Zen and the Art of Iraqi Regime Change
comments powered by Disqus
Sheldon Richman - 8/7/2005
The administration, in my view, never feared that Saddam's future weapons would threaten our homeland. Rather, it feared that a nuclear-armed Saddam would break Israel's nuclear regional monopoly and therefore constitute a credible deterrent to U.S.-Israeli policy there.
Keith Halderman - 8/5/2005
You wrote "It is doubtful the American people would have supported an invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Saddam might some day try to develop weapons. Why should he use them against the United States? Without provocation he’d have no reason to commit personal and national suicide."
I believe this is a very important point that is not made often enough. In fact I would go further and say that a smart administration without a personal axe to grind could have turned him into a useful asset in our war with fundamentalist Islamic extremism.
Sheldon Richman - 8/5/2005
And the congressional elections are on the horizon...
William Marina - 8/5/2005
I found the info you offered about Feith quite interesting.
The cost of Empire is now escalating, very much a part of the economic problems now confronting the imperial policy makers.
- Smithsonian launches campaign to raise $10 million for women’s history initiative
- Trump Was Not Always So Linguistically Challenged
- 75th anniversary of the World War 2 black uprising that the American public never heard about
- Longest serving governor in U.S. history to resign after confirmation as Trump's ambassador to China
- Did the First Human Ancestor Emerge in Europe, Not Africa?
- Jill Lepore: Americans Aren't Just Divided Politically, They're Divided Over History Too
- AHA joins protest of Trump’s plan for drastic cuts to the NEH
- Diane Ravitch says the Democrats paved the way for the education secretary's efforts to privatize our public schools
- Mark Moyar explains why he came to believe the Vietnam War was winnable
- How should Texas high schoolers learn history?