This is in response to my last thread on George Bush as a war criminal and the posts therein… I will simply post my last answer in that thread and then elaborate. I don’t usually get personal.. but since this discussion was brought onto me personally and people are taking issue with me personally then both barrels might as well come out.
I will respond to this as the rest is just the same old sarcasm and lack of actually reading what I wrote.. If you all had actually read and understood (I know that’s a stretch for some) what I had wrote you would have noticed that I consider BOTH Saddam and Bush a war criminal. That’s what happens when you commit the SAME CRIME!)
The sad truth is that, to you, nothing is worth fighting for.
I’ve heard this so many times and it’s such a load of BS…
I, and many others who share my viewpoints on Iraq, am not a pacicifist. Granted there are plenty of people who are… but I am not one of them, nor, I believe, are the majority of others who are “anti-Iraq-war”. I do not believe that war is obselete. While I hope for a day where war is no longer required… I fully recognize there are situations where it must happen. Iraq could have been one of those situations. The fact that it didn’t is the reason there is so much opposition to it.
Saying something is an ultimate last resort is not the same as saying something must be banned outright.
I, along with many others, believe that had the case for the Iraq war been more convincing, that is, the case brought to the UN that was based on 2 things only , WMD programs and Links to Terrorism (the 3rd, humanitarian case was only emphasized by the US Administration much much later precisely because it was not a tenable reason to wage war) then many many more people would have supported the war.
Many surveys (Pew did the most extensive one) done before the war indicated that support for the war spiked as soon as there was UNSC approval. Without UNSC approval, the invasion was opposed by every population outside the US and UK (barely).
Indeed. Had it been found, incontrovertably, that Saddam had WMD in the quantities asserted by Bush and Co. or Saddam had refused to allow inspectors in after Resolution 1441… then the UNSC would have had no choice but to admit that Saddam was a threat. The fact is that that case simply wasn’t there. And now it has become clear that the initial WMD disarmament program after 1991 was highly successful in stripping Saddam of his capabilities.
Let me say that more clearly… the *UN MONITORED WMD INSPECTORS SUCCESSFULLY DISARMED SADDAM*. They did it so well in fact that the whole world and the UN itself thought Saddam *must* have been hiding something, which he wasn’t.
Mass graves and atrocities that happened 10 years prior are not a reason to invade a country. To put it simply, if it were, then there would be a lot more countries that we’d be compelled to invade and topple. *That* is not an option. Humanitarianism is aboutpreventing suffering and the loss of life not adding to it by waging war.
You talk about Hypocrisy when in fact what I am proposing is following a path that avoids hypocrisy completely. What is more hypocritical than punishing one leader for invading a country and not punishing the other 12 years later?
SADDAM HUSSEIN AND GEORGE BUSH BROKE EXACTLY THE SAME LAW!
As my wife would say… this isn’t rocket surgery.