--re oil for food and being nice...surely you've read the analysis of people like Dennis Haliday...it was much more than 'not playing nice'. it was a matter of irrational obsession that ordinary Iraqis payed heavily for for no apparent reason other than American disfavor. ---------------------------------------------- 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.
--it's not what defectors like kamel were saying for one. i could ask the same question about khadafi right now for that matter. indeed, by your logic we should invade khadafi, just in case... Of course all that takes for granted that we invaded and bombed Iraq because we were concerned about their present or future military threat, which is by now plainly not the case. ---------------------------------------- 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.
--Ken Pollack, the fellow who tried to sell myths of WMDs when it was plain as day that Bush was making anything and everything up as he went along... I guess I'm gonna be asked to take David Kay seriously next... ----------------------------------------- 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.)
--I don't believe that, if anything Hussein was also a pretty easy leader to buy off, especially after Gulf War 1, which was itself fought on the basis of as many lies as we were fed in Gulf War 2. Hussein's threat was something that was made up for the US public, the rest of the world didn't buy into it. ------------------------------------------ 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?
--there's no evidence we had the no-fly zone to protect saddam's opponents, nor is there evidence that that was its effect. no fly zone was as illegal as it gets...that's why only 2 rogue nations engaged in it... http://www.aprl52.dsl.pipex.com/eric/EHNFZ2.htm ------------------------------------- Who would've been applying the pressure? The likes of Wolfowitz et al. wouldn't have been enough.
--FOX News, journalists in general, pundits, nervous Dems--moderates and conservative alike who would be going along with the narrative of the increased need to now take care of saddam...huge poll number drops.....