I am sympathetic to this view (read the whole thread) that the Iraq War was over determined. But I am also conscious that this sympathy may be because that view would pardon some of the foolish things my much younger self believed and mercifully never put into print.https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1330139287527055361 …
-
If so, he has *got* to use another term. If you say "Saddam Hussein had WMDs", that justification has a very specific cultural context and you do not get to complain when people think you're regurgitating discredited lies.
, invaded 
, threatened 
, attacked 
, acquired & used WMD, and been condemned by the UN.
No matter how you look at the situation, he was a "problem". Again, overdetermined.I mean, also, Saddam Hussein did have chemical stockpiles which violated the terms of his agreements, though most of them by 2003 were degraded or useless:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Post-war_discoveries_and_incidents …
-
-
That may be so, but doesn't change the fact that "ohhh, you're one of *those* people" followed by ignoring them is a perfectly justifiable response to anyone who says "Saddam had WMDs so we *had* to invade". Anyone who wants to be taken seriously on this must avoid that phrase
-
I am not sure either of us is in a position to lay down rules as to what someone must do to be taken seriously in the IR field, but I take your point that the wording was awkward.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.