4 ms·
> With Iraq we believed that they were still hoarding WMD's that they had from the 1980's That doesn't explain the necessity of the attack. If he'd had WMDs he
by 6d0debc071 12y ago
> With Iraq we believed that they were still hoarding WMD's that they had from the 1980's
That doesn't explain the necessity of the attack. If he'd had WMDs he'd had them since the 1980s and it's not clear why it was important at that point to remove a capability that had not caused us trouble in twenty years.
- melling 12y agoWell, he was clearly fine with using WMD's. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_progra... I suppose if someone has a weapon, isn't afraid to use it, and actually has used it and many occasions, you'd be a bit foolish to argue that point, "well, he hasn't used them in 20 years..."
- 6d0debc071 12y ago> Well, he was clearly fine with using WMD's And? He didn't use them against us. To do so would have been suicide. From a strategic perspective, why was it necessary to our interests in the world to remove him from power in Iraq - as it was not during the Gulf War?