Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
It is really sad that we went to war in Iraq because they might have NUCLEAR BOMBS, and then when it became obvious that this was false, the term "weapons of mass destruction" was introduced; presumably to cover any chemical and/or biological weapons - but definitely to cover their butts for having started a war on an entire country.
|
Hey, Colonel Powell testified before Congress. No, no evidence of nuclear bombs were found, but I believe this counts as a weapon of mass destruction:
"The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people, and injured around 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians; thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack. The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq, was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history."
Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why was Superstorm Sandy not called Superhurricane Sandy? To me, a super-storm sounds weaker than a hurricane, not stronger.