Quote:
Originally posted by Torrere
Yes. Perhaps we should have given the inspectors some time to find them instead of charging off to war after all.
|
Well, it is doubtful that this evidence, hidden in an Iraqi citien's residence, would have been found by weapons inspectors.
Quote:
Originally posted by Undertoad
In the post-war context these things do not really constitute a "smoking gun", but if Kay's discoveries had been discovered pre-war, they would have been highly damning and certainly would have increased support for the war. We forget the pre-war context from 6-8 months ago, but these findings only would have made it more urgent.
|
Good point. The problem is that we went to war without already having this evidence, or any semi-solid proof of it's existence. The US dished out punishment, and violently took over a country, based on circumstantial evidence. Finding harder evidence later is called "luck." Whew, we didn't guess wrong this time. But what about next time? What if we take over and occupy a country that we later found out did nothing seriously wrong?
I am not directly against the war, I am against the
reasons given for having gone to war. They were about as solid as Jell-o. If we hadn't attacked yet, and a bunch of biological and/or warfare stuff started being uncovered, I'd say "bomb the fucker." But to go in with guns blazing because we
suspect or
fear that a country
may be developing deadly weapons... not cool.