4 ms·
>Following the latter, the imposed weapons inspections and economical sanctions reduced Iraq to a non-threat. His chemical weapons were destroyed; hundreds of i
by 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 agoNot 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.