With the admission that things still could change (the U.S. still *might* find hidden weapons prohibited by U.N. resolutions,) some of what you say doesn't add up given the facts as they stand at the moment.
"...Saddam had showed in the past that he was willing to do almost anything to build banned weapons..."
It looks now like this isn't true. In fact it looks very much like he *completely* shut down his nuclear development program. That is hardly doing almost anything to build them.
"...he had successfully crippled the UN inspections before cancelling them altogether..."
This is a common mistake made (lie told?) by the right. Saddam DID NOT cancel or kick out UN inspectors. It was the U.S. who forced inspectors to leave Iraq.
Inspections were working. The proof (at least so far) is that he didn't have an active nuclear program. So either he really didn't want one, or the inspections (and sanctions) were keeping him from putting it together. And, again, since it looks like he really didn't have the program, what exactly do you mean by saying that the inspectors were crippled and sanctions were not working?
I think we agree on the general point (that I think) you are making: Saddam might possibly, at an unspecified point in the future, maybe have done some unspecified bad thing. But jumping from that suspicion to a unilateral invasion of a foreign nation against serious questions from almost every single ally, your own intelligence agencies, and with millions of your own citizens marching in the streets against your policies seems, well, completely wrong.
Especially in hindsight.
Inspections *were* working despite U.S. efforts to render them useless. If we had just worked with the U.N. we could have contained Saddam. And the proof is that he was contained. Sure, in another possible world it could have worked out much differently. But in this one - again, as it is turning out so far - the U.S. was wrong. I think the U.S. would still be wrong for going around the U.N. even if they had (or do) find the weapons. But thankfully I don't have to argue that, because THEY DIDN'T FIND THE WEAPONS!
I'm rather nervous about your reasoning. Wouldn't you have to think the same thing about Syria and Iran? They both might want nuclear weapons. They both might do something sinister in the future. They both could endanger the oil fields. Doesn't your reasoning on Iraq force us to attack those countries too? And Saudi Arabia? And probably Egypt too? How is Iraq different from these countries? Just that Saddam is a serial miscalculator? Doesn't seem like enough to me.
But again, maybe they will still find something that proves Saddam was an actual threat rather than a hypothetical one.
|
"...Saddam had showed in the past that he was willing to do almost anything to build banned weapons..."
It looks now like this isn't true. In fact it looks very much like he *completely* shut down his nuclear development program. That is hardly doing almost anything to build them.
"...he had successfully crippled the UN inspections before cancelling them altogether..."
This is a common mistake made (lie told?) by the right. Saddam DID NOT cancel or kick out UN inspectors. It was the U.S. who forced inspectors to leave Iraq.
Inspections were working. The proof (at least so far) is that he didn't have an active nuclear program. So either he really didn't want one, or the inspections (and sanctions) were keeping him from putting it together. And, again, since it looks like he really didn't have the program, what exactly do you mean by saying that the inspectors were crippled and sanctions were not working?
I think we agree on the general point (that I think) you are making: Saddam might possibly, at an unspecified point in the future, maybe have done some unspecified bad thing. But jumping from that suspicion to a unilateral invasion of a foreign nation against serious questions from almost every single ally, your own intelligence agencies, and with millions of your own citizens marching in the streets against your policies seems, well, completely wrong.
Especially in hindsight.
Inspections *were* working despite U.S. efforts to render them useless. If we had just worked with the U.N. we could have contained Saddam. And the proof is that he was contained. Sure, in another possible world it could have worked out much differently. But in this one - again, as it is turning out so far - the U.S. was wrong. I think the U.S. would still be wrong for going around the U.N. even if they had (or do) find the weapons. But thankfully I don't have to argue that, because THEY DIDN'T FIND THE WEAPONS!
I'm rather nervous about your reasoning. Wouldn't you have to think the same thing about Syria and Iran? They both might want nuclear weapons. They both might do something sinister in the future. They both could endanger the oil fields. Doesn't your reasoning on Iraq force us to attack those countries too? And Saudi Arabia? And probably Egypt too? How is Iraq different from these countries? Just that Saddam is a serial miscalculator? Doesn't seem like enough to me.
But again, maybe they will still find something that proves Saddam was an actual threat rather than a hypothetical one.
- jim 9-23-2003 8:23 pm