From: Stephen Grammont (islander@midmaine.com)
Date: Fri Jul 01 2005 - 07:13:48 PDT
>
> However, using the incident at the Museum is a straw argument. It's
> generally accepted now that it was an inside job and that the senior
> management likely made a lot of the arrangements. Vaults were open,
> not broken open, hidden vaults were open as if the looters knew
> exactly where to look. Some artifacts wer
Oh, I know this. Definitely planned well ahead of our invasion. I was
just using the same example. The looting was, however, very widespread
and even without the Museum in the mix it was obvious that we did not
plan for the situation that unfolded. HOW we could have prepared for
that is a question that is open to debate, but that we didn't plan for
it is plainly obvious.
> We haven't occupied and rebuilt a large country in 60 years, give the
> pentagon some slack.
I'm giving the Pentagon a TON of slack since they aren't masters of
policy.
> Some people didn't expect the Iraqi's to loot their country blind.
The people who planned the invasion and aftermath didn't expect a lot
of things, including a long and drawn out insurgency.
> Does calling someone's bluff still sit as a valid reason in your book?
Depends on if we knew it was a bluff or not. If you believe that the
Administration knew damned well it was a bluff, then no... it doesn't
make for a valid reason. If, on the other hand, the Administration
honestly believed that Saddam was serious, despite the heap of
contradictory information and lack of international support, then
yes... it does excuse (to some degree) invading for a reason that
turned out to be invalid. However, the latter calls into question
other things such as competency.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 23:22:14 PDT