tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10010207.post-64242619468842069502008-03-24T21:22:00.000-05:002008-03-24T21:22:00.000-05:00Peter:<BR/><BR/>I generally agree with your views on the war in Iraq. It's certainly hard (in retrospect) to see how this war was worth the costs (foremost in lives and personal injury but also in money). However, hindsight is always 20/20. I'd be interested in your views on two points.<BR/><BR/>1. It seems reasonably well documented that Saddam Hussein was pretending to have more in the way of weapons of mass destruction than he really had. Presumably this hoax was to ward off attack (particularly from Iran or Israel). American intelligence should have seen through the hoax. Do you see any merit in the argument that some of the "weapons of mass destruction" misinformation was (in part) due to intentional fabrication by Saddam?<BR/><BR/>2. Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction when we invaded. However, he was a very dangerous guy. During his tenure he gassed the Kurds, murdered thousands upon thousands of his own citizens, started a disasterous war with Iran, invaded Kuwait and paid bonuses to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel. He had a lot of money from the oil in Iraq and his two sons were (arguably) more psychotic than he was. Was any level of US military force justified? How would people view President Bush if he did not attack Iraq and Hussein could be traced to a terrorist attack on the US?<BR/><BR/>Like I said - I think your views are generally correct. However, it seemed like a much closer call 5 years ago than it does today.Grovetonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09217578166543967424noreply@blogger.com