I don't think Zinni and Day's accounts contradict what Ritter and the UN Weapons inspectors say. Just because only 74% of targets were neutralized doesn't mean an equal percentage of the WMD were spread out among all the targets.
I believe the 90 - 95+% could still be spot on. Especially since they were on the ground afterwards to verify everything while the US military was not.
Onto your second point, you're right, and I should correct myself. We are all equally culpable for the enabling we did for Iraq through the decades.
Quote:
|
I suppose you mean to say we were culpable in arming Saddam, and thus we should not have liberated Iraq.
|
I've never thought this. I think what we did, it was honorable. I thin that Iraq basically comes down to being our responsibility since we did arm him with much of what he has used. I think the means through which we did it were utterly wrong though. We wen't in basically, because of the spectre of a nuclear bomb being able to be flown to america on drone aircraft. It was national security plain and simple. Not humanitarianism.
I am appalled by our methods, Even though the basic outcome of Saddam being ousted is absolutely good.
If we had decided to enter Iraq based entirely on humanitarian concerns, I could have supported it, and many other nations would have as well. We went in basically alone because the argument turned into "You're either with us or against us, and we are doing this for Americas security."