If Iraq had not invaded Kuwait to rob their oil, after depleting his own treasury during the Iranian war, there would have been no Gulf War nor accidental bombing of this bunker.
If Saddam had disarmed as mandated by the UN resolutions over the past 12 years, Bush would have no reason for a current war, avoiding the possibility of a repeat of this.
If hijacked airliners had not been flown into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, there would have been no linkage of Iraqi officials with Al Qeada and subsequent war against terrorism.
If the international outcry was directed were it should be, against Iraqs refusal to disarm and account for weapons of mass destruction, there would also be no need for war.
Everyone seems to acknowledge that Saddam is an evil, sadistical, tyrant, of a dictator, but there is no outcry against him, only against those who wish to end his evil reign. The world waited with Hitler until it was almost too late and look how many lives were lost. Now, I see it happening all over again. Had the peaceniks been as boisterous during the 1940's, we may all be marching a goose-step today. The Battle of Britain and subsequent inclusion of Isolationist America in World War 2 is what stopped him then. If not for that, the outcome just may have been drastically different. "Live and let live" is a fantastic western philosophy. Try to convince radical Muslims of that, though.
History repeats itself.
Give Freedom a Chance
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
NEW ORLEANS
How should free people feel - in our hearts, brains and guts - about
launching a pre-emptive strike?
Note that we are not "starting a war" with Iraq. That was begun by Saddam
more than a decade ago. We won the first battle, but he has since been
secretly violating the terms of surrender. Either we will allow him to
become capable of inflicting horrendous casualties in our cities tomorrow -
or we must inflict and accept far fewer casualties in his cities today.
That's a Hobson's choice, which is no choice at all. We will now get on with it. We will not whip ourselves into jingoism, or become fascinated by our exercise of ultra-tech superpower or suppress our sadness at the pictures of Iraqi civilians Saddam will thrust into the line of fire as human shields.
But we should by no means feel guilty about doing our duty. War cannot be
waged apologetically. Rather than wring our hands, Americans and our allies
are required to gird our loins - that is, to fight to win with the
conviction that our cause is just. We have ample reason to believe that
Saddam's gangster government is an evil to be destroyed before it gains the
power to destroy us.
It is futile to try to reason with passionate marchers waving signs
proclaiming that America's motives are to conquer the world and expend blood for oil.
Nor should we waste more precious time trying to beg or buy moral approval
from France or Russia, their U.N. veto threats largely driven by economic
interests in Saddam's continuance in power. Nor should we indulge in placing second thoughts first: How much will it cost? How many will be killed? How long will it take? Will it kill the snake of terror or only poke it? Will everybody thank us afterward? Where's the guarantee of total success? Too cautious to oppose, these questioners delay action by demanding to know what they know is unknowable.
Our task now, as citizens of nations burdened with the dirtiest work of
mankind - a pre-emptive attack to finish a suspended war - is to call up the national spirit and determined attitude needed to sustain a great effort. Skepticism is a fine American trait and many find patriotic fervor uncool, but the eve of hostilities is the moment for opening the mind to
exhortation.
We are launching this attack, already too long delayed, primarily to defend
ourselves. This is a response to reasonable fear. We know Saddam is
developing terror weapons and is bound on vengeance; we know he has ties to
terror organizations eager to use those weapons for more mass murder; we
know he can bamboozle the U.N. inspectors again; we know Americans are
terror's prime targets. That's plenty of reason to take him out.
But this reasonable fear should be accompanied by a strong dash of hope.
Wilsonian idealists have found a soulmate in President Bush, who surprised
us all with his challenging vision - not merely a "vision thing" - for the
coming generation.
The defeat of Saddam may just send a clear message to Kim Jong Il and other
tyrants that we will respond with more action than ransom to nuclear
blackmailers, thereby making the world a safer place. But safety is not all.
The liberation of 23 million Arabs and Kurds now ruled by a bloody-handed
dictator, followed by a transition to a confederation (aided by an
Arab-American general like John Abizaid, now Gen. Tommy Franks's deputy),
may just make it possible for a rudimentary democracy to take root in this
major Muslim nation.
Such a birth of freedom in Iraq, a land of oil wealth and a literate
population, may just spread to its neighbors and co-religionists. This would counter the cancerous growth of repression and rancor that has roiled the Middle East and impoverished the people of 20 nations.
If Bush's vision of a transformed region fails, it will fail while daring
greatly - a nobler course than that weakly advocated, in Teddy Roosevelt's
words, by "those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
This campaign near the Ides of March will make us safer, allaying our fears; it has the potential of making the world freer, justifying our hopes.
