Had the decision belonged to Senator Kerry, Saddam hussein would still be in power today in Iraq. In fact, Saddam Hussein would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Saddam's ouster will not necessarily lead to the same result, since Iraq lacks democratic traditions. Democracy doesn't just consist of holding elections.
A genuinely democratic Iraq might well act as a fresh spur.
To avoid a military conflict, Saddam Hussein has no other choice than to leave the country.
It was known in the mid 90s already that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous tyrant that he had already launched aggressions against Iran, he had invaded Kuwait.
The mistake that was made was, of course, leaving Saddam in charge of affairs over there.
Having removed the dictator, the allies have moved to put Iraqis in control of Iraq. Now, as they draft and ratify their Constitution, we will indeed see the character of a new Iraqi nation revealed through the principles it chooses to uphold.
Democracy still has a real hope and chance in Iraq, and true freedom in this country would be the greatest testament to those who gave their lives for it.
I can imagine that the Iraqis undertake the destruction out of fear. If they had denied it, if they had said no, that certainly would have played into the hands of those that would like to take armed action immediately. I have no illusions in that regard.
Once Iraq becomes a nuclear power, the very decision to go to war against it would become a totally different ball game.
The fact is that we wouldn't be in Iraq if it weren't for Democrats like Senator Kerry.