http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/opinion/19BUCK.html?ex=1046664208&ei=1&en=0cc342e697f00477 Good article about the parallels between the current situation and 1983. Excellent points made. Should appeal to both sides (Dan and Axis Alex) and everyone in between. Why is this episode relevant now? The North Atlantic alliance is in turmoil, furious anti-American demonstrations and sentiment are rampant in Europe, and there is an implacable tyrant-foe in the East muttering darkly about Armaggedon. For what it's worth, I do not support a war with Iraq unless we all - defined as a clear majority of the American people, plus New Europe and good "Old Europe," as feckless and posturing as they are - ultimately agree that it is the only way to make the world safer. If we can't agree, I say: contain Saddam Hussein with all means at our disposal. Indeed, contain him with extreme prejudice. Meanwhile, the lessons of February 1983 are there, available to inspectors on both sides of the pond.
I got as far as "by Christopher Buckley." Remind me, who were we going to pre-emptively invade in 1983? The Falklands? I can't believe that no one has mentioned this, but there is no difference between "New Europe" and "Old Europe." It was a diplomatic broadside by Rumsfeld that backfired. It has no other useful basis, apart from a misleading term for the two sides of the invasion question.
Yes, I think it's important to remember that evil regimes sometimes fall without having to invade a country. Did I make an A on my lesson?
I got it, we'll put Pershing missiles in Saudi Arabia and Iran and then sell Saddam all the weapons he wants, thereby engaging him in an arms race that will bankrupt his country and ultimately causing him to declare peristroika and bring down his own regime! It's genius! The greatest idea ever in the history of... er, well, history! What? That's not what happened the 80s? Well damn.