I don't want to get into an argument here but calling it "historical revisionism" is absolutely disrespectful to the rest of the world.
Historical revisionism is polls showing a huge percentage of Americans still think Saddam was involved in 911.
USA had no business invading Iraq (nor practically any other country, for that matter) and using the excuse that "Saddam claimed he had them to look tough" in order to justify so many tragedies (mostly foreign but also American) is egregious.
When someone performs threat assessment they do it based on facts and not on posturing or they'd prosecute every internet troll out there.
ugh. I'm going to stop now because I'm pissed but I'm going to let you know that you're basically apologizing for crimes against humanity with what sounds like kinder garden excuses.
Historical revisionism is polls showing a huge percentage of Americans still think Saddam was involved in 911.
USA had no business invading Iraq (nor practically any other country, for that matter) and using the excuse that "Saddam claimed he had them to look tough" in order to justify so many tragedies (mostly foreign but also American) is egregious.
When someone performs threat assessment they do it based on facts and not on posturing or they'd prosecute every internet troll out there.
ugh. I'm going to stop now because I'm pissed but I'm going to let you know that you're basically apologizing for crimes against humanity with what sounds like kinder garden excuses.