>> I always said --
>> you can look it up in the archives -- that we _knew_
>> that there were no WMDs, otherwise the US would not
>> have attacked Iraq.
>
> I'll take your word, Justin, that you always "knew." But Saddam surely had
> weapons in 1991, and the US attacked him in Kuwait. So I think that part of
> your argument doesn't hold up. It is true, however, that the US prefers
> attacking weaker countries -- the more disarmed the better. But the first
> Gulf War took place before the UN sent inspectors into Iraq, and only a few
> years after the disastrous Iran/Iraq war.
>
> DP
I think one of the reasons the argument doesn't hold up is that Saddam, despite what was said about him, was a minimally rational man and knew that had he used gas against the US, Baghdad would be turned into an expanse of glass.
Ultimately, his having WMDs, but not using them even when his regime faced annihilation, corrodes the pretext for war just as much as his not having them.
Thiago Oppermann