What happened to all the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein supposedly had in his possession?
He never had nukes, nor a serious biological threat, although it should be noted that he may have thought that he did - he certainly wanted them, had people working on them, and was not the type of boss that you would want to disappoint. What I am saying is that his people may have misled him into believing he had more advanced weapons including WMD’s than he actually did to avoid being tortured and killed.The main thing that the US (and the rest of the world over a period of 10–15 years) was concerned that he had were chemical weapons and delivery systems. In fact, he did have stockpiles of chemical weapons, but these were older weapons in mostly obsolete delivery systems. Some of these weapons were found and destroyed during the war.Again, it is possible that he thought he had more and better chemical weapons than he actually did, so he might have been as wrong about his chemical weapons program as everyone else!Also, we do not KNOW that he did not have more stocks than we are aware of or a limited supply of more advanced weapons. It is very possible that some of his stocks are still buried somewhere in the western desert, and it is also possible and maybe even probable that some of his weapons were transported to Syria.Also, we don’t KNOW what the US military did find and destroy - there may be some things that are classified.I strongly suspect he didn’t have what anyone including him thought he had, what he did have (and we mostly have found and destroyed) were older weapons, and that some of his stock did go to Syria, probably the best of whatever he had.In short the answer is:He didn’t have nukes or bioHe did have older chemical weapons that were found in smaller than expected numbers and destroyedThere may still be some buried somewhereSome of his capability may have been whisked away to Syria
What is nuclear warhead and nuclear weapon ? .....?
Today I read on wikipedia that there are approx. 19000 warheads in the world. Russia tops with 10000 warheads. Q.1 Does warhead mean same as nuclear weapon ? On some websites it was written that warheads are attached in front of nuclear weapon and one nuclear weapon has almost 20 warheads. If this is true then whats the total number of nuclear weapons in the world? Q.2 Does nuclear weapon simply mean a "bomb" or it could be in the form of bullets, rockets etc ? Q.3 Whats the total number of hydrogen bombs in the world and how many countries have it ? Thanks alot...... :)
How do atheists refute Nobel Prize winning Chemist-Physicist Ilya Prigogine, who says :?
"The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is Zero."
"the real reason for the war on Iraq is oil" do they mean American soilders stole it or what?
20 years before the Iraq war, Halliburton (Cheney was 1 of the directors of this company) failed to secure business contracts from Iraq on oil deals. The Iraq war was ignited by the excuse of 911, though Saddam Hussein had no dealings nor anything to do with the al qaeda (the terrorist group that perpetuated 911), as Bush supported his cronies, Cheney and the military industrial complex, to invade Iraq. Just before the start of the Iraq war, the foreign minister of China said the US had 710 reasons to invade Iraq (note that if you invert the numbers 710, it was clear that it is OIL.) As a historical footnote, the whole world knows that US' 2 justifications for attacking Iraq was a complete LIE: 1. al qaeda was never related nor tolerated in Iraq as Saddam Hussein had been against this terrorist group and 2. WMD was never found in Iraq, and therefore the justification that Iraq had WMD was a lie created to attack Iraq. *In fact, Osama bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia (US' ally in the Middle East), and the US' did nothing to pressurize Saudi on Osama's terrorist networks. **Greg, way to lie to yourself, just like committing murder and lying to yourself it ain't so would not exonerate anyone nor bring the murdered back to life. The whole world knows the truth, and distortion of truth on your part won't change the fact.
Do you see Donald Trump any differently than before now that he is president?
I see him A LOT differently. I honestly didn’t support him, at first, because I thought he wasn’t really a conservative. I thought he would say whatever people wanted to hear in order to get elected, and then govern like a liberal Democrat (Trump WAS a Democrat at one time, you know.)Boy, was I WRONG!Trump has governed so much like a conservative, he makes REAGAN look like a leftist. He has eliminated job crushing regulations, he has appointed constitutionalist judges to the courts, he has signed a tax cut bill that congress passed, he has moved the Israel American Embassy to Jerusalem (something even leftist Presidents have promised, but couldn’t deliver), he has re-negotiated trade deals, he has worked to re-build the military, and has used in when NECESSARY (when Syria used chemical weapons, for example), he has brought North Korea to the table with his strong rhetoric, and utilizing his position of strength…I mean, If you are a conservative, WHAT MORE COULD YOU WANT??He has absolutely surprised me, and most other conservatives for that matter. (The “never Trump” crowd was, and is, made up of conservatives.) Conservative, “blue dog” Democrats are even pleased with what Trump has done so far. I know MANY who tell me so. MOST of the ones that I know are so happy they have re-registered as Republicans.I supported Ted Cruz in the primary, and voted for Trump in the general election, but only because I could NEVER embrace the socialist policies of the left. I am personally glad he won, and will ENTHUSIASTICALLY vote for him next time.
