Why didn't The USA plant Weapons Of Mass Destruction?

Just wondering, the US Government seems capable of so much evil. So why have they not simply staged the discovery of WMDs? It would seem that if they had done so, they could have somewhat justified their presence in Iraq. At least they wouldn't have had to make up their lies about installing a democracy.

[edit on 5/2/07 by mustbebc]

[edit on 5/2/07 by mustbebc]

[edit on 5/2/07 by mustbebc]

Because the US government is not hiding some World takeover agenda.

WMD were in Iraq but moved into the valleys inside Syria

The mission in Iraq is designed to fail, that's why.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by TheBandit795]

Because its alot easier to say "# bad call, sorry made a mistake on that one" and then just get on with it.

.

Originally posted by KonigKaos
Because the US government is not hiding some World takeover agenda.

WMD were in Iraq but moved into the valleys inside Syria

What proof of this do you have??

Originally posted by carslake

Because its alot easier to say "# bad call, sorry made a mistake on that one" and then just get on with it.

.

Really? Would it be that hard to stage such a thing in a military controlled environment? Some believe the Saddam capture was staged and we know that the tearing down of his statue was staged to look like there were thousands of supporters when there were really only a few.

Originally posted by mustbebc

Originally posted by KonigKaos
Because the US government is not hiding some World takeover agenda.

WMD were in Iraq but moved into the valleys inside Syria

What proof of this do you have??

www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2004/01/25/wirq25.xml

The above article was written in 2004. It is an interview with the guy responsible for finding the weapons in Iraq.

Originally posted by mustbebc
Some believe the Saddam capture was staged and we know that the tearing down of his statue was staged to look like there were thousands of supporters when there were really only a few.

I have never heard that before. What is the documentation for that?

Originally posted by TheBandit795
The mission in Iraq is designed to fail, that's why.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by TheBandit795]

The article is not coming up. Is there more on that?

[edit on 2/5/2007 by Togetic]

Oh I didn't know it wasn't working anymore. I'll see if I can find it again. Sorry.

the question of why didn't the usa plant those weapons of mass destruction never even passed by me...

that's a great question...

in my view, it might have been extremely hard to accomplish...

Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq

In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War. www.cnn.com...

White House admits Iraq had no WMDs.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney conceded Thursday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction www.derechos.org...

I think somebody is lying. .

Relevant i guess

"John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, who charged that Saddam's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were moved by Russian special forces into Syria and Lebanon. According to Mr. Shaw, former Russian intelligence boss Yevgeny Primakov came to Iraq in December 2002 in order to supervise "cleanup" operations to remove WMD production materials from the country. This operation, carried out by GRU military intelligence and Russian "spetsnaz," or special forces, troops, was designed to make it possible for critics of the war to be able to claim that Iraq had had no WMD. Mr. Shaw claims that officials in the Pentagon and the CIA, who were fearful of alienating Moscow, actively worked to discredit his efforts to bring this story to light, and that some derided it as "Israeli disinformation."

www.washtimes.com...


Google Spetsnaz and WMD for more info.

If true i would imagine the Russians would not have liked U.S soldiers killed with WMD nerve agents supplied by them.

Also it would of been difficult for the President to tell the American public the link with Iraq, having been supplied with WMDs from Russia.
It might spook the public too much if they imagined Russia was involved in a proxy war of sorts against the U.S

This is a way i can see the current administration feeling justified by their current actions.

All of this is pure speculation and the Spetsnaz WMD story has been denied as Israeli disinfo so speculation is all it is.

I don't know if the US would have gained that much by secretly planting weapons in Iraq. The US government hasn't really been too big on PR around the world and that's the only thing the US might have gained if they pulled it off in my opinion. Now if Sadam Hussein really did have some good secret weapons, the US could have just stolen them and kept them and then everyone apparently would be happy to believe there was nothing there. Apparently all of those chemical weapons Sadam had developed after the first Persian Gulf war he got rid of somewhere. I heard there is uranium contamination in some areas as well but that seems to be left over from an earlier time before US troops arrived. It's obvious now that Sadam had no intentions of ever developing a big army with serious weapons that could have threatened the entire middle east. I don't even know why we went to war. On the other hand I bet Sadam's evil sons were a bit smarter. Now we may never what evil they could have unleashed. That's the trouble with pre-emptive wars, many don't see any threat until the enemy is already attacking you at home.

But don't you think the US could manufacture these weapons to look like they came from within Iraq itself... even if they were originally supplied by Russia?

If our government truly felt it necessary, it would have been done. But, say something goes wrong. Not only has the government started a war without context, but now they're lieing to make one up. It's probably best just to invade and then say, "oops" as you've already accomplished what you need to. Otherwise, the people would immediately turn against the US.

Plus, bad intelligence is bad intelligence. Every American understands its not possible to have 100 percent accuracy with the CIA. I think an outright lie is too much though. Bending and shaping the truth however, is a-ok.

Straight up lieing is grounds for impeachment.

because, we can recognize our own stuff
and also
because wmd's are expensive
and if we planted our own, we would have to destroy them before the media got to see them, and thus realize that they were american manufactured

some things can't even be hidden by the government and military

Im with this:

Because the US government is not hiding some World takeover agenda.

Does make it kinda boring if there are no conspiracies dosnt it.

Originally posted by Togetic

Originally posted by mustbebc
Some believe the Saddam capture was staged and we know that the tearing down of his statue was staged to look like there were thousands of supporters when there were really only a few.

I have never heard that before. What is the documentation for that?

newstandardnews.net...

www.globalresearch.ca...

I'm fairly sure this was actually shown in detail in Fahrenheit 911

We found sarin gas in iraq. It said "made in USA" on the side. We gave Iraq chemical weapons to fight the Iranians. That is why w can say they had wmd's, because they did, however we are the ones that made those WMD's. I have a friend that actually found a cache of sarin near Bagdad, and was poisoned by it and spent some time in the hospital because of it.

Maybe WMDs were in Iraq but they are now safely ensconsed elsewhere, by the U.S military, if you get my drift.
This is only a hunch. No links will be supplied.