Originally Posted by SDW2001
OK...agreed. But that doesn't mean Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Allowed? Why the paranoia about Iran? Who are they likely to attack now, having not attacked anyone in 250 years? If they *are* developing nuclear weapons (an allegation without any proof), it's far more likely for deterrent purposes against the track record of others' aggression.
The hardliners in Israel who run the show there (and exert massively disproportionate influence in US foreign policymaking circles... both Republicans and Democrats)... have designs on creating a "Greater Israel" in the Middle East. Armed with a very large arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and supported by most NATO countries including the US and UK, Israeli expansionism is a subject of alarm in certain nations in the region.
They did at one time, and they used them.
Iraq manufactured none of them. They were supplied to Iraq by.....
The Iraq war was about failing to verifiably disarm. Iraq unquestionably did not do that.
How is it possible to verify that a nation has no weapons of mass destruction? That was a logically impossible (meaningless) demand. Ever tried to braid fog?
When the inspectors were ordered out before they had completed their searches, that made it quite clear that the Bush Administration was not interested in a diplomatic solution. They wanted war, they had set a date, and nothing was going to stop that craving.
That is a lie. All of it.
Ask the troops! Both British
. Humvees were not protected against IEDs.
Speculation. Dangerous, unsupported speculation.
Who else did Saddam Hussein ally with while in power, outside of his support from the US during the Reagan Admin.?
There were more than two reasons, though WMD was primary one. Your link shows that we already know...we got bad intel.
OMFG. Curveball was known by CIA to be an unreliable source and a known liar. So, you are excusing the Bush Administration for launching an 8.5 years long, $3 trillion war based on bogus by a known liar and opportunist, and they never even checked the veracity of his sources? Jesus H. $%^^ing Christ.
What would have happened if BushCorp had *accurate* intel.. ie the fact (known to many) that Iraq not *NOT have WMDs? The answer is the same... see above.. . the wanted the war(s) and they started planning in January 2001, 14 months before it got going.... and >8 months BEFORE 9/11.
But as for war, it's clear that the administration decided that after 9/11 we were no longer willing to deal with Saddam in the way he had been dealing with him.
More bogus reasoning from the White House: They *knew*
that Saddam Hussein was 100% uninvolved with 9/11... and any linkage to the two was "bearing false witness" to the extreme.
The risk that he might, in fact, cooperate with terror group out of mutual hatred of the U.S. was too great.
Again, bogus. The administration knew the realities of 9/11, and knew that Saddam Hussein/Iraq did not partner with either the perpetrators of 9/11, and was even warning Iraqis to resist outside groups (such as Islamic militants).
This is reasoning I agree with, though he turned out not to have WMD.
Which was already known before the war started. Saddam Hussein, shortly after the Gulf War had ordered all Iraq's chemical and biological weapons destroyed. This was revealed by Saddam Hussein's defector son-in-law (Kamel),
questioned by both MI6 and CIA before he died.
There must be something severely wrong with the picture painted by BushCorp when evidence to the contrary appears in the US corporate "weasel/knee-pad/lapdog" media, which supported the war with neither rhyme, nor reason nor evidence