Quote:
Originally Posted by August
No way. Saddam killed far more civilians than what died in OIF and he continued to kill them in large numbers right up until the moment we removed him from power. You can't assume this long standing pattern of violence was going to stop had we not invaded.
|
I do not hold the US and UK responsible for the deaths caused by Saddam -
with the exception of where the US/UK assisted Saddam, gave him the opponent, and delivered him with the means to commit these killings. I think of the Iran war, the Western assistance in arming Saddam chemically, or the treachery after Kuwait 1991 when the US motivated the Shia revolt - and then let them down when High Noon had come and watched without motion when Saddam massacred them.
But regarding the violence since 2003, I hold the US and UK responsible for all those deaths that happened because and since that war, and that would not have taken place without the invasion of 2003. The US/UK created the opportunity for Al Quaeda entering the stage in Iraq as well, and it created the opportunity for the outbreak of violence between the ethnic factions, and the entering of the Iranians and Shia fundamentalists into the Iraqi playfield.
These responsibilities you have to accept - causally and morally, whether you like that or not. You cannot just march into a country, mess it up more than it already was, start a shooting war and see criminals and terrorists entering the place in your wake adding to the general harm, and then claim that you have nothing to do with the mess you created. This is your bank coup, and that others commit other bank coups or would have started a coup on the bank you now have targeted yourself, if you wouldn'T have done it first, does not change that
you are responsible for you own coup. What Saddam would have done since 2003 if you would have left him where he was, is speculation, and does not interfere with the deaths caused not by him,
but by you.