I don't want to get into an argument here but calling it "historical revisionism" is absolutely disrespectful to the rest of the world.
Historical revisionism is polls showing a huge percentage of Americans still think Saddam was involved in 911.
USA had no business invading Iraq (nor practically any other country, for that matter) and using the excuse that "Saddam claimed he had them to look tough" in order to justify so many tragedies (mostly foreign but also American) is egregious.
When someone performs threat assessment they do it based on facts and not on posturing or they'd prosecute every internet troll out there.
ugh. I'm going to stop now because I'm pissed but I'm going to let you know that you're basically apologizing for crimes against humanity with what sounds like kinder garden excuses.
This isn't some lowbrow conspiracy site, and I don't expect the participants to have the sort of superficial, facile understanding of world events that you've so evidently demonstrated. If reality makes you "pissed", you should stick to gentler pastures that conform with your worldview.
I don't think the US should have invaded Iraq for purely pragmatic and financial reasons. That does nothing to change the actual complex, convoluted reality that led to the decisions that were made, and then the long and fruitless, but very intense, search for WMDs after the attack.
You know, we found WMDs after the attack. They were just the wrong ones.
President George W Bush led the US into war in Iraq on the back of assertions that Saddam Hussein had recently-built weapons of mass destruction, supplies that had only increased in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks.
Yet all the chemical weapons found by soldiers were manufactured before 1991, the Times reported. They consisted largely of 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets – not designed for mass destruction, and produced in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.
According to the Times, the reports were embarrassing for the Pentagon because, in five of the six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been “designed in the US, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies”.
They are WMDs by certain standards of international law on the technicality of belonging to a certain class of chemical munitions. The shells they were packaged in were not designed for mass dispersal, however the classification is on the stuff inside the shells.
I'm sorry, acting emotionally offended by reality (and hurling spurious and misplaced claims like "kinder garden excuses") is the domain of the rank imbecile, and has absolutely no place on HN. This sounds hostile, but quite honestly you should take it as such - your reply is outrageous nonsense. It is a crime against any reasonable discourse.
And FWIW, "my government" is the Canadian government. But remarkably I have an ability to see the world as a complex gradient of shades, where there is no simple right, no simple wrong, and where people who pretend that they are should be mocked into silence.
Historical revisionism is polls showing a huge percentage of Americans still think Saddam was involved in 911.
USA had no business invading Iraq (nor practically any other country, for that matter) and using the excuse that "Saddam claimed he had them to look tough" in order to justify so many tragedies (mostly foreign but also American) is egregious.
When someone performs threat assessment they do it based on facts and not on posturing or they'd prosecute every internet troll out there.
ugh. I'm going to stop now because I'm pissed but I'm going to let you know that you're basically apologizing for crimes against humanity with what sounds like kinder garden excuses.