They didn't actually give him nerve gas. They gave him chemicals that are used for many industrial purposes but can also be used to manufacture chemical weapons. They are called dual use chemicals and are sold all over the world by several nations.
Thank you America:
- Thread starter IntruderLS1
- Start date
Great article Intruder!
It's ironic how today France looks down on America yet they played a crucial role in its creation.
When I act like an absolute retard, my parents look down on me also..
From CBS news actually.
Saddam should have stuck to the cease fire agreements.
That wasn't the reason given by the USA for making war:confused
Part of the cease fire agreement was for saddam to allow free access of weapons inspectors to confirm he destroyed his WMDs and the programs to make them.
In all the time the weapons inspectors were in Iraq saddam would delay or bar their access to certain areas and then in 1998 he kicked them out. He didn't let them back in until the US was ready to invade but it was too late by then.
People claim that bush just outright lied about the whole thing yet the previous administration said the same things about saddam and his WMDs. The only difference is bush acted on it.
He wasn't complying at first, the USA started making a noise, he started complying but the USA and allies invaded anyway. The weapons inspectors had to be evacuated because of this. I really fail to see how you can use that excuse for war.
He kicked them out in 1998 and did not let them back in until the US was poised to invade. It was too little too late.
Why was it too late not to invade when he had just started complying with them?
Because he was complying only with a gun to his head. What do you think would have happened if the US didn't invade? He would have gone back to what he did before because he would then know the US is all bluff and no action. Why? Because that would be consistent with his behavior.
He had 12 years to comply, why give him another 12?
I don't know, I can't predict the future. I fail to see how you can't not invade because of what you speculate might possibly happen in the future. War kills a lot of innocent people and it really shouldn't be taken this lightly.
I think it was too late. Empty threats were the Clinton era philosophy. Harsh threats followed by increasingly harsher threats didn't accomplish much.
Thousands of innocent Iraqis would still be alive.
Until they are gassed again. I suppose one could use your argument that the US and allies should not have waged war against hitler and tojo japan because millions of civilians would not have died as a result.
Two totally different times, events, people, and places.
But same line of reasoning.
Well, we did intentionally wage terrorism on a lot of innocent civilians in those wars through carpet bombing, didn't we?
Considering we did not have laser guided missiles with GPS tracking then yes.
I suppose if we go by your way of thinking then it is wrong to ever fight against anybody no matter how bad they are because civilians will always die in the process.
No, we intentionally went out of our way to bomb areas that had no strategic value at all. See Dresden.