George Bush and Saddam Hussein

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!)

You said, 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?


As my wife would say… this isn’t rocket surgery.

6 replies on “George Bush and Saddam Hussein”

  1. Yes some of the people who slam you seem to forget that former Marine and Chief UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter agrees with you. In a speech in 2002, he called the US rush to war a “historical mistake” and indicated that there were no WMD in Iraq. And he should hve known, he was there for 6 years, looking for WMD.

    And he was right.

    Nill illigitimi carborundum

  2. Chris,

    As I observed on Smash’s website, the problem with the 2003 Iraq War was political: the way it ratcheted up the standard for enforcement of international law after a decade in which the United States and the rest of the world acquiesced in the downsizing of enforcement. If the USA had acted against the first violation of the ceasefire terms, the problem would have been settled with much less controversy a decade ago.

    The real danger now isn’t so much the positions that pro-war and anti-war people take right now as it is where the logic on each side could lead:

    The pro-war side seems to accept (not absolutely, but within limits that are broader than before) that the ends justify the means. The danger is that crossing this line once will make crossing it again easier.

    The anti-war side seems to accept (probably not absolutely, but the limits are not clear) that breaking international agreements is not enough reason to justify going to war. The danger of this position is obvious as well.

    What we really need is for nations to rise above the immediate fray and focus on how we can get to a better world order in the long run.

  3. David Billington

    Your summary, as usual, is excellent. Well said. As many have commented, perhaps the best course in the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion is to focus on restoring Iraqi society to a peaceful status and nurturing its fledgling democracy rather than tilting at windmills ala convicting GWB and Tony Blair of war crimes.

    From what I read of European attitudes (Germany and France especially) is that currently that political scene is dominated by fear of economic globilization and much of their rhetoric seems to be aimed at somehow blaming all their economic woes on foreign economies (namely the US) and a drive to reduce the effect of foreign capitilistic influences in their societies. That seems totally unrealistic to me as their current social system is unsupportable considering the coming demographics. They cannot do without foreign investment but I’ve read that 1 in 5 foreign corporations are packing up and leaving the European region (particularly Germany). I’m wondering how much longer this can go on without severe consequences.

  4. You say Bush and Hussain commited the exact same crime. What’s the UNSC resolution threatening consequences (severe or otherwise) against Kuwait?

    You’re also taking advantage of hindsight. We didn’t know Saddam had disarmed until 2004. In 2002 he was acting exactly like someone with something to hide.

  5. Jane,

    Thank you for the kind words. The indications at any given moment in Iraq can be deceiving but my sense is that in a year we will know whether the country has turned a corner. It does look like an Iraqi army is beginning to take shape.

    The reason continental Europeans fear unregulated market forces is that they do not want to return to the social divisions that led to revolutionary upheaval between the World Wars. I think this is an understandable concern. But as you rightly point out, their welfare states could soon be in trouble, given the smaller number of young people and the already high tax rates. What I don’t know is whether this will simply bring benefits down to our level or involve deeper cuts.

    I wonder if the foreign firms leaving Europe are the same kinds of firms leaving the USA for lower-cost labor abroad. Although some countries in the EU are more attractive than others, I think Europe as a whole still draws and retains foreign investment that produces for the European market. What may not be possible is for Europeans to continue to enjoy the benefits of a common regional society without a true regional government.

Comments are closed.

Discover more from Murkyview

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading