Ok, all biased positions aside, was it a smarter move to take the measures we did with Iraq, or should we have held back and do something else. If so, what?
I’m havin’ some trouble coming to my own conclusion, so any facts or input would be helpfull.
Answering the question depends on what assumptions you start with.
If you start with the view that the U.S. wanted to invade Iraq to stop the proliferation of WMDs, then the answer is that we should have allowed the UN inspections to continue, to verify whether or not Iraq even had WMDs, and then make a move accordingly.
Howeve, if you’re cynical enough to start with the view that the U.S. wanted to invade Iraq because we wanted to seize control of the oil fields – and used the threat of WMDs as an excuse for doing so – then the question is moot: Bush would have gone to war anyway, even if Saddam Hussein had turned over every document he had an Hans Blix confirmed that there were no WMDs anywhere in the country. In that case, the really smart move would have been for the Preisdent to avoid appointing so many neo-conservative thinkers to his inner circle, shunned their ideas of a new Pax Americana, and get the United States off its dependence on foreign oil ASAP.
But since that would have put a major hurt on the American petroleum industry, there was no chance in hell you’d get two Texas oilmen like Bush and Cheney to go along.
What if you start with the view that the UN was impotent to find any WMD’s in Iraq with its handful of wandering inspetors?
Well, let’s continue the view that the Administration with the full force of the military behind it, while occupying the country is still impotent to find them, even with its larger than a handful of inspectors, who have the “secret” information that GW said that he had.
This is getting old and stale.
Thanks guys, just wanted some opinions.
Saddam was an evil and despotic ruler, responsible for thousands if not millions of deaths. We did the right thing in getting rid of him.
Press Conference, White House Briefing Room, March 19, 2003
Ari Fleisher: Welcome. As you know 2 days ago The President issued and ultimatim to Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq within 48 hours. That timelimit has passed and Saddam didn’t leave so I am here to announce that we have launched a nuclear missile at Badgad. It detonated three minutes ago. He is gone. Questions?
Incredulous Reporter #1: You nuked Bagdad!?!
Ari Fleisher: That is correct. Next question?
Incredulous Reporter #2: But you just killed millions of people!!
Ari Fleisher: Hussein is a slippery fellow and we didn’t want him getting away. We are now sure he is dead.
Incredulous Reporter #3: But at what cost?! Millions are dead!
Ari Fleisher: Saddam was an evil and despotic ruler, responsible for thousands if not millions of deaths. We did the right thing in getting rid of him.
Incredulous Reporter #4: But don’t you think that was an overreaction? We don’t even know if they had WMDs.
Ari Fleisher: Saddam was an evil and despotic ruler, responsible for thousands if not millions of deaths. We did the right thing in getting rid of him.
Incredulous Reporter #5: My god! Do you really believe this massacre was justified?!
Ari Fleisher: Saddam was an evil and despotic ruler, responsible for thousands if not millions of deaths. We did the right thing in getting rid of him.
Incredulous Reporter #6: But, you can’t do whatever you want without considering the costs!
Ari Fleisher: I think we are done here.
Are you calling the American forces in Iraq “impotent” and “wandering,” then? 'cuz we’re not finding anything either.
(Here’s a suggestion, Kalt: try thinking for yourself for once. Just because Bush called the UN inspectors ineffective doesn’t mean they were)