--really? I thought the US pretty much violated the entire spirit of the war treaties right from the start by declaring that whether or not Sodom fulfilled all its obligations that it was going to enforce the sanctions anyhow as long as he remained in power? or does that little inconvenient fact just slip out of the liberal historical narrative? And just why did a very very very weak country need to be contained? I must have missed some great threats that Sodom posed, especially after the Gulf War. ---------------------------------------- According to his scientists, he was planning on resuming his WMD programs after the end of UN sanctions.
--actually, the sanctions regime never addressed anything about what would be done in the future...not that it was really a matter of real concern to the US, something you seem to take at face value. ---------------------------------------- If Iraq hadn't been "subjected" to an "unconditional inspections/spying regime," along with drastic sanctions (which killed many more people than both Gulf Wars combined), there's little doubt that Saddam would've eventually had nukes at his disposal.
--really? that's not what I read Blix saying these days, nor was it wat Kamel was saying back before he was assassinated by Saddam. actually, as i recall Saddam had largely gotten rid of his wmd program as far back as the mid 90's...yet in your narrative they're there throughout the 90's?
----------------------------------- Now how can you be sure that a Gore administration would've been unable to sell the security council on something like Walzer's proposal?
--for one, as i said, as weakneed as the SC was, it was not going to approve an invasion based on 0 evidence of threat [you might recall the UN was designed to prevent another invasion along the lines of Mussolini's adventure in Ethiopia...]. So, Gore would have had to lie his head off even more than he and Clinton had previously lied to justify illegal bombings, no fly zones, and sanctions. --------------------------------------------------- Because Hussein's regime had always fully complied with UN resolutions? That's false. Because, in 2002, they allowed inspectors back in to avert war? That's actually evidence in favor of Walzer's proposal.
--no, Walzer's proposal was built on the false premise that Iraq actually posed a threat. Whether Iraq fully complied with UN resolutions was a non-sequitor from the start, the US violated resolutions and agreements with re: Iraq from the end of Gulf War 1. Dilip Hiro documents this very well in his book written at the time of the official invasion of Iraq last year. ------------------------------------------- As others have noted, there wouldn't have been substantial pressure on Gore to wage war against Iraq. All the PNAC memos in the world would've had approximately zero impact on public opinion.
--I think you strongly underestimate the pressure that would have been on Gore in the aftermath of a 911, failed or successful 911 at that.
steve