11 ms·

Iran invasion was in the 80s, Kuwait was 1991. Following the latter, the imposed weapons inspections and economical sanctions reduced Iraq to a non-threat. His

Iran invasion was in the 80s, Kuwait was 1991. Following the latter, the imposed weapons inspections and economical sanctions reduced Iraq to a non-threat. His chemical weapons were destroyed; hundreds of inspections found nothing. There were no intelligence rumblings of any hostile plans on Iraq's part, aside from a later, minor Kuwait incident. The US and the UK ignored the utter lack of evidence and preemptive decided he had WMDs anyway, with zero solid evidence to back those claims up; the two main "defectors" who described mobile chemical weapons labs were provided by Chalabi, and nobody did the due diligence to check if their claims were enough grounds for an invasion. Not to mention the other purported reason for going to war, the Al Qaeda connection. As a secular state who clamped down on religious extremism, Iraqi support for Al Qaeda was nonsensical. Iraq sought to cooperate with the US against Al Qaeda, but were rebuffed.

tsotha 12y ago
>Following the latter, the imposed weapons inspections and economical sanctions reduced Iraq to a non-threat. His chemical weapons were destroyed; hundreds of inspections found nothing. There were no intelligence rumblings of any hostile plans on Iraq's part, aside from a later, minor Kuwait incident. None of this is true, and even if it were true we could not have known it to be true, particularly based on they way Saddam was acting.
- lobster_johnson 12y ago
  Not true? What kind of threat did Iraq constitute? Did inspectors find anything? What intelligence about hostile plans did the US have? (And I don't mean the idiotic statements by Cheney et al, which proclaimed Iraq to be training terrorists.) Absence of evidence is not evidence. Weapons inspectors found nothing before the invasion, and nothing afterwards. Also, the CIA had very little inside intelligence about the regime (so called defectors turned out to have false information) on which to base decisions on. If you can't know, don't invade.

tsotha 12y ago

>Following the latter, the imposed weapons inspections and economical sanctions reduced Iraq to a non-threat. His chemical weapons were destroyed; hundreds of inspections found nothing. There were no intelligence rumblings of any hostile plans on Iraq's part, aside from a later, minor Kuwait incident. None of this is true, and even if it were true we could not have known it to be true, particularly based on they way Saddam was acting.

lobster_johnson 12y ago
Not true? What kind of threat did Iraq constitute? Did inspectors find anything? What intelligence about hostile plans did the US have? (And I don't mean the idiotic statements by Cheney et al, which proclaimed Iraq to be training terrorists.) Absence of evidence is not evidence. Weapons inspectors found nothing before the invasion, and nothing afterwards. Also, the CIA had very little inside intelligence about the regime (so called defectors turned out to have false information) on which to base decisions on. If you can't know, don't invade.