> Joanna
As I said. But the thread wasn't about an Iraqi "threat" to our very existence, but whether or not he had weapons. Many, including myself, thought he must have had something, at the very least components. Given Saddam's brutal history, I don't think that that was unreasonable.
And this angle that "those in the know" knew he was armless, thus they attacked, is being used by parts of the pro-war crowd. Again, as I said earlier, Saddam had plenty of weapons in 1990-91, and the US still attacked him. It simply came down to a severe imbalance of power. Saddam wasn't crazy enough to use chemical weapons on US troops when he knew all the US wanted was to kick him out of Kuwait. Why risk his power at home? The US knew this too, which is why (among other reasons) they attacked.
DP