If Saddam really had WMD's like the Pro-War camp now insists, why didn't Saddam use them against us?

Question

Was it because Saddam was such a nice guy that he would rather lose all his power, his family, and his life than to use his vast stockpiles against those nice invading Americans? Something doesn't quite add up.

Why did the War-Lovers/Profiteers change their excuse from "Everybody in the world thought Saddam had him, so that's why we had to invade" to "Saddam actually had them all along, so we were right to invade."?

Do you think changing the excuse for the blundered war effort will make people want to send their children to fight in Iraq again?

Maybe Christ really was on to something when He said we shouldn't attack people based solely on rumors, suspicions, and innuendo.

Answer 1

Could it be that he never really had any. That's a thought hard to grasp for the neo-cons.

Answer 2

Old GW had plenty of people from the libertard side that believed Saddam had WMDs. Have any of you libertards took note of your "war hero" Kerry making the statements in public about that? Yes, and the other grungy leaders of the libertards such as Kennedy, the swimmer and Dean, the donkey also had made public statements that Saddam would need to be forced to toss his WMDs. Saddam did not use them against us because he had already secretly taken them out of Iraq except for the remnants that were found later but were not ready for use. Many of the world leaders thought Saddam had WMDs. Whether Saddam had WMDs or not, we are at war with terrorists and Iraq is one of the fronts of that war. Instead of you continuing to find fault with what we did, maybe you should shut up and support the war against terrorism instead of supporting the terrorists. This WMD B.S. has been thrown against the wall so much that it is pulverized. Why not try another pile of B.S? Trouble with you libertards is that you can not come up with anything that will stick for very long after the accusations have been investigated. Trouble for our side is that the support of the American people, that GW enjoyed at first, is eroding because of this B.S. You libertards should realize that you are on the wrong side of the limb that you are sawing off and that when you bring GW down, you are also going to hit the ground yourself.

Answer 3

I'm sorry if I sound like a mean person for saying this, but, for God's sake, why does everyone insist on using our faulty excuses for the war as a reason to say that America is a bad place. Never mind that we took out a brutal dictator who needlessly killed his people based on their religion. Also never mind the fact that we allowed women to go to school by taking him out, and also setting up a system in which the people actually have a say in what goes on rather than have the same guy in power for 3 decades too many. I must however agree with you in that we should not have invaded on a false excuse, and we should aslo not lie about our excuses either. If I had been the leader at the time (Lord help us all, lol) I would have sent in the Navy Seals to whoop Saddams lazy dictator butt.

Answer 4

Let's do this one more time, obviously no one wants the facts to get in the way of a good argument, but I'm going to put them out there regardless.

WMD
-Iraq had previously used WMD against the Kurds in Iraq.
-Iraq had the manufacturing base for chemical and biological weapons.
-Iraq did not and would not allow the UN inspectors into these facilities.
-Iraq would only allow inspections of facilities after they prepared them, and only under escort.

Oil
-Iraq was selling oil in quantities limited by the "Oil for Food" program
-The major buyers of Iraqi oil were France and Russia
-Iraq continued to funnel funds from the "oil for food" program into the military.
-At any time the USA could have simply bought Iraqi oil through the UN program.

Since economic sanctions were obviously not bringing about compliance, military action was threatened through the UN Security Council. The two largest buyers of Iraqi oil at the time (France and Russia) threatened to veto any resolution to that effect. Their belief was that continued sanctions may turn Iraq around.

When America let it be known that action would be taken outside of the UN, Saddam took it one step further. Saddam threatened invading forces that the land would be blistered and the air burnt. Both are direct allusions to the effects of biological and chemical agents.

Let's sum it up.

1)Iraq previously had chemical and biological weapons.
2)Iraq previously used WMD on the Kurds.
3)UN inspections were an unmitigated failure in determining the status of WMD's
4)Saddam threatened the use of chemical and biological agents if any country invaded.

It was a bluff, and America bought it. What Saddam didn't figure on was the outcome of America falling for that bluff. Maybe Saddam studied history, at the end of WW2 the Americans utilized two WMD on Japan. Those attacks depleted the American nuclear arsenal. Japan surrendered when they were threatened with a third attack with a non-existent weapon.

It turns out that 10 years of repressive sanctions whithered the chemical and biological weapons capability of Iraq. At the same time it is estimated that 100,000 civilians were killed through lack of medical care and malnutrition. Saddam's elite forces were unscathed and Saddam's grip on the country was not affected.

