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.
- West Point historian says if his cadets can understand the history of war, so can Congress
- Australian historian Alan Atkinson wins $100,000 literary prize
- Duke honors historian John Hope Franklin with year-long series of events
- What New Left History Gave Us