Just as I figured. So all of you see how wrong you are for supporting this war? Even good old Dick doesn't think it would be a good idea.
That interview took place about ten years before we invaded, didn't it?
We'd probably have a harder time justifying invading Nazi Germany in 1934 than in 1944, wouldn't you?
When Iraq surrendered in the 1991 Gulf war, a number of terms were set down that Iraq had to abide by, with surrendering Weapons of Mass Destruction just one of many.
As you may or may not remember, Slick Willy went public countless times threatening Iraq with invasion if he did not comply with the terms of their surrender, but to Slick Willy's relief, Saddam would back down a bit each time.
Perhaps you have forgotten how Saddam used to crack jokes about Willy bombing Iraq to draw attention away from Monica?
Anyway, by the end of Willy's term, the UN was unable to monitor WMD's, as well as a number of other possible violations, and Willy didn't want to have to use force to get the UN back in.
I do feel that this admin did need to put more emphasis on the other violations as well when they invaded though.
Anyway, all that aside.
Iran is going to build nuclear weapons, we all know that.
Iraq would have built or bought some also, as they were pretty much an enemy of Iran.
We'd now have a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran, with the arsenal going over to Saddam's sons when he left power.
So, Mauser, how would you want to handle sending troops into Iraq in the future, knowing Iraq may have nuclear weapons?