If those sanctions were ever lifted, given the mindset that Saddam showed, WMD would be quickly found in Iraq.

Answer 5

You are entirely missing the point....and engaging in revisionist history I might add.

The issue with Iraq was not about being able to make a fool proof argument with 100% certainty that Iraq had WMD's. It was instead about uncertainty. It was not that the we went ahead when the best estimate were that its only 60% likelihood that Iraq was hiding WMD's. It was the fact that we could not verify that they were in fact not there and not meant for our destruction.

The Iraqi regime repeatedly violated the terms of the UN resolutions placed upon them. In the process they made a mockery of the U.S. and the U.N. They kicked the weapons inspectors out repeatedly. They continually tried to obfuscate their intentions, and outright destroyed evidence. Why would they do this if there was nothing to hide, and with the knowledge that Bush would likely invade, everything to lose? Given these behaviors and the little evidence that we had we faced a situation of uncertainty. The administration decided to make a decision based on what evidence that they had. This was a decision that was overwhelmingly supported by BOTH parties!

Why didn't he use them? Simply because they weren't weaponized! They were not in an immediately available weapon to be used, other than Grenades which has already been pointed out.

But go ahead and give this post a negative rating because it doesn't agree with your point of view. I never have any delusions that I'm going to change minds with my well-thought out, factual, and logical arguments.

By the way, during Sadaam's reign....over two million civilians in his country died needlessly.

Answer 6

You can't use what you don't have. But you can bluff that you have them and the enemy might believe you and leave you alone. Not since the end of the 1st gulf war has Saddam had such toys. Bush invaded because it looked easy and maybe he thought he could show up his old man so much for those thoughts!

Answer 7

All the reasons listed for war? - BS
The real reason had to do with Saddam Hussein changing currency to the Euro at a time when other Arab countries might well have followed suit. Since the dollar is our most precious commodity, we could not allow that. So Saddam had to go.

Answer 8

You are a joke! You do not add up! You speak of things you obviously know nothing about. Does a criminal commit crime thinking he might get caught? Does he think of the possible jail time? Did So-damn Insane use weapons - of MASS destruction - against his own ppl? Is this bit of history lost to you?

The only thing I can say to you is - GROW UP or GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY! YOUR CHOICE.

Go to the place you love most and make an active choice to prepare to die for what you (or you're told to) believe in. I'll be sure to look for you in the final conflict! You will be an unworthy opponent at best, but I will be merciful.

Sorry, if I've upset you. Really. Guess I've been playing too many X-box games. Just go kick your mom's poodle. You'll feel better and it'll be our little secret. Mom won't know!

Answer 9

Even if Saddam didn't have them he will find away to attack. But if he had them I believe he would use them anyway. If not against the US , he will certainly will use it against others. In both cases it is catastrophy to all humanity. Beside the matter is not with the weapon but with the mind of the man who will use it. Too many countries now have massive bombs and weapons but they didn't cause any big attacks against countries and didn't kill too many ppl like what happen in 9/11 attacks. The terrorists weapon was only a small piece of knife or cutter. Got the idea.
Not the tool but how to use it that makes different in results.

Answer 10

We were prepared for the use of WMD. Our vehicles have chemical agent monitoring equipment. Our troops have suits designed to protect from chemical agents. We had vaccinated our troops for many of the likely biological agents.

Bottom line, Saddam's use of WMD against our forces would have been an inconvenience and would not have changed the outcome. Yes we would have taken casualties, but it would not have stopped us. Saddam's gassing the Iranian army did not stop them and they were ill prepared for a chemical attack.

Had Saddam used his WMD against our forces, he would have lost the publicity war. He did not have a lot of international sympathy to begin with, and that would have really painted him as an international villain.

There were a lot of political calculations on Saddam's part.

Answer 11

They used WMD'S as a sales pitch too much.
Sadaam broke UN treaties 17 times since the Gulf War though, and that gave us the legal right to go in there.
I am glad we are in Iraq. That madman in Iran is threatening to use nukes as soon as he gets them. Having our army right next door in Iraq is incredibly smart!
I'd rather pretend that we have a nice cool world where we can drop acid, listen to music and screw babes all day, but thats not the real world. There are Muslims out there and they want to kill us. Unless you want them to kill your kids or family first?