0
0

[–] 7933510? ago 

Dammit I had a whole thing type out and lost it trying to fix an edit :/ sigh.. once again for the 2nd time... this time more brief because I'm sick of typing.

4th or 5th largest by size, not power. I can't believe you just wrote the sentence with a straight face.

Modern tanks, artillery, air force, they had it.. At the very least strong enough to cause chaos in the region.

What? Did you just pull that out of your ass?

Also, Israel nuking Iraq wouldn't have begun ww3. What alliance networks could have drawn the world into conflict over Iraw and Israel? None.

Mutually assured destruction, if someone uses nukes we nuke everyone no questions asked.

His atrocities did not increase or decrease as a result of the war in Kuwait, he ruled as he always had. Also "turned his wrath on his own people" Saddam Hussein wasn't a poorly written antagonist from a fantasy novel.

He was in danger of losing power, had to brutalize anyone he thought may become a threat.

No, such things have been done since long before the dark ages to this day. Saddam was not even that remarkable in scope or brutality of his tortures, just standard fair for the region.

I meant on the evening news. Yes it happens all the time even today but, you just don't see it.

You actually believe we attacked Iraq to cut off resupply to Afghani rebels?

Yes in a way but, not the only reason. You can't let someone have a free space where they can hide and pick the battle fields. We learned that lesson in Vietnam. You go where ever your enemy is no matter what. Then you couple that with Saddam getting up in years soon to die of natural causes. Worried he will go out in a blaze of glory. Then you have the fact that he would have set up who takes his place. So we sit back and see if his replacement is better or worse all while Iraq builds up strength or we do something about it then and there. Not sure If it's the choice I would have made but, I see why they did it.