Woo hoo! A comment! Well, two actually. And one from a “dissenter“ from the Bill Graziano world-view. I knew there were some out there. I just hadn't heard from any yet. Maybe that means I'm getting popular? Quick check of the stats . . . nope. Not so much. Which may be linked to my world view. Hmmm. Anyway, charles1919 posted a comment to my Saddam Captured post and I thought I'd respond here rather than in the comments since what I'd written ended up fairly long.
Charles,
I agree that Bush shouldn't be allowed to determine Saddam's punishment. I think we should hold him until there's a functioning government in Iraq and then turn him over to the Iraqis. They can figure out what to do with him. I don't think we should turn him over to the UN or the ICC.
He did ignore the U.N. but I don't think that's a bad thing. The U.N. revealed itself to be unwilling to take action. France, a Security Council member, said they would veto anything that involved the U.N. enforcing their resolutions in Iraq. That left the U.N. a toothless tiger. Are you saying we should have left Saddam in power?
Bush did choose to pursue a course of action after being advised against it by many countries. Some of those were our allies. He also ignored countries that used to be our allies but now I wonder if they are. What is it about France and Germany that makes them our allies? Do we have the same world view? Do we have the same goals and values? I certainly respect the opinion of Australia and the U.K. more than France and Germany. And the people that are really starting to impress me are the Eastern European countries. I think they are really going to be a force in the EU if the game isn't rigged against them too much.
(And yes D., I know there's at least one Australian out there whose views are much closer to Charles' than mine. But you express them so much more eloquently than he does.)
Your next point is that Bush chose to ignore international law. Is that the "don't invade anyone law"? Please post a link to that law. I'd like to read it before I comment.
On to the killing thousands of civilians. Yes, civilians did die. And America and our allies did everything they could to minimize casualties. Certainly we killed fewer Iraqis than Saddam. Hundreds of thousands fewer. Are you suggesting we could have removed him without harming civilians? How?
It's hard not to kill civilians when Saddam places his military targets in major population centers. It's hard not to kill civilians when their military is dressing up as civilians and attacking our troops.
And here's what I think is the best arguement of all. Or maybe the worst. Because the U.S. "worked" with Saddam before we shouldn't have attacked. Yes, he was our ally. He was less evil than the people he was fighting (or at least we thought so at the time). I certainly think we made mistakes in how we dealt with Saddam. We aren't perfect and never will be. It's a ridiculous standard to hold a country too.
So does that mean we shouldn't attack him? I think that really means it was our problem to fix. If we really did help create him all we really did was fix what we created. We pressed "control-Z" on him if you like. I really think we should have done it in the first Gulf War. I'm still horrified that we encouraged the Iraqis to rebel and then left them to be slaughtered. It's George, Sr. that I'm upset with.
Why are you afraid I'll preach about the evil Saddam? Shouldn't we all preach against evil? Shouldn't we all work to remove people like Saddam from power when ever we can? Do we have a moral obligation to help people less fortunate than us?
Should the US topple every terrible regime that oppresses their people? Should they topple none? Or some? Which ones and who decides? The UN?
And finally . . . . what was your solution? Don't invade? Wait for the UN? Provide a better scenario or solution. Don't just pop up with some knee jerk reaction. Provide a better answer!