Saddam needed to be forcibly inspected and disarmed, then preferably removed, as was being done properly before Bush invaded.
How was he being removed again? And if the proper process, as you call it, hadn't succeeded in removing him from 1991 to 2001, how was it suddenly going to succeed in 2002. I don't think there was any UN plan to remove his regime from power, and thus the misery of the Iraqi people and economic destruction of the Iraqi state.
We should have waited to let the UN inspectors finish their jobs. Then moved to the next step in a thorough, patient manner.
Uhmmm, what next step again? He should have been removed from power in 1991 (or earlier), what was the upcoming "next step" that was going to accomplish that? I think you're rewriting history.
The real issue here was not removing Saddam, but the sheer incompetence and dishonesty associated with Bush's rush to war.
Both are issues. You are the only anti-Bush person that seems to support the idea of forcibly removing Saddam, so at least we're on agreement on that. As for Bush's incompetence in the planning and execution of that process, I agree. He should be ashamed of himself, and removed from power (if legally possible) for poorly executing the largest AMerican overseas operation since Vietnam. But that's one of the good things of the US system; he will be removed from power in a few years, regardless.
As for the rest of your anti-Bush rant, I've told you I don't like his leadership, and I could care less about your anti-Bush rants, so give it a rest! |
