As we are all discussing the evolution of the newest events in the Persian Gulf, I thought we best pick up one issue at a time and try to handle it as analythical as possible.

I have thought about the question "why didn't Iraq use any mass distruction weapons yet?".

Fact: at the time I'm posting this, no source reported the use of mass destruction (i.e. chemical, biological or atomar) weapons. Moreoever, the allied troops haven't found any such weapon in Iraq yet.

Analysis: I see three possibilities:
1. The iraqis don't have any such weapons -- this is the most simple possibility.
2. They have a limited quantity of such devices. I guess that they cannot have a large quantity of mass destruction weapons, because that would have been noticed by the UN inspectors. Ok, then. If they have it why don't they use it? One issue that didn't come in the news (yet) is, that if they would use mass destruction weapons, in any form, this would instantly legitimate the war against iraq. We know that many states do not aggree with this campain. I think this would be a strong argument against using such weapons.
3. They save the limited ammount of weapons for the ultimative defence of Baghdad. Hummm...somehow the argument from 2. holds here too, but who sais that the decisions necessarily have to be purely rational ones? They have put some oil filled channels in flames around Baghdad today (CNN and other media sais) to "hinder the pilots of the bombers". Not necessaily a usefull decision, if you ask me; cruise missiles don't have pilots.

What is your oppinion about this particular issue?