Another reason there are NO WMD's in Iraq...

Why would the resistance resort to suicide attacks if it had nuke, bio or chem weapons? Answer- there were/are none.

They would go retrieve them from Syria if they could, but the borders are locked down. Right? I have that right, don't I?

eat soup with a fork.....

trying to eat soup with chopsticks, they are watching the roads but thats about it, thiers like 3 highways in/out of there btw and its a big border... so... and iraq's wmds arent in syria anyway, cause they never had any, unlike most of america i believed Blix.

-LK

And the attacks are being done by terrorists who are coming into the country. One wonders why they don't bring some vails of WMD with them...

Click Here To See Fair & Balanced Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

of his regime) didn't use them (and expose their existence) ONLY in order to embarrass Shrub! See how simple it all is?
:eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Books, schmooks. Facts, schmacks.

Weapons? What weapons? we're there to give Iraqis freedom....boy you suckers just fall for any bs propaganda line they hand you....So when the freedom part of the mission fails, the reason for invading will be because we need sand for beach replenishment..

You schmucks are a disgrace and living proof the public school system is FUBAR

bunch of, say, Cubans invaded St. Thomas (a US territory), and took over the island, would you consider those that stay behind and fight for their freedom (from an overwhelming invading force, at least until the marines arrived) as terrorists? Even though they are giving their lives for the defense of what they believe is their country?

Yes, there may be a small bunch of gnats attacking at the huge lumbering beast, but they still persist.

Just keep dehumanizing people who don't agree with you. Makes them easier to kill, even when they're innocents. Are you one of these that profess to "kill them all, and let God sort them out?"

Our guys shouldn't be there securing the oil fields.

Our country shouldn't have been supporting Saddam in the first place. Cheney and Halliburton shouldn't have been having business dealings with Iraq all the time that those Faux news videos being shown today were occurring.

That would be us.

In 1991 he had WMD in quantity and did not use them against us during war. Why? Probably because he knew or was informed that we would retaliate in kind or worse.

For the next 12 years we dominated 2/3 of his air space and bombed him regularily. From this I imagine he got the impression that we did not like him and would likely sooner or later come to finish the job.

Now given a limited budget, because of sanctions, and a clearly imminent threat, how would the man prepare for us. Would he spend his limited resources buiding expensive weapons that were useless to him the last time he fought us? Or perhaps, might he choose another approach?

Perhaps something like building lots of hiding places, buying lots of RPGs, AK-47s, and various other conventional weapons, setting up resistance networks, and liberally arming them?

This is why there were no WMD's. It is simple and obvious. Creating them is expensive and possessing them made no strategic sense given the position we put him in. Saddam was smart enough to know how not to waste his money on useless adventures.

I for one, never thought he had WMD. While by no means a brilliant military mind, he was smart enough to remember what did not work and not repeat it. Note, during this war there was also no massed 'Maginot line' like in 1991, where we killed most of his troops. He spent the last 12 years reading up and perhaps learned a thing or two.