<<One question. If Saddam had NO WMD why would he allow sanctions for over a decade costing billions?>>
No one here (or anywhere else, as far as I know, outside of a few parts of the Muslim world) has accused Saddam of having integrity. He maintained his regime through a combination of violence, bribes, and bluster. He had to maintain his image of strength. Part of this was exaggerating his military might. It is and has always been pretty clear that this "might" was always greatly exaggerated, even during the 80s when Iran and Iraq were fighting their suicidal/homocidal war.
But the question of whether or not there are ANY WMDs is not really the point, IMHO. The question is: what was the justification for this invasion? The Bush admin sold it as a response to an "imminent threat." It was not sold as a mission to spread liberty to Iraq. It was not sold as a mission to ensure stable oil supplies. It was not sold as a mission to create democracy in Iraq, even though these three may have been add-ons. There was an imminent threat from Iraq that they were going to develop nuclear capabilities which they would use to blackmail us and the West generally to have their way with us, or they were going to give WMDs to Al Qaeda with whom they were said to have strategic ties. They were going to help to make 9/11 look like a picnic. There were allegations--almost always insinuated and implied, rather than explicit and stated outright--that they were partly behind 9/11.
So the question is, what was the "imminent threat" that we were all assured was present?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
