May 25, 200422 yr Why didn't Sadaam use his WMD to attack us when we invaded? Did he really have them? Then why didn't he use them? Question. So many unanswered questions. Why didn't he use them in the 1st gulf war? We know he had them then. Bunk arguement. You know why he didn't use them.... He didn't calculate the war as an end sum game, so he didn't want ot aliennate the rest of the Arab world and lose any possible support they would of gave him. Even once we had basically conquered the entire country? Even when Bush said they didn't exist?
May 25, 200422 yr Talking about Gulf 1. But, Not claiming that there were or weren't WMD in country during the last war. But there is no evidence that would support the fact that Saddam would of used them initially, and no way he retained any control over them as communications were cut off and the Iraqi army was beheaded. We've got nukes, why haven't we ever used them after WWII? Same reason.
May 25, 200422 yr Talking about Gulf 1. But, Not claiming that there were or weren't WMD in country during the last war. But there is no evidence that would support the fact that Saddam would of used them initially, and no way he retained any control over them as communications were cut off and the Iraqi army was beheaded. We've got nukes, why haven't we ever used them after WWII? Same reason. Why didn't nazi germany use their chemical and biological weapons? They knew we can pound them with 10 times more. Learn some history.
May 25, 200422 yr It's because wars now never maintain uniform support, especially on an international scale. Saddam did not want to alienate other Arab states, who he perceived as the only possible intermediary that could change the course of the US's action. Oh, and by the way, you learn some history. It isn't some form of regional detente that prevented the use of Chem/Bios in WWII. Moreover, since you know it all, tell me why the Germans used them In WWI then? You need to get off your high horse once in awhile and take a look around.
May 25, 200422 yr Yes, Hitler though of using chemical weapons on V2 rockets, stalingrad, d-day, and ect. and it was considered that it would do germany more harm than good. Moreover, since you know it all, tell me why the Germans used them In WWI then? Everyone did. It was a new toy and once it was out, there was no turning back, because why would one side stop when the other would continue? Almost like a Nash Equilibrium. Again, get off your high horse.
May 25, 200422 yr Author Iraq would have been ready to launch some serious attacks against Israel and the United States within the next decade.? That would have never changed if we had left them alone.? No matter what we do/don't do, they will want to attack us because we're American and supposedly a "Christian" country...? :shifty North Korea is most likely going to stand back.? Even more so since 9/11, when the world saw that the USA will bite back.? :thumbup Another refutation of the "they are all the same" policy-Iraq was secular under Hussein. They heavily regulated the religious Shiites which was why he was hated so much by them. And if you think Al-Queda attacked the US because they see us a Christian country then I have a bridge to sell you. And the point of the article wasnt necessarily that NK was a threat to launch a missle. They supply their WMD technology at will and they still have after Iraq or when the US "bite back." You and Charlie Daniels can spin the administration and neo-con inconsitency all you want but you gotta do a little better than that. Why did Al Qaeda attack us then? Enlighten me. :mischief2 Not saying Al Queda is correct because they are not. They are radicals at best. But here are some reasons other than the token Islam > Christ. -US support of Isreal -Gulf War 1 -Giving money and supporting regimes that AQ doesnt support -hard push to modernize the middle east -US bases all over the middle east -sanctions against nations in the middle east -perception that US influences the middle east way too much -and IMO, the strongest reason is the CIA cutting off support to the Mujahedeen after the Soviets were defeated by the Mujahadeen. Remember Bin Laden is one we gave weapons and money too also. -get the west to alienate moderate Muslims so they can build a larger following. -etc etc Whether or not these are valid reasons or not is debatable but the 9/11 attacks are not, which is why they are international pariahs. So I dont want anyone accusing me of being a terrorist supporter or anything because Im not. And Im not saying the US is totally wrong so Im not being unpatriotic. Of course they will rant about Islam vs Christ but these guys arent idiots. Theyll deal with the west if it benefits them also. The Taliban were negotiating with a company to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. See how they can put their religious views aside when its convenient also? But of course the Christian right will expose it as Christianity defending itself against Islam. But thats also self interest. I can understand where that impression comes from since Foxnews is the mouthpiece for the conservative right.
May 25, 200422 yr Author Its sad that you have to add the "patriotic" disclaimer. Good post though. State of our modern nation. :confused
May 25, 200422 yr i'm not a republican nazi party perhaps? Maybe he doesn't affiliate with a political party. :cool
May 26, 200422 yr Why didn't Sadaam use his WMD to attack us when we invaded? Did he really have them? Then why didn't he use them? Question. So many unanswered questions. They're simply not effective against a highly mobile fluid force - your target moves out of the saturation area too quickly. We were also well equipped for and trained to deal with them should they appear. It would have been a temporary annoyance more than a threat. Gas is most effective against ill-equipped slow moving foot soldiers, stationary targets, and people not equipped at all to deal with it (like civilian populations). Aircraft delivery was out of the question with our air superiority. That left him with an artillery delivery as the only possible alternative. In this day and age, with our counter battery radar capability (determines the flight path of an incomming projectile and computes exactly where it originated), the best you can get is to fire off a few rounds, then you've got to boggie else the incomming response will be dropping on your head real soon. With our speed and technology, gas would have been an ineffective weapon even if he wanted to use it. A bit of thought and examination of doctrine usually answers most questions about why thus and such a weapon system was or was not used. Good analysis, however I still find it very hard to believe that a cornered enemy with the massive amounts of WMD that Sadaam supposedly had did not use a single one of them. Not a single one.
May 26, 200422 yr i'm not a republican nazi party perhaps? Maybe he doesn't affiliate with a political party. :cool I'm in the "pro-killing party" which includes abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia.
May 26, 200422 yr The germans had a lot of chemical and biological weapons. They did gas a lot of jews as well.
May 27, 200422 yr i'm not a republican nazi party perhaps? Maybe he doesn't affiliate with a political party. :cool I'm in the "pro-killing party" which includes abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia. I'm anti abortion being used as birth control and a money saver, but not as a health procedure. Abortion use in this country is out of control. Still not sure about the death penalty, but euthanasia is ridiculous. Just kill your own damn self. :thumbup
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.