This is true. Nevertheless, Saddam was the guy in charge and was responsible for choosing which direction to lead the country, and he lead it down the destructive path that ended with the 2nd Iraq war. He didn't do it in a vaccuum, and there were US, Soviet, Iranian, Saudi, etc., etc. influences and contributions, but with leadership comes responsibility. He brought the country to where it ended up before Iraq war 2.
I have no problem coming to the rescue of an oppressed people (Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo come to mind)...but, first I want to be told that's what we are doing, and not taken there on some subterfuge lie, and second, if that's what we are doing, I don't want it to be done without the support of large percentage of the world's most influential nations. If the wingnuts come back to me and say that we are ceding sovereignty to the UN, I would remind them then that we are undertaking a humanitarian mission, as well as one that brings progressive governance to a troubled area of the world.
Nevertheless, it didn't happen, and Saddam's subsequent leadership brought the country to Iraq war 2.
Sorry, I have lots of problems with the statement above. Bush was going to war come hell or high waters.
The main exception being the failure of the UN to sanction Iraq war 2 when everything headed in that direction for the preceding 6 months. The US made a decent effort to get the UN behind the idea of enforcing the 14 resolutions Iraq had ignored, and the Frenchies screwed it up.
I think you are revising history here. The UN is made up of countries that don't like to be deceived....the french, germans et al are not stupid...bush's deception could be seen from miles away. There was never a chance for a peaceful resolution.
Al |
