Quote:
Originally posted by Joe Sixpack@May 14 2004, 05:26 AM
I see what you're saying and I understand your points but surely you see Hitler himself as a catalyst, without whom, the war in Europe would probably have never broken out.
My point was that Bush's decision to go to war to topple Saddam has had a series of consequences (POW abuse, the infamous beheading) that would never have eventuated had this recent Iraq war never happened.
|
Absolutely. Without Hitler war in Europe would have been extremely unlikely at that time. Probably later though.
Bush's decision to go to war was certainly his and it certainly had a series of consequences. I think George Bush would agree with you. A decision to go to war means people are going to die. No one would disagree with that.
( Joe, Insert beaten down horse here ;-) )
One could also say the same thing of Saddam. None of this came out of the blue. Saddam was public enemy #1 in the US until September of 2001.
I don't believe that "this war would never have happened". It just wouldn't have happened yet. It seems to me that a showdown with Saddam was likely at some point. It was unlikely under a Clinton. It would probably have been unlikely under a Reagan. Certainly wouldn't have happened under Carter. Kerry or Gore? Those are good questions. Gore seemed to be pretty hawkish on Iraq over the years. Kerry? See below.
US legislation continually aimed at his head over the past decade. One such example is the "Iraq Liberation Act" signed into law in 1998. It became official US policy to remove Saddam from power at that point. Not through war but through funding opposition groups. There are more. They are easy to find. Let's not forget the tough statements by members of the US congress on both the democratic and republican side. Why did Congress authorize Bush' use of force? Ummm, easy. Because Saddam has been a thorn for a decade.
What did Mr. McCain say? "Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows".
Only later as war became imminent did the event become a political split in the US between parties.
I think it likely that another US president would have done the same thing at some point. Of course, an administration with Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney gave a much higher probability to this than the previous administration. Many in the administration were vocally hawkish on Iraq. Those guys expecially. Many in congress were vocally hawkish on Iraq.
What did Mr. Kerry say on the eve of war? "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real"
Saddam played a role too.
What should Saddam assume responsibilty for? What should Bush assume responsibility for? How about Blair? Howard? Congress? Cheney? Bush I? Clinton? John Kerry? Senator McCain? How much responsibility should Chiraq assume for the global split between the US and rest of the world? Rumsfeld?
Good questions, I think. Many interesting answers.
In a sense, I agree with you. Bush must assume responsibility for what is his decision and his decision alone. In the end, the president was authorized to
make the final decision to go to war and he did.
On the other hand, there was a whole lot of history heading towards this place and time. It was likely that Saddam was going to end up in US custody at some point. Statement after statement and legislation after legislation made that point clear. He has been the marked man of US policy for quite some time.
Last edited by Colin at May 14 2004, 06:17 AM
05-14-2004
Hybrid Mode
