[Davy TASB]

Originally Posted by Jatta Raso

i don't understand the point you're trying to make; seems like you're picking on one single phrase and putting it out of any context, then confronting it with facts trying to make it come up as false; plus you're not making any sense: if that gas attack counted as an argument, there would be no need to seek evidence of what was already known by everyone. it wasn't the gas that was being referred as WMDs by 2003, but i'll get to that later.

let me tell you about the Kurds, i'm well aware of that monstrosity and when i saw that Iraq dictator hanged like a pig i thought he got what he deserved; but when it took place in 1988 not only the US didn't move a straw to take him down, they even tried to put it on others hands, knowing full well what had happened; so US governments DID lie.

US took as argument an occurrence in 1988, in which they lied trying to blame Iran (you can read it in the article you refer btw), to justify an act of war in 2003 by switching the blame to Iraq.

concerning WMDs, of course such gas attacks classify as a weapon capable of mass killing and proved real enough, but let's be honest, that wasn't what was being used as argument; of course the attack on the Kurds in 1988 and the inaction by the US rendered that single argument useless as an excuse by 2003, so what went on the table was rather the capability of deploying such weapons at great distances, plus additional programs to build strategic and nuclear weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency got involved, Iraq was invaded, but evidence of all that was never found.

hope i made myself clear.