[arjie]

I don't know what they were selling you in the US, but that's straight up untrue. UN Inspectors were repeatedly telling the Security Council that Iraq was complying with WMD regulations and that in a matter of months, they'd be able to verify if all claims were true.

As usual, incompetent American intelligence was used instead since it was convenient.

This is a neat turn-around. Historical revisionism. That's good.

[lotsofmangos]

As usual, incompetent American intelligence was used instead since it was convenient.

It was actually the finest in British confectionery, with lashings of custard.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=niger_pl...

[personZ]

I'm starting to realize that quite a few on HN actually have no idea what happened during this period (too young?), and at this point they're just going by what they read on Reddit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council...

Iraq's cat and mouse game with the UN, which was a condition of the ceasefire from GW I, had been going on for years. The UN had passed resolution after resolution authorizing force, any of which gave the US -- if they even decided that they wanted its mandate -- the legal right to remove Saddam. Yes, when it was apparent the US had had enough, Iraq started complying, but it was too late for the US administration. Tough, but this notion that it was all cooperation and the US just wanted a fight is pure absurdity, and has absolutely no basis in actual reality.

But it does appear in the black/white simplified story that so many tell.

[arjie]

I actually remember this very clearly. In fact, I questioned my own memory of this when I read your comment (since it was so clearly the opposite of what I remember) until I went back and had a look and it looks like I was right.

For what it's worth, it's entirely possible that we were just exposed to different media narratives at the time. My parents remember it the same way too. The news about the reports from Hans Blix and Mohamed AlBaradei saying Iraq was complying with the requests of inspectors after Resolution 1441. Colin Powell's so-called evidence. These were front-and-center in The Hindu in India and there were editorials about it all the time.

Certainly the idea that the doubters were few is not particularly convincing in the face of that.

EDIT: Ah, you edited your comment to contain more than just the first line after I began replying. FWIW, I don't think it's US-Evil Saddam-Good. It's obvious to me that people were questioning the degree to which US military action was justified.

Quoting Resolution 1441 is a bit disingenuous since from the very day the US decided to attack Iraq there were people saying that it did not justify military action. In fact, I recall that they fell back on using it as justification after it became clear that any resolution asking for war would not pass.