On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:59:18 -0500, JDG wrote > False. Iraq had a stagnant nuclear arms program - although nobody > could have verified that it was stagnant at the time..... something > about them not complying with UN inspections....
How do we "know" that nobody could have verified it? Seems to me that we were doing a pretty good job of failing to find evidence that it was ongoing. To me, it seems that we rushed to judgment on erroneous data, at enormous cost. Despite all good that the war may be doing, it seems to me there's a lesson in it to slow down a bit. Don't our leaders have an enormous responsibility to ensure the accuracy of information on which we base war, given that it is so expensive in so many ways? I'm curious if you you think that doing things differently the next time would be a good idea. > You suggest that there was only one pretext. How about 12 years of > violations of UN Resolutions, as well as the cease-fire that ended > the Gulf War before taking Baghdad - a cease-fire that I believe you > opposed, no? So, after 12 years of violations of that cease fire, > you conclude that we shouldn't take out Saddam Hussein after all. > Uh huh...... I think I'm repeating myself, but the image of a nuke going off in San Francisco Bay certainly went a long way toward convincing me to offer my reluctant support for the invasion. As far as I'm concerned, that was *the* selling point. Everything else seemed manageable with less violent intervention, even though sanctions were working poorly. > This is highly misleading. Iran shares land borders with seven countries. > The US now has troops in two of them. Look to the left and there's a long border with Iraq; look to the right and there's a long border with Afghanistan. Nick -- Open WebMail Project (http://openwebmail.org) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
