Edward, you need to learn the difference bewteen apples and oranges

Submitted by rick (United States), Jul 9, 2008 at 17:26

Every world leader is in some way directly or indirectly responsible for deaths of people somewhere. Sometimes even doing nothing can cause the deaths of many people at a later time. WInston Churchill was probably responsible for many deaths but can one compare him to Adolf Hitler? Who is reponsible for all the dead in the Spanish Civil War lading up to WW II? Who is reponsible for the horrendous deaths in WW I?

In the case of Bush, he is an idealist who believes that the upheaval of Iraqi society, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and 4,000 Americans is worth changing the not only of Iraq but in the Middle East from despotism to democracy. I am not as idealistic as President Bush. I knew that Saddam had to be eliminated. I hope you realized that also because if you didn't then your type of arguments are worthless. If everyone is guitly then no one is guitly. Do you really believe that nonsense?

Eventually, Saddam would possess WMD and we know from his own history ,he would use them. Bush Sr., by not taking him out in 1991 Gulf War to save Kuwait is responsible in a way for the lose if lives later. When you have a Hitler in your sights you need to shoot. Bush Sr. didn't. Not to shoot endangers everyone.

How many Iraqis died trying to overthrow Saddam while the US army stood by and watched in 1991? Saddam and his two sons as well as a number of Baathist followers should be have been eliminated then. But they weren't. We and the world went home and Saddam began all over again.

There should never have been US troops in Iraq in 2003. If they did go in it should have been for a very short time - no more than 3 months but in that time the Baath Party should have been destroyed and Saddam & Sons killed. Bush doesn't know RULE #1 - after a "war" never stay a long time in an Arab land. For me I would have preferred the assassination route. Iraq would have undergone much less turmoil, the threat of Saddm would be gone but you wouldn't have democracy. I think that is a more humane solution but the US frowns on assassination just as you do. In actually, it can save hundreds of thouands of people when the right party is removed.

Anyway, for you to compare Bush with Ayatollah Khomenie shows a complete lack of understanding of our world and history. The ayatollah ( with Saddam's help) is personally responsible for the (1) the deaths of over a million killed in the 8 year Iran-Iraq war (2) the undermining of Lebanon with his Revolutionary Guards (3) the debasement of Iranian society with Islamic police acting much like the KGB did in Stalin's time (4) the encouragement of terror throughout the region even to the point of having a budget line called "terrorism" (5) the dead weight of mullah regime in Iran today which is his inheritance to the Iranian nation along with these fanatics having nuclear WMD and threatening a Holocaust of Israel and who knows who else.

To compare that persona to a President who whatever his mistakes now is trying to bring democracy to that nation shows an amazing lack of political and humanitarian thinking.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".