"So I make the claim that the 2003 Iraq War was based on a hunch, so it wouldn't be beyond the norm for my nation to act on a hunch and you bring up the barely related tangent that America may or may not have had a hand to play in Saddam's use of chemical weapons, and that somehow defeats my point?"
Open a history book.
Way to address my point instead of making a dumb reply that still has nothing to do with my point...
Was it an excuse? I guess kind of, besides the fact that the OP accidentally gave me bad intelligence because someone decided to return from inactivity (EC).
He didn't give you any bad intel that you couldn't have looked up yourself. Also, EC's return had nothing to do with it.
And I didn't make any false equivalences. You did. That's all I pointed out.
Really? Where did I make a false equivalence?