[SPORK] Holy Shiite! US pulling out of Saudi Arabia
johnhall at isomedia.com
Tue Apr 29 21:53:50 PDT 2003
> From: fork-bounces at xent.com [mailto:fork-bounces at xent.com] On Behalf
> Russell Turpin
> To me, it seems that you are answering my question
> affirmatively. My question was NOT whether we had
> good reasons for invading Iraq, or what they were.
> The question was whether any of those reasons
> explain our actions with the UN and weapons
> inspections immediately prior to the war, or was
> that all just a charade? Nothing you wrote explains
> why we would go through such a charade.
1. We believed that the WMDs were there.
2. We believed Saddam could be counted on to defy the UN once again.
3. We believed that this final record of defiance would help make our
4. We believed that the French weren't lying to us when they agreed that
if he didn't come clean they wouldn't oppose us taking him out.
#2 and #3 worked.
#4 didn't, and we now have people who's job is to get up in the morning
and think of new ways to screw the French. So it isn't a total loss.
> The question is not the rightness of taking out
> Saddam's regime. The question is whether we can
> trust an administration that foists a charade on
> the international stage, *pretending* to be following
> a certain process and acting true to the assumptions
> behind it, deceiving nations that have long been our
> allies, while in fact and all along having a totally
> different basis for action.
> I understand that international relations involve
> some degree of pretense and posturing, and a large
> amount of concealment. But I have not yet seen an
> explanation for this charade.
It wasn't a charade.
The greatest danger was that Saddam would come clean, and come clean so
openly and honestly that everyone would agree he had come clean.
If he had, we would have had no choice but to let him go.
Fortunately, we knew quite a lot about what we could expect from him.
More information about the FoRK