> --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?
What argument are you trying to make? That it was A-OK for Saddam to attempt to circumvent the oil-for-food program etc. because the US didn't play nice?
> 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.
Iraq's weakness was contingent upon the implementation and continuation of the post war measures taken by the US et al. Several years after waging a hugley destructive war against Iran, Iraq was poised to be the ME's second greatest power, and only a couple years away from developing nuclear weapons (according to the post-war intelligence of the Germans, I think). Why should we believe that Hussein-ruled Iraq wouldn't have been able to rise from the ashes again after the end of containment? Again, according to those close to Hussein, this was precisely his plan.
> --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.
I think Clintonite hawks were motivated by the same sorts of concerns outlined by Ken Pollack in _The Threatning Storm_. Some of the Bushies probably were, too.
> --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?
In my narrative, the destruction of Saddam's WMD programs was the result of the containment policy you despise. (And I detested sanctions at least as much as you; where we differ is that I think _something_ had to be done to contain Hussein.)
> --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.
Walzer policy proposal _wasn't_ a call for immediate invasion. And you really opposed the no fly zone? Why? Do you wish that Saddam had been free to slaughter more of his regime's opponents?
> --no, Walzer's proposal was built on the false premise that Iraq
> actually posed a threat.
IT WOULD'VE IF NOT FOR CONTAINMENT. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
> --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.
Who would've been applying the pressure? The likes of Wolfowitz et al. wouldn't have been enough.
-- Luke