1
   

Where Are All The W.M.D.s?

 
 
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 01:59 pm
It is now nearly two weeks into this war and NOT ONE WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION HAS BEEN USED BY IRAQ.

Even more interesting, all of the roughly 100,000 allied forces have invaded Iraq protected only with gasmasks, rather than by serious defenses against all Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons so loudly and still being proclaimed many times daily by our politicians and military leaders.

The only explanations, either huge numbers of our forces were sent to face total annihilation by Saddam's W.M.D.s (an unacceptable human and political disaster) or THE WEAPONS NO LONGER EXIST AND THE BUSH GANG KNEW IT MONTHS AGO and have lied continuously to the United Nations and the rest of the world ever since!

Which do you think it is?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 22,603 • Replies: 520
No top replies

 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 02:03 pm
John, I'm afraid the Bush administration's charges of WMD's were mostly speculation, but I must agree with that speculation. I think they are hidden very well, and it'll take months before our troops find them - if ever. I just can't believe that Saddam all of a sudden had a conscience of humanity, and destroyed all their WMD's. That's too unlikely a scenario in my books. c.i.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 02:16 pm
This is an interesting problem. I think the Bush administration honestly believed they would find them by now.

I am wondering if Saddam has tricked the Bush administration again. The tactics here are very interesting...

The *threat* of a chemical weapon is almost equivalent militarily to the use of such a weapon. Those planning the Iraqi defense seem smart and sophisticated enough to understand this, and to encourage the Americans to believe this threat is real.

All the Iraqis have to do is plant enough suggestions of WMD use in the "intelligence" chatter. American soldiers will stop fighting to put on gear every time there is an artillary barrage. The constant fear will certainly affect the young American soldiers.

Then the propaganda benefit of not using these weapons is pretty great. By making the American's think a chemical attack is imminent and then not doing it, the Iraqi's have the best of both worlds.

I would not be surprised to find the *Iraqis* have been doing their best to convince the Americans that their WMD program was bigger than it was. This is all about propaganda and perspective. Right now Saddam is playing the game much better than our inept administration.
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 02:33 pm
Would the very cunning Bush Administration have been insane enough to risk the possibility of 100,000 American body bags? Not a chance!

Saddam's defector son-in-law told the Government years ago that Saddam destroyed all of his most dangerous weapons in 1992. Little wonder that our forces have only gas masks, but very useful if we use CS gas when invading towns and cities.
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 02:40 pm
Some of the U.S. and Israeli intelligence sources hint that the Iraqi WMD were smuggled to Syria while the U.S. prepared for the war, and in critical moment a dictator from Damascus may provide his colleague from Baghdad with it. That is why Israeli government did not decrease security alert rating and still wants civilians to keep their gas masks with them everywhere they go.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 05:29 pm
stiessd,

The case for the Syria connection was not made very well and is just as pspeculative. An off the cuff comment by Sharon does not make that allegation true.
0 Replies
 
ferrous
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 06:22 pm
Time Will Tell
As for commenting on the whereabouts of the Weapons of Mass Destruction, I can only say that "Time will tell."

To argue anything less (or more) is to set oneself up for an embarrassment. Are we to expect a full apology from those that are proved wrong? I doubt it. Likely, the event will be ignored by the losing side, when those that were correct, will slap their sides, point fingers, and shout "I told you so!" The usual rhetoric will ensue, from both sides.

The UN inspectors failed to find any, and the US Military (so far) have failed to find any. Is it possible that Iraq is telling the truth, and doesn't have any?

Again, speculation on our part is way too early. Lets hope that "IF" Iraq, does truly have such weapons, that they don't become that desperate to use them. I fear, that since they are now using "Suicide Bombers" they have reached that point, and again:

"Time will tell."
0 Replies
 
steissd
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 06:33 pm
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 06:42 pm
Mr Sharon also has more motive to spread disinformation. He did not say that the WMDs were moved, he raised the possibility. Since he has a vested interest in putting some of the focus on Syria he would be more inclined to raise the possibility regardless of whether he had evidence to support it or not.

He has not provided any evidence and as far as I know he only raised the possibility, he didn't even sound certain of it himself.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 06:44 pm
The coalition soldiers have more than gas masks. They have heavy, hot, chloroaniline and charcoal quilt suits for chem attacks. remember Iraq is as big as Texas and theyre still finding artifacts in Texas thousands of years after they were placed there. Weve found a gas weapons training school inN Iraq. It was in use as late as summer 2002. They were training their boys to do something. The binary compound loads for artillery delivery can be stored in standard caches and kept separate so they dont react if we bomb the caches. It may take months if not longer.I do bet however, that theyve got binary loads in the ring around Baghdad. I hope they arent stupid enough to use them. My feeling is that the entire Bush administration isnt packed too tightly either and , if we are faced with gas shots , we may "go nuke"(at least tactical nuke shots)
0 Replies
 
gezzy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 07:29 pm
bookmark
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Mar, 2003 10:08 pm
This is a scary question - one that almost seems lose-lose no matter how it's answered. The stated big reason for going into Iraq (after the war on terrorism thing and before the we are the liberators of Iraq thing) was the WMD thing. That seems to have been lost. If they have them and use them, then the Bush people are vindicated, but at what cost? If they don't have them and we destroy Iraq - what's the cost? And why will we be killing all those Iraqis if what we want is regime change? Last week Tommy Franks said there will be time to look for WMD after we start winning the war. Rumsfeld said it's all Tommy Franks' war game.

Meanwhile, remember all the fuss about Osama binLaden?
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2003 02:20 am
As an aside, I wonder who in the Administration has shares in the suit manufacturers and how much have they cost taxpayers?

According to General Franks, all Saddam's W.M.Ds are hidden in Baghdad (where they could be released by a lucky U.S. bomb?).

Does Bush keep all of America's W.M.D.s in Washington and Blair keep his in London?

Does anyone else smell lying rats in high places?
0 Replies
 
owi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2003 02:23 am
hmm...weapons of mass destruction, can anybody give me a good definition of weapons of masss destruction?
0 Replies
 
John Webb
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2003 05:45 am
All of Saddam Husseins - whereas all of ours are nice kind friendly weapons. Cool
0 Replies
 
gezzy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2003 06:18 am
Owi
Welcome to A2K.

The answer to your question is chemical bombs.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2003 06:33 am
Also, bombs that have a payload of bacteria that could start epidemics.-
and of course, nuclear bombs!

Welcome to A2K Owi!
0 Replies
 
New Haven
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2003 07:09 am
Have the weapons been shipped to the US?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2003 09:55 am
New Haven wrote:
Have the weapons been shipped to the US?


COMMENT:

A better question would be "Have the weapons been shipped FROM the Us?"

The United States forces WILL find weapons of mass destruction -- just as a determined narcotics detective WILL find drugs during a raid.

It really has to do with efficiency.

Just be sure you have the drugs (or weapons of mass destruction) available to stash if you can't find the ones you insist are there.

Efficiency!
0 Replies
 
owi
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2003 10:16 am
thanks for welcome!

For me "depleted uranium weapons" fall in the category of WMD too. These weapons cause cancer, killing even children who are born 10 years later. After the second gulf war they caused a 700%-increase of cancer in South-Iraq. Until now the only WMD in iraq have been dropped by the British and US military.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Where Are All The W.M.D.s?
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 02:51:28