4 ms·
It wasn't UNREASONABLE but I wouldn't say it was VERY reasonable. At the time a number of traditional US allies did refuse to (openly) participate in the "Coal
by faeriechangling 4y ago
It wasn't UNREASONABLE but I wouldn't say it was VERY reasonable. At the time a number of traditional US allies did refuse to (openly) participate in the "Coalition of the willing". I think if you got your news from non-American and non-British sources at the time, I think there was far more uncertainty and doubt that Saddam had such weapons. I have heard this line before "Everybody at the time thought it" but I genuinely saw most people around me calling bullshit. There was a big sense of a grasping of straws from US intelligence, such as aluminium tubes being great evidence of nuclear development, and "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".
In fact it was remarkable just how much more bias the American media was then the global media at the time, and it doesn't seem to me like the American media had any special reason to be more confident that Saddam was nuclear than any of the media in the rest of the world. My theory wasn't that American mainstream media outlets like WaPo and NYT were going out of their way to start a war under false pretences, it was more that they had a lot of incentives to be bias in a pro-war direction.
- speleding 4y agoI live in Europe so I did get my news from non-US media sources. There were a lot of reasons not to go to war, especially in the way the US did. There was no UN backing yet and there was no good plan what to do with the country once Saddam was gone. But claiming you knew that Saddam had all of a sudden given up all his WDMs doesn't seem like a very strong one. This man violated countless UN resolutions about WDMs in the past, and now he all of sudden went straight? How is that a reasonable assumption? Also, it's not impossible he did have them after all and just hid them well.