Why US hasn't been able to find a single chemical weapon in IRAQ ?
467933
Because US wasn't looking for chemical weapons in Iraq. Bush just needed an excuse to invade Iraq to get control of the loads of oil located there.
765181
In order to combat terrorism, the USA needed to eliminate possible bases and supply lines for terrorist activity which were located within Iraq.  The war is a result of the 9/11 attacks, and an attempt to prevent any more such attacks.
50168
Following the formula of something yet to be discovered must be there defies physics. The analogy of losing something in your home and knowing it's there doesn't work because we didn't live in Iraq and physically lose, misplace or hide weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not have plenty of time to hide weapons because resolution 1441 from the UN recalled previous resolutions that stated what would happen if there were weapons found and that sanctions should be applied unilaterly through the UN. It is doubtful that our sattilites and other technologies could not track these weapons, but could accuratly find them and define them with great detail before the war. Powell when addressing showed pictures of trucks "where" chemical weapons were made. But you can't track semis through the dessert?  There were wmd's in Iraq which came from various administrations in the 80's that were used to fight Iran. But most of that was used and the rest accounted for and destroyed by weapons inspectors. I find if very interesting that Saddam had these weapons at his disposal and decided to "hide" them instead of using them against the troops when we invaded. Not only were wmd's not in Iraq, but Iraq lacked the capabilities to launch these missles to isreal let alone the US as he had no missles with a range further than 90 miles and once a missle hit it's target there was no way to deploy the warhead (wmd) without vaporizing it. What is also interesting is that bush claimed Saddam had at his disposal airforce training planes that would spread these weapons. How is it a single engine prop could not be detected especially if we knew about them and not destroyed before refueling 40 times and days later if it were to attack the US? Yeah I agree Iraq is better off without Saddam, but one cannot change the motive after an action to justify the lack of a motive in the first place. He should be allowed to run his mouth as even he is entitled to free speech, but then again few could listen and find justification for what he did.
93493
There isn't any.  Only the tin-foil-hat crowd that looks for some kind of justification for attacking Iraq, ( outside of oil ) even care to try.  Note they offer no direct evidence, just misleading and unsupported claims and maybe a link to a conspiracy website or two.
1006465
They were already unavailable, forgotten and degraded so that they were no longer deadly. They were from before the first Iraq War and there is no reason to suspect that Saddam even knew of their existence, nevermind the fact that they were degraded and not deadly.
332514
There were no Chemical weapons to start with. The process to manufacture the weapons is very dirty and if they had a chemical weapons manufacturing capability, they would have found those long ago, even if the weapons were moved. You can't hide all of the toxic waste generated in the process.\n\nAdditionally, if Saddam had weapons, don't you think he had them for a reason. And what better reason than to defend yourself against an attack? Didn't you ever wonder why they weren't used when they were invaded?\n\nAdditionally, if the US truely believed Saddam had WMD, they would never had send troops in until intelligence identified where they were located and the threat was neutralized first. Otherwise it would be too great a risk to our soldiers. \n\nI always wonder, how is it that we knew exactly were they were before we invaded (remember all the pretty pictures Powell showed us) but now that we are there, we can't find them anymore?
1163474
I'm just personally wondering why they haven't tried in a very long time. Before it was just a pissing match with Russia. I know of many conspiracy theories out there showing things that contradict, but I don't know nor do I care.\n\nThe current Bush administration should care either to try to spend tax dollars on more pointless Moon and Mars missions. They should maybe try to focus on all of the stuff happening here on the ground first!
515656
becuz they think Iran is associated with Al Qaeda and the U.S. doesn't want any chances. Which is really stupid when u think about it becuz ONLY the U.S has ever used the weapons. Many countries have them.
400972
The are left unsecured in Iraq for the insurgents to pick and use against us... \n\nIt's a brilliant strategy to keep America "occupied" in Iraq while the rest of the world is busy building nuclear weapons... Plus, they get the benefit of draining the U.S. treasury because of Iraq and oil!!!
1027816
The guy saying that Sarin cannot degrade is incorrect.  You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, gentlemen.\n\n"According to a U.N. report last year, Iraq claimed that there was "no industrial-scale production" of the agent. During the early 1990s after the Persian Gulf War, Iraq emptied many of its sarin shells under U.N. supervision. The sarin agent has a limited shelf life unless stored under carefully controlled conditions, Buchanan said."\n\nhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-05-17-sarin_x.htm\n\n\n"Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA [1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors."\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin\nhttp://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960715/72569.htm\n\n\nSarin is a deadly weapon, but not after it has decayed for 20 years.  The sarin in these shells has long since lost its properties and was more or less worthless.  It is no more dangerous than toxic waste in the degraded form, hardly a 'weapon of mass destruction'.  \n\nThe assertions made by many before the war were that Iraq had thousands of tons of Bio-chemical weapons and was actively producing them.  The keyword: active.  These shells are all from before the FIRST gulf war which was in 1991.  This means they were likely from the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s and were not symblomatic of any modern Iraqi WMD effort.  Iraq did NOT have stockpiles of WMD, they had depleted sarin shells they probably forgot they buried in some part of their desert hellhole.  Depleted sarin is not a weapon, let alone a WMD.  500 shells are not stockpiles, especially if they contain unweaponized material.\n\nThe bottom line is that Bush and crew overstated their hand by an extreme margin.
