The issue here is what was the worst case scenario of the Cuban missile crisis intelligence. The worst case scenario is that the Soviets were planning on a first strike, for which an appropriate response would be to take out the missiles, whether by nukes, invasion, or heavy bombing. The intelligence on Soviet intentions was better than what Bush has for Iraq, but it wasn't complete, especially in areas like what the Soviets were planning to do with the missiles. Kennedy did not come out with guns blazing though, he went to the UN, got international support for the United States, and blockaded Cuba instead of invading them. The point I am making is that worst case scenarios aren't always the best scenarios to go on, and that overstatement can lead to thing spiraling out of control.

 

By putting the missles in Cuba I am sure we took the worst case scenario into consideration. Just like throughout the 90's we took the worst case scenario into consideration with Iraq. In both instances we tried diplomacy first. In the case of the Soviets & Cuba the diplomacy worked, and in the case of Iraq it did not. Time and time again G.H. Bush, Clinton and G.W. Bush went to the UN and got international support...it was only when the realization the the UN would have to live up to its heavy handed words that certain nations backed out of their pledges.

Besides if our intelligence was so flawed when Colin Powell sat before the UN and showed pictures of Iraqi military vehicles that the CIA claimed had WMD why did Iraq not go immediately and show the inspectors the vehicles disclaiming the accusation? And to this day we do not know where those vehicles are, where they were headed, or where they were from. Tenet has even gone so far as to defend the CIAs intelligence and reccomendation to President Bush today at a speach at Georgetown University.

Had we not tried for 12 years to get Saddam to abandon and destroy his WMD I would agree that a first strike policy was premature. But lets face it. Saddam was given a number of chances, given some 13 UN resolutions, faced repeated bombings in the no fly zones, and faced airstrikes in 1998. He showed no intention of abandoning his WMD programs despite his multiple ploys to 1/2 appease the UN. At some point the threat of military action was going to have to become a reality...we learned who has the bite to back up their bark.

 

When fighting the Cold War diplomacy and intelligence was a must because we feared a real conflict with the then-formidable USSR, so America and the presidents who navigated us through the Cold War actually had to try and avert a major crisis. With the 3rd world nation or Iraq, the Bush administration simply realized that there was no real threat of serious direct counterattack from the Iraqi army, and decided that it was easier and quicker just to shoot them with our bigger guns instead of utilizing the world's strongest diplomatic force them to get whatever “we” (Bush and co.) wanted. Saddam can't destroy WMDs he doesn't posses, even the right wing is saying the intelligence was faulty and "fundamentally flawed", its just a matter of finding a scapegoat. True, Iraq broke some UN codes, but last time I checked America has done the same and is currently in a war that the UN did not back.

 

Resolution 1441 authorized the use of force against Iraq. People tend to forget we DID attack Hussein with authorization from the UN. It was the UN who voted to authorize, but then would not step up and put thier money where their mouth is. Which is one of the reasons I think the UN is a joke.

 

do you know what it means when the UN actually does attend a conflict? it means that the US and british soldiers take off their normal headgear and put on a blue helmet. then they sprinkle in a few german or french troops here and there and call it a multinational force.

 

Hmmm... i stand both corrected and informed.

 

That perhaps we shouldn't call these "coalition" because it's only benefitting American and British interests.

They've been around a lot longer than you have and have much more experience at international affairs than you or I combined.

Yea, you do have a point.