If Iraq had all these weapons of mass destruction, why didn't they use them rather than die by the thousands??

Question

Or, are people who claim Iraq had weapons of mass destruction basing their claims on broad, meaningless definitions and screwed up intelligence?

Answer 1

Asking that question is giving the answer ! ! !

Answer 2

There were a number of reasons.

First - we had made sure that every Iraqi officer was aware that anybody involved in the use of a WMD would be charged as a war criminal.

Second - we never gave the Iraqis a chance to use them. Launching an artillery barrage with chemical warheads is not a simple process. And these preparations were something we watched very closely for. The moment we saw anything even faintly resembling such a preparation we hammered that location with airstrikes, MRLS and our own artillery.

Third - most of the 'operational' level leadership in the Iraqi army did not even know where the chemical shells were. So even though Saddam had ordered his people to use chemical weapons - he had neglected to tell them where to get them.

BTW - I wish that all of those people who claim that Saddam had no WMDs would explain the two mustard-gas shells my unit recovered.

Answer 3

The Hussein regime, without a doubt, had so called WMDs as is evidenced by their rampant use of such against the Kurds (or maybe those people were just unlucky enough to come across the rare Mustardgas flower?). The Iraqi people would never have been trusted with such weapons.

Even an abusive tyrant such as Hussein is not so stupid as to use CBN type weapons on the world stage when the entire free world has condemned their use and he had personally denied their existence.

I really don't understand the reasoning behind such questions as this. All one need do is research the events leading to our current situation and the inanity of such queries becomes evident.

Answer 4

Iraq buried their own fighter planes in the sand. The reason Saddam didn't use WMD was to split the allience and it worked. There were less allies in Gulf War II than Gulf War I. Chances are that if WMD were used, then the UN or other organizations would have an obligation to send troops.

Answer 5

If Sadam had WMD capability, he would have used them against US forces and the US would have had a much harder time of it.

The WMD intelligence reports were disputed at the time by most other governments and intelligence agencies. This is another example of the U.S. executive branch listening to what they want to hear and even seeking out information that would support their goals.

Most wars require a "Pearl Harbor" type rationale to mobilize popular opinion. WMD and 9/11 were important parts of our rationale.

The fact is, the administration was looking for any excuse to dominate the Middle East for economic and strategic reasons.

Answer 6

Iraq has no mass destruction weapons , it had only some chimical weapns with germany origin that used it gainst
iraqi kurds [ halabje] in irannain forces during his war with iran.in common it is a political propaganda , todays us officials claim that iran has nuclaer wepones , it is just big lie
to domenate middle east and its oils .

Answer 7

Because it's not actually the Iraqui's that are fighting anymore. And, there were no weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

this says something about it.

Answer 8

I think the answer to this is pretty well known now. They did not have them, it was an excuse.

Answer 9

They did use them, but on their own people.

Answer 10

Rhetorical question?