The difference here is that Bush made his case for going to war the fact that Saddam had WMDs. When the International community asked for proof he couldn't come up with the goods. This immediately weakened his argument. If he'd said, "Look Saddam is committing genocide on the Kurds, and his people are ready for a change of government. Let's go in there and show our commitment to giving them democracy and get rid of Saddam who is a dangerous pain in the ass..." At least he wouldn't have had to back peddle on the no WMDs fiasco.
He did bring these things up. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was just one of the reasons we went to war and not the main one. Bush's enemies try to convince us this was his main or only reason for the war because this is the one point they can attack him on.
The primary reason for the war was this. Saddam Hussein violated 27 UN resolutions with numbers 687 and 1441 being the most egregious. These resolutions stated that Saddam Hussein would be compelled to comply if he did not cooperate.
The first war with Iraq began because it attacked Kuwait with the intention of further expansion. The world community justly responded to stop this Nazi-type aggression and made war against him and drove him out of Kuwait. After this the war was not declared over but a cease fire was arranged through U.N. resolution 687. The agreement that Saddam signed on to in order to enact a cease fire and save his skin was that he would allow full inspections and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction and not build any more. He also agreed to honor the civil rights of his people.
The deal was that if Saddam did not live up to his agreement (WMD inspections and civil rights) then the cease fire could end and the war would resume. No time limit was placed on this.
Bush and Blair enforced UN Resolution Number 687 as well as Number 1441. The latter was unanimously passed by the UN Security Council in November 2002 shortly before the war. Bush is accused of initiating a new war. It is not a new war, but an old one that was legally resumed and after he went the extra mile and got an additional UN resolution passed approving action. Clinton resumed the war legally several times (without an additional UN resolution) but not on the same scale Bush did. Bush and Blair merely enforced UN resolutions that others dragged their feet on because of their own oil contracts with the tyrant, Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein's refusal to obey the UN resolutions, especially cooperating with inspections of WMDs was then the number one reason for going to war. What good are UN resolutions if they are not enforced? Passing a resolution may make people feel good, but it means nothing if the described action is not taken. Bush and Blair were the only ones who meant what their country said when they voted for them.
Additional stated reasons for the war were:
These were all noble reasons. Some WMDs were found, but nothing like was expected. There is significant evidence they were moved with Russian cooperation.
If you're going to make genocide and Democracy your platform then asking about why other places in the world aren't going to be beneficiaries of the same opportunities is a fair call. China is another example, no Democracy and thousands are executed every year. This has been going on for decades.
As I said, democracy and genocide were not the main reasons given. It was the breaking of UN resolutions. There were three other reasons given above. However the creation of a Democracy in the area is a prime desire of the Spiritual Hierarchy.
Obviously we can't take on the whole world at once and invading China would be a disaster. There are no UN resolutions against China and they have not invaded another nation as Saddam Hussein did. We are not likely to invade another other nation without a UN resolution as we had last time, or if we face some exceptional threat to security. China is becoming more capitalistic all the time and there is better than a fifty-fifty chance that it will gradually change to a fairly democratic nation. There are still many people in China who were inspired by the incident at Tiananmen Square and seek greater freedom by working from within.
In terms of receiving messages from God, It is very difficult to reconcile double speaking, double dealing and double standards as a strategy of the hierarchy. The use of a strategy which involves the use of violence, deceit, concealment, torture and killing of people on a large scale, withdrawal of liberties and the reign of another kind of terror is a poor methodology for advancing the light at this time in human history.
This is an accurate description of what happened with both sides during World War II, but not the Iraq war.
No one has deceived me. There is no torture that I can find unless it is some rogue agent. And since you do not live in the United States you must be falling for propaganda about the loss of liberties. There is insignificant loss of liberties that I can find. I and everyone I know of are freer than ever.
John C writes:
Others in this country, of late, place a higher value on security than they do on liberty, and they gladly trade liberty for security and perceived safety.
This is where the Second Key of Judgment comes in. In our three major conflicts, The Revolutionary War, The Civil War and World War II quite a few liberties were given up to obtain security as well as victory. Almost all historians agree most of this was a good thing. Everyone who joins the military to assist in maintaining our freedoms temporarily gives up quite a few liberties to give us security.
I give up the liberty of burglarizing homes so I have security in my own home.
To make money in a business we have to sacrifice and spend money to make more money.
Sometimes in life we have to sacrifice liberty in one area to obtain greater liberty in another area. Many people have such an unreasonable view on the subject that they don't want to take a one in a million chance that the CIA will check to see what library books they have checked out. Do they not realize that if we had one or two more 911s that liberties would be at risk that make anything we have to sacrifice now seem like a grain of sand on the seashore?
I am personally amazed at how insignificant has been our sacrifice of minor liberties when considering what has happened in past conflicts and surmising the threat we currently face.
On this subject many quote Benjamin Franklin as follows:
"Those who would give up Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Unfortunately, this is a misquote. His real words were:
"Those who would give up ESSENTIAL Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Franklin and the Founding Fathers themselves had to sacrifice some non essential liberties to insure the essential ones would triumph.
In your past two posts you said a lot of things I agree with. Unfortunately when members write things with which I agree, about all I can think of saying is "I agree." If they write something that needs further elaboration or with which I disagree then I find lots to say.
So let me take this opportunity to show my appreciation for all the posts that members have made that drew forth no comment from me. In many cases they were great posts, but there was not a lot to add. Then there are other times I just do not have time to comment.
Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.
George W. Bush, 2004
Copyright © 2006 by J J Dewey, All Rights Reserved