1181821
Go to the White House on the net and get Bush's speech which, after 2 years, admitted there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The UN told Bush that before the invasion but  he ignored them!\n\nIf you need other sources let me know.\n\nNo doubt on weapons as search ends\nBy Dafna Linzer\nWashington\nJanuary 15, 2005\n\nPage Tools\nEmail to a friend Printer format   \nPresident George Bush at a media briefing this week.\nPhoto: AP\nRelated\nBiological agents \nThe White House ends the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, the main justification for the Iraq war.\n\nThe hunt for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq has come to an end nearly two years after President George Bush ordered US troops to disarm Saddam Hussein.\n\nThe top CIA weapons hunter is home, and analysts are back at Langley, Virginia.\n\nOfficials who served with the Iraq Survey Group said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort just before Christmas.\n\nFour months after Charles Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to the US Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush Administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the survey group's final conclusions and will be published this northern spring\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nBush's no-apologies speech convinces few \nCHILL AT U.N.: President defends Iraq policy to polite but firm criticism\nRobert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer\n\nWednesday, September 24, 2003\n\n \nPresident Bush strongly defended the U.S. invasion of Iraq before the United Nations Tuesday, getting a polite but steely response as world leaders warned that his go-it-alone policies could undermine the international organization. \n\nThe president came to the U.N. General Assembly in New York hoping to secure greater international support for the U.S.-led occupation as well as commitments of troops and financial aid. Based on the reaction to his speech, including open criticism from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and French President Jacques Chirac, he got few if any takers. \n\nSeeking to set aside past differences over America's decision to go to war without U.N. authorization, Bush told the assembled delegates that "the nation of Iraq needs and deserves our aid. And all nations of goodwill should step forward and provide that support." \n\nBut Chirac, addressing the assembly after Bush had spoken, strongly criticized the president's decision to wage war unilaterally, calling it "one of the gravest trials" in U.N. history and saying it "undermined the multilateral system."
788037
there are several ways to look at this.firstly the weapons of mass destruction were never found but the iraqs were living under a dictator.sometimes you have to look at the wider angle and decide the real motives behind it was it oil.i dont know but what i do know is this tinderbox is well and truly kindled and people are getting killed trying to stabalise the situation.i feel sorry for all the soldiers and innocent people caught up and being killed  in a confused and volatile country .in my opinion it is a no win situatin for both sides .
639892
The U.S. has not used a nuclear weapon at all, be it civililian or militarily, since Japan and the end of WWII, a MUCH different time than today.  I have heard claims, however, of people that believe the U.S. has freely, and openly been using "tactical nukes" in the Middle East.  This is not true.  What a lot of people are mentioning is known as depleted uranium.  While it's not exactly the greatest stuff on Earth, it is far from what some believe it is to be--a type of nuclear weapon.  It's actually used in many civilian applications as well.\n\nhttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/\n\nAs far as the U.S. having weapons, it's known that we have decreased our arsenal, but at the same time, still have a large amount.  Is it possible that someone could get a hold of them?  Sure, I would suppose, but why bother the U.S. and the military that is surely guarding our stockpile when you could get it for a price just by asking in some parts of the world.  \n\nThe United States will forever maintain a nuclear arsenal for strategic purposes.  It is impossible to believe that if we took the lead and destryoed every one that we had, that the rest of the world would follow suit.  We'd be left unprotected, and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction--one of the main reasons the Cold War went the way it did--would be eliminated, leaving us naked and extremely vulnerable.  We maintain them anymore as defense, though I truly believe that in this political climate, we will never see the day that the U.S. fires an offensive nuclear attack...I think defensive may even be a stretch.  \n\nThe reason that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons is simple.  They have made their intentions known, and I truly believe that it is simply a matter of time before they place one on top of a missile and fire one into Israel, and one into Iraq (to wipeout any remaining U.S. and coalition forces).  While some believe that Iran is bluffing, and claim that they do not have the technology, I'll leave the bluffing to the poker players, and take the threat of a nuclear weapon coming out of Iran in the near future as a very serious one.
957367
Many resons, the UN security council stated they had WMD. Iraq is a stratigic point in controlling the middle east. It keeps the fight off American soil to keep the civiilian causalities down.
723054
I so agree, nothings getting done over there except hundreds of people keep getting killed, there's no reason for us to be over there, your so right, we went there looking for nuclear weapons and they still haven't found any so enough already..haven't we lost enough of our soldiers?...we do need to back off and just declare peace before things get out of hand, till then let's just pray...God bless
670038
From investigations, not even up to one. Because such things did not exist. But since the invasion more Iraqis have lost their life in 3 years of US occupation. Than in the entire time of saddams adminstration
996474
Yes they found them in Iraq, however it was proven some time ago that the WMD's had been relocated into Syria prior to our attack.  What does it really matter?  There are several other reasons why we NEEDED to enter Iraq, all really good, but it doesn't matter because the Dem's and Lib's hate War and they HATE Bush, so they will hang onto this a little longer.