wmd

What if someone infiltrated our nuclear command and control so that if we pushed the button, nothing happened? Or if something did happen even without our pushing the button? What if Pakistan did this to India, or India to Pakistan?
Double standards in any relation, particularly in the war on terror would not be in the interest of anyone. Muslims and non-Muslims should end the blame game and they should leave their differences aside and unite against this common enemy.
It says a lot about man's record in life, that within hours of his death he is widely proclaimed to have shifted the course of history, even though he was never a head of state.
The U.S. needs to rethink our overall nuclear strategy. Our current strategy is still based on fighting a nuclear war with Russia. We should refocus it, and stop spending billions on an obsolete U.S. nuclear arsenal and move at least part of those funds to preventing ISIS or any other group from getting their hands on radioactive materials. It's time to stop fighting Soviets and shift our funds to fighting the terrorists that truly threaten us. The risk of ISIS getting their hands on nuclear or radiological weapons is small, but it is not zero. And that is too big of a gamble to take when American lives are on the line.
To show how Byzantine the already complex Middle East political debate has become, my take on recent developments there will seem counter-intuitive to my long-standing fans (all three of you). For example, I support - gasp! - the recent U.S.-Iran nuclear deal.
In August 1998, in what was my last meeting with Tariq Aziz as a weapons inspector, he lambasted the lack of progress after more than seven years of inspections. "The truth is that Iraq has no proscribed weapons or capabilities in any areas within the mandate of the Special Commission... Your duty is to take the direct political responsibility and report the truth."
The question should not be whether the U.S. had faulty intelligence, but whether the existence of WMDs in Iraq alone should have been regarded as a casus belli -- as a justification for going to war against, and invading, a foreign country.
If indeed accurate information is all they needed to have made the right decision on Iraq, it follows that they would have wanted accurate information if they could obtain it.
For anyone who served on the ground in Iraq there is something horrifying about the idea of the ideologically blind, strategically ignorant "thinkers" -- Paul Wolfowitz chief among them -- who sent us into a misguided war without a plan to win the peace coming back into office. And yet, Jeb wants to get the gang back together.
I see soldier worship as harmful because it so easily morphs into support for wars, no matter how unjust, by letting our affection for our fellow citizens in uniform and our desire to see them come home alive obscure the truth behind what they're supposedly fighting and dying for, which is rarely as black and white as we are told or wish it to be.
There’s one man, some Republicans say, who kept the public from learning about the chemical shells littered around the Iraqi
Pro-tip: If you want to pretend that a New York Times article proved the existence of an active Iraqi WMD program, don't
Whether ISIS is now actually deploying the weapons still needs to be proven but there can be no question that they now control them -- and some can be traced back home to the United States.
Michael Fey, Executive Vice President, Chief Technology Officer and General Manager of Corporate Products, Intel Security
We had no business going to Iraq in the first place anyway, but we did and broke it. Therefore, we have a responsibility to make the best of the worst situation which is to get all of its neighbors and Iraqi factions under the U.N. umbrella together to divide the country in a peaceful manner.
In another generation, when a future U.S. president sends troops to occupy some intransigent country on a dubious objective, American pundits will most likely ask this familiar question made new: "Will it be another Iraq?"
At first blush Vice President Dick Cheney's recent op-ed reads like the script of a Saturday Night Live script, the kind where the character's statements are so absurd that they cannot help but make you laugh.
Cheney is like the guy who robs a bank and gets away with it. But then years later he returns to the same bank and opens up a savings account so he can deposit the money he stole. It makes no sense.
Now, with Iraq on the verge of unraveling after the departure of U.S. forces, conservative pundits and some politicians who
The United States justified the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to America and the world. Since that proved not to be the case, critics of President Obama's Iraq policy now argue that America sacrificed on behalf of oppressed Iraqis.