What do Western media consumers think of RussiaToday's friendlier portrayal of North Korea?
Given that the media in the west just constantly lies about North Korea, it is nice to see a different perspective.Just a few examples…Western Media: North Korean defects with data on 'chemical warfare tests on humans'Truth: North Korean scientist never defected to FinlandWestern Media: Unicorn lair 'discovered' in North KoreaTruth: Unicorn lair 'discovery' blamed partly on mistranslationWestern Media: Kim Jong Un's Ex-Lover Hyon Song-Wol 'Executed By North Korean Firing Squad After Making Sex Tape'Truth: North Korean singer rumoured to have been executed appears on TVWestern Media: Report: Kim Jong Un fed uncle alive to 120 starved dogsTruth: Story about Kim Jong-un's uncle being fed to dogs originated with satiristYou might want to argue that western media constantly lying about North Korea isn’t that big of a problem because many of these correction articles I’ve linked are also from western media.But it’s irrelevant, because people only read the initial headlines and never the retractions. So even if they correct lies then the general public still goes on believing the initial lie.Westerner’s views of the DPRK is completely based on a caricature that is a mixture of lies, mistranslations, and satire, that they all think is real.Someone putting out a more positive view of the DPRK could at least help dispel some of the most absurd myths and convince some westerns (which I know most never will) to at least begin to question the propaganda they eat up.
Did Bush know that Iraq didn’t have WMDs when he declared war? Did the administration believe there were WMDs or did they just want a pretext?
No, he (and the other leaders) thought that Iraq had some WMDs.How can we know?The UK, USA, Canada and Australia trade military information constantly - not just the finished products, but the raw data that intelligence agents use to work out what is going on. So all 4 countries have pretty much the same info on what is happening overseas. Now, specific units 'dumb down' this information into updates for our politicians. One officer reponsible for doing so in Australia was Andrew Wilkie, who resigned over the Iraq war and now serves in parliament, doing what he can to make life miserable for the major parties.In his book on WMD in Iraq, Wilkie said that "my own assessment had been that Iraq probably did possess some chemical and biological weapons, though not in quantites serious enough to justify war. The apparent absence of any weapons surprised me as much as it did many other people in the intelligence world. There had been too much evidence to the contrary to confidently draw the conclusion that there were no weapons whatsoever." (Axis of Deceit, p 112)Given Wilkie is one of the people who was briefing our politicians, if he thought that Iraq had WMD, then that's the info the pollies would have been getting. (The theme of his book is that politicians were picking and choosing the evidence they used, and ignored qualifiers and the lack of certainty that is the norm in intelligence work. Given that this surprised him, I have to wonder why he was chosen to work with politicians!)
What is the most dangerous conspiracy theory?
So far, by body count, probably the “them Jews control the world” theory.But any conspiracy theory is dangerous. Studies had shown that if someone starts to believe in one (any one) conspiracy theory, then the same person is an easy mark for any other. So not much of a difference from which one people start.An interesting thing is that quite soon such people start believing in contradictory conspiracy theories. There is something about voluntarily giving up sanity, it is hard to reverse, “once a c**ks***er, always a c**ks***er”.There is a classic article by Peter Pomerantsev about the coexistence of lack of trust and gullibility. I quote:When people stopped trusting any institutions or having any values, they could easily be spun into a conspiratorial vision of the world. Thus the paradox: the gullible cynic.People easily confuse lack of trust with a healthy skepticism. So the worshipers of conspiracy theories, some of the most naive/gullible people out there, are dead sure of their own levelheadedness and skepticism. And they are sure that it is the other people who are gullible. “You believe them that 2+2=4? How naive of you!”The real question today is how to break people out of being insane this way. It seems to be a one-way street, people do not break out on their own easily. We in the Western societies smirk at, or dread of fanatical fringe Muslim crazies, but we have, in our own societies, easily some 30% of people who are pretty much crazy in a similar way, just without murderous consequences (so far). Though the 1933+ Nazi example shows that we, in the West, can become crazy in an organized and massive scale as well, with murderous consequences. Core of Nazi ideology was the conspiracy theory “about them Jews”.