At 12:01 PM 3/14/2005 -0800, you wrote: >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.
We spent 12 years trying to verify it, and Iraq refused to comply with the UN inspections to do so, even after being provided a "final opportunity." Indeed, we were uncovering a lot of evidence that the Iraqis had something to hide. >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? Yes. But intelligence is *hard*, and its never been perfect. We had good evidence that the Iraqis had something to hide, and went with the best information available. We also had very good evidence, I think, that the Iraqis would at minimum attempt to resume their illicit weapons activity the moment that France, Russia, China, & Co. succeeded in lifting UN inspections. >I'm curious if you you think that doing things differently the next time would >be a good idea. Of course. It would be folly to argue that any war was conducted in the best of all possible ways. >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. That's fine. But a lot of other selling points were used, and these affected others. And that image *is* an appropriate potential consequence of leaving Saddam in power indefinitely. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
