Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Alberta's Child
Anyone who truly believes that the United States government would have placed thousands of U.S. military personnal in close proximity to Iraq if there was any chance in hell that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction" is naive.

Trained, well-equipped military personnel have a very high chance of surviving a chemical or bio attack. Those weapons are most effective nowadays against civilian populations, such as the Tokyo sarin attacks or the gassing of the Kurds. In other words, they're nasty terror weapons, hence the need to ensure that Saddam no longer had them, since Saddam was not willing to prove that himself.

17 posted on 05/29/2003 10:15:11 AM PDT by dirtboy (someone kidnapped dirtboy and replaced him with an exact replica)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: dirtboy
Those weapons are most effective nowadays against civilian populations, such as the Tokyo sarin attacks or the gassing of the Kurds.

These kinds of weapons don't have to produced by a rogue nation with a "weapons program." For civilians in the U.S., Iraq was never the biggest threat from such an attack.

34 posted on 05/29/2003 10:35:32 AM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson