We rushed into war without trying other avenues

The debate: Preemptive war vs Kicking the can down the road. I'm not against preemption, but was Saddam an immediate threat to U.S national security? I believe the correct answer is no. W struck the iron while it was hot.

'Merica... fuck yeah. When the fuck have we tried other avenues in the history of ever?

The UN tried everything from sanctions to negotiations and Saddam Hussein still wouldn't let UN inspectors come in. The US even let him remain in power after the Gulf War, and many of the top nations in the UN, who would later whine about our more recent involvement, actually tried pushing the Americans to take him out at that time. Couple that with the fact that Hussein had indeed used WMD (chemical weapons) to kill thousands of Kurds in one day a few years before (which opponents of the war often choose to completely ignore), and that gave reason to go in. How about the mass graves that were uncovered after the US went in and the thousands of grieving families surrounding them in hopes of finding their kin? There's a reason people in Iraq were quick to topple Saddam's statues and deface his images. (Another thing opponents of the war will conveniently overlook) Iraq may still be unstable at the present time, but at least they're no longer facing mass murder at the moment.

There were no more "avenues". We gave Saddam all the time and opportunities. He laughted at us and the UN. Play with fire, you get burned.

This was probably the singular worst mistake we made in going to war with Iraq. The war was planned hastily, without considering the consequences of war. Look at history: countries have gotten into major quagmires because of a failure to plan, a failure to know the terrain, a failure to know your opponents and the people whom you would be invading. Tony Blair recently claimed that the point of the Iraq War wasn't that the Allies couldn't come to an agreement with Saddam Hussein; rather it was for the goal of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Even more dangerous is making war for ideological reasons rather than tactical reasons. Blair's admission is telling in the respect that it demonstrates that we didn't try to avoid this war through diplomacy. The decision was already made before-hand, it was just a question of getting in and taking over the country. War is supposed to be a last alternative; the threat should be real and the goals of the operation should be clea... Read more

I do believe that we rushed into war - and look where we at now!

Iraq thumbed its nose at the UN for twelve years, so the US said enough is enough and attacked, is that the current rationale for the war? So its not the real or imagined WMD's or supposed active threat to safety of American citizens on their own soil any more? At least you can't criticize the Bush administration for a lack of flexibility.

war is the only way to show that we mean business...there is now one less hitler in the world and that makes it all worth it

The bad mistake here was not building up a Mideast coalition the same as in the Gulf War of 1991. Using Saudi or Kuwati or Jordanian troops would go a long way towards doing what the neo-cons wanted to be done.

How did we rush in?How many times to did the U.N. request to send in inspectors?How many resolutions did Hussein ignor?

Nonsense. When the Gulf war ended in 1991 Saddam Hussein had 15 days to comply with the agreement that he signed. When he failed to do so, the U.N. spent 12 years initiating 16 uselss resolutions in an effort to make him live up to his end of the agreement. When the 17th and final resolution (# 1441) was introduced he was told that if he ignored this resolution, he would be removed from power by force. He ignored it, we removed him. Thanks to the U.N. and their cowardice, instead of holding Saddam to his 15 day limit he had that many more years to kill and torture people and he had more than enough time to move or destroy the weapons of mass destruction which everyone from Hillary Clinton to Britain said that he had.

It may have seemed a little swift to me at the time, but then I wasnt exactly suffering here in Middle American suburbia. I'm sure it didn't seem like a rush to the people being tortured and killed. You know, some people actually have the ability to look at history and see someone like Hitler (or do the words gassing and killing his own countrymen not ring a bell?) and learn from past mistakes...even act on that knowledge. While others are obviously better at sitting around heads firmly compacted up their bums denying reality and, when denial fails them, occasionally even re-writing history. When I see something nasty has hit my kitchen floor I think to myself well, I can either slip on it or wipe it up. Whether you agree with how he decided to do it or on not, I think Bush has been trying to take a pro-active position in the aftermath of 9/11 and wipe up the mess all while certain others scream, No, no wait! You need to step in that goo and slide around awhile. If you break your ... Read more

12 years is rushing? Maybe we should have waited for Hitler to kill all the jews. We would a least have one less stupid reason for tring to blame the U.S. for the murderous actions of a few sickos.

The timetable for this invasion had been set out long ago. Documents detailing the proposals and outlining out the exact dates were available over the Internet from certain White House sources many moons before March 2003, but I suspect many of us who read them thought they were conspiratorial. Strange then that Bush was adamant that the dates for invasion in March(given in the documents) were adhered to (although we were told that troops had to go in then before the weather turned) Why else would Bush not consider other avenues? True, sanctions didn't help Saddam be removed from power, but neither did they help the ordinary citizens of Iraq. But humanity may well have found a suitable course to do the job. I am now convinced that these documents were the true policies of the neo-cons who took power under the most suspicious of circumstances. Now we see that American voters have given them a legitimate mandate to pursue these policies in full. The world should be wary. In postscript... Read more

What ells could we do by the time we whent throug all the other options more people in this country might be dead.

For once, I am in complete agreement with Ignatius. The idea that we should have waited for more allies to come on board is rediculous. Of all the war's faults, this is not one of them.

Iggy is right, even without mentioning that Saddam expelled the UN weapons inspectors (while Clinton was President), remained in violation of 19 UN Resolutions, gassed his own citzens and grew more and more boldly defiant of the UN and the terms of the Gulf War ceasefire treaty. Saddam was an enemy of the state and, eventually, we treated him as such. Just because nobody in the UN had the balls to stand up for the resolutions they had overwhelmingly voted to approve doesn't mean the US (vis-a-vis Bush) rushed to anything. Saddam underestimated George W. Bush, as he had underestimated his father. He won't get another chance to mis-calculate.

I fully agree, IJR. How is 13 years rushing?