Wikipedia says they had no WMDs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapon...

ImJamal · 2025-06-22T16:39:11 1750610351

https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-contin...

Some of the chemicals qualified as WMD. Almost none of them were properly stored and weren't usable, but a little bit were usable.

Also, I'm not making the claim they were trying to make new ones, just that they had some.

rsingel · 2025-06-22T17:09:23 1750612163

The U.S. didn't launch a war over whether there were some leftovers from the war vs Iran.

It was about ongoing programs, including a whole bunch of horse droppings about yellowcake uranium enrichment.

Pedantically saying but there were some old shells of gas misses the entire point.

The US ginned up a war on false pretenses, leading to millions dying.

Your um actually on some trivia ain't helpful or interesting

ImJamal · 2025-06-22T17:57:57 1750615077

You are going off topic. I was only addressing the false claim that they did not have WMDs. They very much did. I am not making any statements on if we should have gotten involved, if there were false pretenses or anything like that.

I don't get why people who are so opposed to the war are the ones who can't admit they actually did have WMD. Making these false claims just makes it look like we, who were opposed to the war, are the liars.

rsingel · 2025-06-23T16:42:58 1750696978

Dude, I don't lose any credibility by stating the truth. The contention was there were active programs to make chemical and nuclear weapons and depots ready to use or be handed over to Al Qaeda. None of that was found. It was all fake. I don't lose any credibility by stating the obvious and using shorthand.

It would be like the FBI saying they raided the world's biggest drug lord, and the only thing they found was a little bit of shake in a backpack in his garage.

You pedantically "but they did find drugs!"