2006-09-03 17:58:17 · 10 answers · asked by l 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
There are only two possible conclusions:
Either
1- The administration considered the lives of our troops to be the equivalent of cannon fodder,
Or
2- The administration was aware that there were no WMD's in Iraq.
(Neither one of these would be the least bit surprising.)
2006-09-03 18:07:06 · answer #1 · answered by Candidus 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
To say soldiers entered B'dad without protection against WMD is NOT a FACT!
In fact, certain vehicles are fully protected against WMD! They may not be bomb proof, but they are protected from WMD. I'm guessing you never walked out in the heat - even in your abercrombie skater shorts - let alone donned a chem suit. Yes?
Protection gear is very draining on the wearer. Others - in the know - have already told you as much. I won't repeate it.
What do you think constitutes a WMD? No doubt a missle the size of a telephone pole set upon a 16 ton truck with a crew of 6!
Grow up. Or get out!
2006-09-05 13:53:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the troops entered Baghdad without WEARING chem gear. They were in full gear in temperatures that ranged into the 130's, and wearing chem gear with everything else would have been extremely uncomfortable, as well as restricting line-of-site. That does not mean that they did not chem gear with them for protection in the event of a chemical attack.
The conclusion that US soldiers entered Iraq and Baghdad with chem gear implies that the US military assumed that there was a risk of WMDs.
2006-09-04 01:05:57 · answer #3 · answered by royalrunner400 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First of all, WMDs.... weapons of mass distruction??? No one is protected!! and to answer your question... since Baghdad is in Iraq and clearly NO WMDs have been found after searching the entire country, the only conclusion is that your statement is false.
2006-09-11 20:40:17 · answer #4 · answered by tampico 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The obvious response: there is no protection from weapons of mass destruction.
Attempting to provide a fighting force with protection against real WMD's would be seen as a joke. If a weapon of such magnitude (chemical or nuclear) were used then there would be no hope regardless of the layers of protectice coating that ziplock had provided.
Such weapons are beyond insanity... thus there is no way to prepare for their use...instilling belief that it is possible for our fighting forces to defend against such WMD tactics is misleading so the controlling powers must send in their armies with the only provided protection being the belief in their patriotic duty to die for the cause...
2006-09-04 01:10:02 · answer #5 · answered by BaseVinyl 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There are no WMD. They were not found, they may be in Syria or Iran or another "axis of evil" country that is a state supporter of terrorism.
I think you must mean IED (Improvised Explosive Device) that they use to blow up HummVees. The military must learn to improvise. Adapt and overcome. They can do that if the cry babies at home will give them the chance.
Our military was never designed to be an occupation force. In "shock and awe" they rocked and performed superbly. Our nation's military is always training and preparing for the next war. It is their job. But the next war isn't always the one that they prepared for.
2006-09-04 01:52:30 · answer #6 · answered by submariner662 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ask the little children playing computer games in doing the ghost busting out there on planet earth.
How they were singing the "Green Beret" and got themselves caught with the ghost stories out there on planet earth.
But something extra ordinary happened along the way that they have to stay behind for the good of mankind on planet earth.
Understand why they were blurr in the three corner fight out there on planet earth.
So let the dirty old men in office solve the problems on what went wrong out there for the survival of living human kind on planet earth.
2006-09-04 05:08:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not only that, not enough ammunition, no bullet proof vests, no liners in helmets. Sounds to be like ole' Busher wants to trim the population. Same deal as the Katrina debacle. I can't say more, or they would come and get me. I am just so angry. It is okay to send our fine sons and daughters over to that snake pit, but where is his fine family? (Busher's family) Oh, I forgot, out in the bars tying one on and have jello shots licked off their tummies. My son was in the first Gulf War, and I am still angry about that. It was the same scenario then. Do you want to know what my son wanted when I asked him what I could send him? He said, "Send Ammunition. We have rifles, but no bullets!" Enough said.
2006-09-04 01:10:35 · answer #8 · answered by violetmax 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
there were no WMDs. Americans invaded Iraq at the instigation of the Jews who are avowed enemy of all prophets sent by God
2006-09-04 06:58:31 · answer #9 · answered by Shaheen 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Chemical protection? the US doesn't care about its troops, or there are no WMDs...
2006-09-04 01:00:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