posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 08:13 AM
Well, I would have started by not supporting Saddams regime in the first place. After all, the US administration supported Saddam with weapons,
training, and logistics in order to get him in power of the communist part of iraq. The idea was that Saddam was going to be yet another comprador
leader that would sell the natural resources of iraq to multi-national corporations at rock bottom prices, while at the same time, crush any labour
organizations to keep a large pool of cheap labour for exploitation.
I probably also wouldnt have Armed both sides of the Iran/Iraq conflict while saying I was a neutral party. Nor would I have said my government will
remain neutral if you were to invade Kuait in order to stop the slant drilling operations. Even if i didnt remain neutral, I probably would have
given Saddam more than one week to withdraw his forces from Kuait before I started dropping bombs on their soldiers, infastructure, and water
Afterwards, I wouldnt have launched sanctions on Iraq which only crippled the civilian sector and drove them further into prostrate.
As for the Hitler remarks...Well he was the butcher of Bagdad, but that of course was when he was a friend of the US administration. The comparison
to hitler is a propaganda ploy used on a number of regimes in the world. Its purpose is to spur atrocity stories in the media in order to whip the
public into a fervor of patriotism in support of a conflict.