LOL!
The point seems pretty obvious from the post: Bush didn't invent the idea of Iraq under Saddam pursuing or having WMD's or the need to do something about it. And if you can't see that that was the point, there isn't much point in having that conversation you keep asking for. That point, incidentally, is the response to the article or letter you posted. Far from being a "crime", Bush's position on Iraq's pursuit of WMD's, Iraq's past use of WMD's, past horrific aggressions against neighboring countries and its own people, possession of WMD's and refusal to allow true verification that they were no longer there, the dangers of looking the other way, etc. .... those were mainstream views, in the U.S. and elsewhere.
The stomach to do something about it was not as universal, but France is never really up to that task. The only difference with Bush is that he was willing to do something about it, and many in the rest of the world fear that willingness should their friends want to pursue a similar path. They view the past and its lessons differently.
The number of people per day or per year who died as a result of Saddam Hussein over the past quarter century, BTW, is far greater than the death toll from the U.S. action to enforce Iraq's obligations.
And you never answered my questions: If Illinois had launched wars against Iowa and Indiana resulting in the deaths of several hundred thousand people, using chemical weapons on Keokuk (or perhaps the minority population in East St. Louis, to make the analogy more precise) in the process, would we expect or want the rest of the world to care? Would we want somebody, anybody, to come in with force if necessary and oust the Illinois governor? |
