United777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1657 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1715 times:
The Iraq war is to dis-arm Iraq from WMD.
I was thinking if Iraq really had WMD including chemical weapons don't you think Iraq would have used them by now? I mean the goverment knows its going to fall or close to it! If I was Sadaam I would have used them by now. But the thing is Iraq doesn't have WMD like US and UK says.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7907 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1693 times:
If Saddam does have biological and chemical weapons, they aren't being used for the very same reasons they were not used in the Gulf War 1.0. The field commanders knew that there would be severe and immediate consequences for launching a bio/chemical attack. In the interests of protecting their own asses, those field commanders were not willing to use them.
As for any evidence that bio/chem weapons exist, Coalition forces have uncovered stores of biological survival gear, plus antidotes to many of the alleged weapons that the Iraqis are assumed to have. It is strong soft evidence, but not hard evidence.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13605 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1667 times:
Remember the propaganda aspect of this war, using WMD's against well protected forces in the desert would not only be militarily ineffective, it would be a propaganda defeat for the regime. Saddam's plan has to be to maximize Allied and civilian casualties, get them bogged down in the cities, and hope the combination of casualties, with hostile domestic and world opinion causes a withdrawal.
No matter if Saddam's military is destroyed, or any other kind of damage, if he stays in power, or his sons if he is killed, it is a win for the Ba'ath Party, like in 1991 they survived.
Saddam considers he won in 1991, he lost Kuwait, with a large chuck of his military and WMD facilities, but he stayed in power.
To this hired thug from Tikrit, who got to power and stayed there with terror and killing his opponents, survival against a superpower is victory, he 'won' in his mind because he is strong, his enemies with their odd scruples about casualties, are weak.
If it comes down to fierce street fighting, and the Allies look to be prevailing, if the Republican and Special Republican Guard fall back, and/or start to surrender, that would be the WMD moment, nothing to lose at that point, WMD's more effective in a urban environment, plenty of dead civilians to blame on the Allies, civilians don't have masks or NBC suits.
Saddam thinks the US public cannot take 10,000 casualties, he may think they cannot accept far fewer, he's read about Vietnam, he watched Somalia, he thinks a bigger version on the latter, with the protests of the SE Asia conflict that tore the US apart, is his trump card.
If WMD's can help bring that about, when things are desperate for him, if he can then still use them in any kind of concentration, he will.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4748 posts, RR: 32
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1650 times:
The reason is that Saddam is a nice peace loving man, who would never have developed these sorts of weapons. While Iraq has wealthy oil reserves, the Iraqi government spends virtually all of these resources on feeding, loving and nurturning his people, and therefore has no money or time to develop these evil things.