Quote:
Originally Posted by gunnut
Likewise, you cannot say the invasion is wrong because you are assuming no invasion is the correct course of action.
|
Did I say the invasion was wrong, or that no invasion was the correct course of action? Not on this thread. Given certain conditions I would argue that the invasion could have been the correct course of action. However there is a lot of area between absoultely no action and full on years of occupation to resolve the issue with Saddam; targeted assassination(s), proxy wars, tougher sanctions regime (yes I understand that the regime was "collapsing" any day now, but increased interdiction efforts could have helped it ala Libya) increased troop presence in the Gulf (making a show of force before an actual invasion), even allowing weapons inspectors to finish (novel idea I know) all could have been used to some degree to ensure Iraqi compliance.
From the facts gathered after it seems likely that Saddam was deterrable, he did not use chem/bio in Gulf War I, there was evidence he destroyed massive numbers of chemical shells, and seemed to have shelved his nuclear and bio programs So I don't really think this false dichotomy---either an invasion or no invasion were the only courses of action the US could have taken against Saddam in 2003 is benefical to debate.