Mbro:

Has President Bush been perfect in how he handled the war? Of course not. The problem with trying to plot your strategy to curry approval from the world community is that sometimes the world community does not want the right thing. A perfect example was the first war against Saddam.The first president Bush was able to get the UN and even Arab countries to sign up for the war. But part of the bargain to get them to sign on was to agree not to follow Saddam’s troops back into Iraq. To be honest I thought this was the best way to go and when some bashed Bush 1 for not finishing the job I echoed the administrations defense that we had to keep the coalition together. Bush hoped that a home grown revolution would rise up and depose Saddam. So the “world”(America included) sat and watched as Saddam gassed his own people and began the slow torterous process of terrorizing anyone and their families who had dared to speak of change.The”world” let us set up the embargo and the no fly zones to keep Saddam’s army penned up. This policy did nothing to bring regime change and then the ‘world’ set up the oil for blood scam that was supposed to help stop the innocent victims from dying from the economic embargo. All that program did was give Saddam more money to fund his perversions and other terrorist groups. Before 9-11 the “world” was already starting the process of dropping the embargo and they were already signing deals with that pig for post embargo reconstruction. The “world” was going to leave Saddam and the Taliban in power. Sometimes the “world” is wrong and a leader has to act even if he can’t get the “world” to pitch in. The ‘world” thought Reagan was an idiot and only a fool would think that you could pressure the USSR hard enough to collapse. Most of the “world” was against him. The anti-Bush protests in europe were carbon copies of the anti-Reagan protests in the eighties, down to the giant puppets and the Hitler references.Sometimes the world is wrong.