Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If Iraq has WMD's, then why didnt the Hussein boys use them?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
59millionmorons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 12:45 PM
Original message
If Iraq has WMD's, then why didnt the Hussein boys use them?
It seems to me when you are trapped in a building without a prayer, that maybe this would be the time to use any WMD's you have. When it is four against 200, you would think they would have used them then. The fact that they were not used tells me they don't have them, along with the fact that we found stockpiles of ammunition not WMD's at the place they were killed. This is more evidence that Bush is a LIAR. Oh yes I do believe they had WMD's at one time. If Bush would like to find them he can go to the location in Iraq were the IAEA has stored the chemical/biological weapons that they seized. Then maybe Bush will relize that the reason he can't find any WMD's is that they have already been gathered up by the IAEA years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. They are lousy weapons
Aside from terrorism they are pretty worthless as weapons. They don't kill fast enough or certainly enough. Their range isn't so great. And they would have had to get out of there somehow and somehow people running around in chemical outfits would be pretty noticable. I do agree that the weapons are either gone in to terrorist hands, in the IAEA stock pile, or were destroyed by Clinton. But their not being used isn't why I think that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
the_sam Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Yes
That's the one big, inconvenient point that gets left out of all the debates. Biological and chemical weapons are militarily ineffective. Nuclear weapons are a much more serious concern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanger Donating Member (737 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's still a matter of cloaking technology
check out it explains it all!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IDUDOYOU Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Is this one of those rhetorical threads?
We all know the answer but you just want some attention? ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whoYaCallinAlib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Uday and Qusay were WMD.
How many thousands do you have to kill before you qualify for the "mass destruction" designation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
5. Simple answer. The Hussein sons didn't use
WMD'S because they DIDN'T HAVE ANY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DuctapeFatwa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. They were only 45 minutes away from using them

I know this is true because the former foreign minister of Niger told me about it in the same email where he outlined how I can become very wealthy by sending him only a few hundred dollars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. No, they HID them
just to make bushie look bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. The question is just too logical. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
the_sam Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
10. I don't think they had them in any significant quantities
Iraq was fundamentally disarmed during the first round of inspections from 1991-1998. Because of the sanctions, in addition to international controls, it would be very difficult for Iraq to rebuild its nuclear program free of detection. It would be a bit easier for Iraq to rebuild its chemical weapons arsenal, but chemical weapons are militarily ineffective anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC