherwise it would not be an official statement that there was nothing found. This must be considered the real truth since at the time, and from your article we have:

"It was not clear if the discovery constituted a "material breach" of the U.N. resolution requiring Iraq to itemize its weapons of mass destruction and their components."

This was in January 2003, it's news that went no where, it fizzled out to nothing. This is not justification.

What about the find, again from your article:

""When these boxes were opened, they found 122 mm rockets with empty warheads. No chemical or biological warheads. Just empty rockets which are expired and imported in 1988," Amin told reporters, adding similar ordnance was found by U.N. inspectors in 1997.

So even these suspected 'chemical warheads' that 'Saddam must of had because he wanted to get WMDs' is a proven dead end. They were pre-gulf war when the US was dealing with Saddam and they were long expired while NEVER being used for chemicals to begin with.

To come to a conclusion that this justifies the invasion of Iraq and that it's proof Saddam wanted chemical warheads to use against the USA is ridiculous. He had TWO wars against the US to use them, never did, never even prepared them for any kind of usage let alone chemical. So to conclude that Saddam wanted to use EXPIRED warheads against the US in the future which were brought in a time when the US were dealing with Saddam and which were never used for chemical weapons is pure brain washed logic and would not hold up in a court of law as evidence of justification.

It's quiet simple to work out.
IF Saddam DID have WMDs, then they most likely belong to a recpiet in the UK or USA which would be old stock and past their used by date anyway OR something would have been found.

IF Saddam DID have WMDs that WORKED and were ready, then what better time to use them than when your being invaded by the US?? What's he waiting for exactly? We know he was big on bluffing and making himself seem more powerful and threatening that he actually was, so if he knew the chances of Baghdad standing after this invasion was next to nill, then he would of used all his options to avoid the fall.

IF Saddam wanted WMDs but didn't actually have any, then the US needed proof that this was the case. This was their last leg to stand on if they didn't actually find anything.
The evidence they presented has since been proven false and that they knew it was shaky at best when presenting it. They mislead to rush into war to set a pre-emptive policy to undermind the UN and to secure a tight circle of wagons for the business/politics relationship - in other words - a New World Order where Business eventually controlls politics rather than the people controlling politics who control the business so it works for the people.

You get nothing out of this but the bill and the body bags, i can't understand why you support it??

Is your pride that stubborn that it will let others die rather than admitting things aren't right?

[edit on 30-5-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]