*arches an eyebrow* Really, I had come to expect better of you. That last bit flirted dangerously with condescension. For the record, I never parrot party rhetoric, unlike many fans of FOX News and Limbaugh and other blustering Republican goons that I've argued politics with. Indeed, it would be rather difficult for me to do so, since I'm technically a democratic socialist, not a Democrat per se; there are plenty of my kind in Europe, but their party rhetoric is tailored to their countries, and it would do me very little good to parrot their rhetoric here.
I fear you are distinctly in the minority in regarding the intel relied upon sufficient to justify action against Saddam Hussein, in the form of invading Iraq. Most professional intelligence agents were firmly convinced of precisely what I asserted: i.e. that the intelligence was outdated, firstly, and of the unreliable "soft" variety instead of the far more compelling "hard" variety (which, though it can be vague or even erroneous, is still by its nature much more reliable as a rule).
I'm relieved we at least agree that it was very unwise of us to adopt a doctrine of preemptive strikes. To my way of thinking, that's such a dangerous concept that people of all political persuasions should find it frightening, and unite to dispense with it, pronto.
An area's strategic difficulties is no reason not to confront its madmen leaders, if those leaders genuinely constitute a threat to other peoples. That's what professional strategists, as my cousin tried to recruit me to be, are for. I readily admit that jungle (and mountains, and islands, and cities which after all are just urban jungles) is one of the worst terrain types to try to seize control of. But there are strategies to deal with each. And the difficulties did not stop us from opposing Japan (islands) or Germany (a fair amount of which is hilly and mountainous) in WW II. If the cause is just, the territory simply must be dealt with. So I, in turn, find your argument that it's insufficient to point to others who poser a much greater threat, to be itself insufficient.
Saddam Hussein purchased a heck of a lot of sarin from us in the 1970s and 1980s, for crying out loud. He'd been very busy attacking Kurds and other Iraqis with the stuff, since then, and he's been kept bottled up too tightly to get his hands on a fresh supply throughout the 1990s and 2000s thus far. Frankly, I'm surprised you think he'd have any left to amount to much; he's used almost all of it, you can be sure. He's not the type of man to save some for a rainy day. *wry smile*
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-07-29 04:58 pm (UTC)I fear you are distinctly in the minority in regarding the intel relied upon sufficient to justify action against Saddam Hussein, in the form of invading Iraq. Most professional intelligence agents were firmly convinced of precisely what I asserted: i.e. that the intelligence was outdated, firstly, and of the unreliable "soft" variety instead of the far more compelling "hard" variety (which, though it can be vague or even erroneous, is still by its nature much more reliable as a rule).
I'm relieved we at least agree that it was very unwise of us to adopt a doctrine of preemptive strikes. To my way of thinking, that's such a dangerous concept that people of all political persuasions should find it frightening, and unite to dispense with it, pronto.
An area's strategic difficulties is no reason not to confront its madmen leaders, if those leaders genuinely constitute a threat to other peoples. That's what professional strategists, as my cousin tried to recruit me to be, are for. I readily admit that jungle (and mountains, and islands, and cities which after all are just urban jungles) is one of the worst terrain types to try to seize control of. But there are strategies to deal with each. And the difficulties did not stop us from opposing Japan (islands) or Germany (a fair amount of which is hilly and mountainous) in WW II. If the cause is just, the territory simply must be dealt with. So I, in turn, find your argument that it's insufficient to point to others who poser a much greater threat, to be itself insufficient.
Saddam Hussein purchased a heck of a lot of sarin from us in the 1970s and 1980s, for crying out loud. He'd been very busy attacking Kurds and other Iraqis with the stuff, since then, and he's been kept bottled up too tightly to get his hands on a fresh supply throughout the 1990s and 2000s thus far. Frankly, I'm surprised you think he'd have any left to amount to much; he's used almost all of it, you can be sure. He's not the type of man to save some for a rainy day. *wry smile*