Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There are no perfect solutions. Containment carried risks. To understand where the WMD were, we would have had to invade and occupy the country, and that had its costs, too. And we still don't have perfect information.
eta: Knowing what we now know about Saddam's capabilities, is it not crystal clear that more Americans and Iraqis have died than would have died had we continued a strategy of containment?
As I said to you the other day, who gave a shit about chemical weapons? Lumping the chemical in with the biological and nuclear was a useful way of making him sound more menacing, but chemical weapons are difficult enough to use in a military context, and they weren't a threat to the U.S.
|
I actually agree with most of this. However, I don't think any of the WMDs (not just chemical) were a threat to the US in a conventional sense. They were a threat to the neighbors but he was never going to deliver a WMD to the US without inlisting the aid of some terrorist group. Sure the Taliban did it, but that was before we were really paying attention. I think the WMD threat was to the neighbors and to the internal population. But of course, I would have supported the invasion without the WMDs so my opinion isn't very pertinent to this conversation.
