Angenehm nüchterner und rational argumentierender Artikel in Foreign Policy, in dem das von den USA (und anderen) gepinselte Bedrohungszenario fein säuberlich auseinandergenommen wird. Zitat:
In fact, the historical record shows that the United States can contain Iraq effectively—even if Saddam has nuclear weapons—just as it contained the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Regardless of whether Iraq complies with U.N. inspections or what the inspectors find, the campaign to wage war against Iraq rests on a flimsy foundation.
"Saddam’s decision to invade Kuwait was primarily an attempt to deal with Iraq’s continued vulnerability."
Seems like that still holds true. Regarding the Glaspie interview, small point taken, but it's Hussein's behavior after invading Kuwait and before getting kicked out that best illustrates his undeterrability. He had months to get out in the face of certain knowledge that the US wanted him out of there, regardless of prior "miscommunication". Instead, he played a game of chicken, and the Iraqi people lost.
You aren't trying to tell me that because Saddam Hussein was behaving foolish 10 yrs ago, there is now a good reason to finish the job? (Not that I would cry him a river, but that's a different story)
No, I'm not trying to tell you that, not exactly.
The FP article argues against the notion that Hussein is "reckless, ruthless, and not fully rational". If the FP authors are wrong -- and I think they are -- allowing Hussein to acquire nuclear weapons would be disastrous and nearly immoral. My point above was to provide an example of Hussein's recklessness. Other examples are available on request.