Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onetime2
That's not what I'm saying at all. The vast majority of countries believed that there was a high likelihood that Iraq had wmd's and they had a desire for nukes. Combining the two with terrorist support is not something you can gamble with. This was not the only argument to invade Iraq however. Making an example of this "rogue" was certainly on the list.
|
Many analysts in the CIA and other branches of government knew that the WMD claims the Powell made before the UN were a product of wishful thinking. Josef Wilson himself debunked the uranium claims. The terrorist connections were also internally contested prior to the invasion. All in all, invading Iraq had little to do with security.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onetime2
Can anyone give a reasonable example of how the US (and the world) could dissuade state sponsors of terrorism from such support with only the threat of economic sanctions in their bag of options?
|
This is a tough question, but it can be argued that the sanctions had successfully contained Saddam. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice both made statements prior to 9-11 confirming that Sadaam's threat had been contained. This all changed after 9-11 when the administration realized that the public would now support an invasion, allowing them to fulfill that long-simmering neocon fantasy (a stable foothold in the Middle east and oil...what could go wrong?).
What we appear to differ on is whether or not the invasion of Iraq has done anything to make us more secure or the world more stable. I would argue that we've badly damaged our global credibility and steeply worsened our position in the Middle East. We certainly provided lots of fodder for Islamic extremists as we have confirmed all of their rantings about American imperialism.
What's the best way to deal with terrorist states? There are no easy answers, but sanctions or engagement with moderates within those countries probably wouldn't cause as much global angst.