Making Sense of the Iraq War
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Making Sense of the Iraq War
http://www.time.com/time/community/t...ttr021898.html
Here's an interview with James Woolsey, former head of the CIA under clinton. This interview was given in 1998, and in it Woolsey lays out the reasons why Saddam has got to go, and also predicts the aftermath and does a really good job of explaining the benefits and hardships of an invasion.
Interested to see what especially anti-war posters think of this.
Here's an interview with James Woolsey, former head of the CIA under clinton. This interview was given in 1998, and in it Woolsey lays out the reasons why Saddam has got to go, and also predicts the aftermath and does a really good job of explaining the benefits and hardships of an invasion.
Interested to see what especially anti-war posters think of this.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,256
From: Blue-faced in a red state
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
Interesting read.
However, he also assumed Saddam had a prolifereated WMD program post-Desert Storm.
Read:
Kgb_13 asks: Good evening, Mr. Director. Do you believe this action will end Iraq's ability to threaten others with terror weapons or so-called weapons of mass destruction?
James Woolsey: No. It may slow down his production of some chemical and bacteriological weapons, but I believe we will really only make a clear and positive contribution to stability in the Gulf if we can bring about the removal, not only of Saddam, but of his regime. That will take probably years and the types of steps that I mentioned in response to the last question.
Hindsight is 20-20, but the concern of WMDs in Iraq (albeit founded) turned out to be highly overblown
However, he also assumed Saddam had a prolifereated WMD program post-Desert Storm.
Read:
Kgb_13 asks: Good evening, Mr. Director. Do you believe this action will end Iraq's ability to threaten others with terror weapons or so-called weapons of mass destruction?
James Woolsey: No. It may slow down his production of some chemical and bacteriological weapons, but I believe we will really only make a clear and positive contribution to stability in the Gulf if we can bring about the removal, not only of Saddam, but of his regime. That will take probably years and the types of steps that I mentioned in response to the last question.
Hindsight is 20-20, but the concern of WMDs in Iraq (albeit founded) turned out to be highly overblown
Plus, I don't remember the exact quote, but Rumsfeld said that this war would take a matter of weeks, not months or even years. All the more evidence that they don't live in the Reality-Based Community.
There's a sharp contrast between viewpoints.
There's a sharp contrast between viewpoints.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by njc200
Plus, I don't remember the exact quote, but Rumsfeld said that this war would take a matter of weeks, not months or even years. All the more evidence that they don't live in the Reality-Based Community.
There's a sharp contrast between viewpoints.
There's a sharp contrast between viewpoints.
Dirty Redhead
iTrader: (10)
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,204
From: Commuting? I don't know what that means anymore.
Car Info: 05 WRX Wagon (Crystal Gray)
First off just because Saddam was a horrible person and should have been removed it shouldn't have been done when and how we did it.
And even Woolsey had a better plan then this administration
His plan wasn't to go to war as he clearly said.
And even Woolsey had a better plan then this administration
guest_18d5551 asks: Mr. Woolsey...the UN can't continue to inspect Iraq forever... How are we going to deal with him in five years? Eventually he WILL rebuild his forces and his destructive power.
James Woolsey: That's exactly why I believe our policy should be to support a government in exile, establish a no-fly zone over the entire country, protect the Shia and the Kurds if they revolt, turn over frozen Iraqi assets to a government in exile, broadcast into Iraq, and generally do everything we can, short of invading with a land army in order to bring about a change of government in Iraq. This will not be easy, but in 1980, when martial law was declared in Poland, we were pretty pessimistic about Solidarity about ever being able to take power. Yet nine years later, it did come to power, and immediately thereafter the Berlin Wall fell. Stranger things have happened, indeed in the recent past, than the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime.
James Woolsey: That's exactly why I believe our policy should be to support a government in exile, establish a no-fly zone over the entire country, protect the Shia and the Kurds if they revolt, turn over frozen Iraqi assets to a government in exile, broadcast into Iraq, and generally do everything we can, short of invading with a land army in order to bring about a change of government in Iraq. This will not be easy, but in 1980, when martial law was declared in Poland, we were pretty pessimistic about Solidarity about ever being able to take power. Yet nine years later, it did come to power, and immediately thereafter the Berlin Wall fell. Stranger things have happened, indeed in the recent past, than the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post