The same Clinton that claimed an Aspirin factory was a chemical weapons site run by Bin Laden and attacked it (at no small cost) with 79 cruise missiles? O'Neil never claimed to be a national security expert. Rather he just related what was discussed at Bush Cabinet meetings. So claiming that he is not a national security expert is a strawman fallacy. So how was O'Neil wrong about the economy? As far as I know he strongly supported Bush's economic policy other than tax cuts. He strongly supported Bush in a hostile Senate hearing chaired by Robert Byrd, which I watched. Do you know anything about the man? Such as him working at OMB for four multiple administrations. Or his economic success in private industry? You are 100% right about O'Neil being contentious. Working at main Treasury while he was secretary I have some direct knowledge on that subject. But I am unaware of his veracity ever being questioned. Any thoughts regarding Trump's claim that Bush lied about WMD?
So you were thinking that if we think there are WMDs, have evidence that he has WMDs, and know that he uses WMDs, we should do nothing?
Actions up to and including war should be based on both a comprehensive and accurate threat assessment and a risk/benefit analysis. Clearly this was not done by Bush, e.g., his discredited attempt to link a secular Saddam with a jihadist Al-Qaeda.
LIQUEFIED SOMAN is a chemical nerve agent left over from the Soviet era. Sadaam used it on both the Kurds and the Iranians.
So you CANNOT name any weapon systems that we sent Iraq. Thank you. There are pictures of FDR with Stalin, Obama with Putin... leaders talk to leaders all the time... doesn't mean they are buddies.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons, India has nuclear weapons, North Korea has nuclear weapons. What should we do ? Nothing?
Now you are changing the goal post. If you want to argue about the threat level, I won't argue because I don't have the data and you probably don't either. India nor Pakistan has used their WMDs nor made threats as far as I know. We have done things as far as North Korea goes and they haven't done much past pounding their chest. I'm sure that would change if they started killing 10s of thousands of people like SH did.
About 14,000 Iraqis died due to American military action. Most were terrorists although, admittedly, not all. The bulk died from Sunni-Shia conflict which erupted as soon as Sadaam wasn't there to keep them in line. American military action was not involved.
Who is SH? (The old Green Stamp folks?) India and Pakistan have never even intimated they have any aggressive plans, although the Pakis cuddle up to the Taliban and could become a problem.
Knowing what and where your enemy is, is the biggest weapon you have. I thought you were supposed to have been in the military.
SA (Situational Awareness) from the foxhole to the Theatre level is essential. But its just a spectator sport without weapons.
Europe has been a mess for centuries, WW I was more of the same. That said, what changed, and the United States and other nations becoming involved, was the drive for world government - in that iteration, The League of Nations. When the League of Nations failed, the planning for WW II began. The U.S. hasn't been involved in an honest conflict for over 100 years.
Wow. I've never heard a perspective like that. Its hard to believe that the economic needs that drove Japan to attack Pearl Harbor was part of a global plan. And the same with Germany's search for Liebensraum. And the Korean and Vietnamese Wars are usually considered regional conflicts. What's going on in Ukraine, however, does seem to fit your rationale. No one ever valued the League of Nations. It never had any significance. But things change. It looks like China and Russia may take over. And the Biden family is already joining in with them... and being paid for it. I always thought that the good gumerica would never lose. But Lloyd Austin was once one of those good guys. And he's joined in with the gobalists. I'm glad I'm in my 70's and won't have to endure much of the coming DARK AGES.
The justification to reenter Iraq and remove him from power was the SUSPECTED WMDs due to his failure to comply with UN weapons inspectors. This argument about WMDs is silly. Let's compare to a hypothetical. A addict is arrested for murdering somebody, and is eventually paroled to home confinement under the terms of regular inspections by a probation officer. He eventually stops allowing inspections. The police bust down his door and arrest him, but no drugs are found. Does that make the police wrong? The US didn't remove Saddam from power after invading his neighbors under the agreement of weapons inspections to ensure he couldn't keep gassing the Kurds. He "****ed around and found out" allowing the inspectors full access and him having the WMDs or not makes zero difference.
