Replies

It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard.

In my opinion, that is the key passage in the 1998 letter, and what this war is about. Yes, it's about Israel too, and about the "moderate" Arab states, and about liberating the Iraqi people, but even all of these reasons taken together would not have sent one US Marine to Iraq.

However, a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East was an unacceptably high risk if Saddam had been allowed to continue his WMD programs. Modern industrialized nations cannot live without oil. It's about our own survival, pure and simple.

The Salon article is just anti-Semitic garbage. Maybe it will earn them another "bridge loan" from an "unnamed" (i.e., Saudi) investor, but no amount of artificial life support can hide the fact that Salon is finished, kaput, dead.

There is another argument - advanced by "paleo" conservatives - which Lind was too dumb to propose.

It goes; Saddam is too poor to afford an atomic weapons program. Such a program also leaves a very large trail. Deterrence and inspection would have been sufficient to control Iraq. Invasion - especially without U.N. approval is overkill and may be more destabilizing than the status quo.

I don't believe it - but it's a lot better than Lind's crap.