Even on re-reading the thread I could mis-read the message, which seemed to me to be justifying the actions taken on the basis of liberating the Iraqi people. Thanks for clarifying that you were saying only that however one viewed the legitimacy of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people have now been freed of its yoke.
As I understand it, tyrannical governments were not the
issue of serous or immediate concern to America or the Bush
Administration.
Well, yes and no. I mean, I agree with you, tyrannical governments are not an issue of serious or immediate concern to America and the Bush Administration.
However, for many many weeks before the war, what we heard was a concern to root out and destroy WMD and any related manufacturing capabilities. Yet as the war neared, and especially as it progressed, the focus became, well, Operation Iraqi Freedom. It wasn't called Operation Root Out Terrorism, or Operation WMD. And more and more of the attention was on the liberation of the Iraqi people, the removal of a corrupt and evil regime.
And so the war became a war of Iraqi liberation for many people. You see it all over the threads: someone questions the validity of the war, and the rejoinder is along the lines of "What, you don't think it's a good thing to liberate Iraqis?".
When it comes down to it, though, the war was about threat and about WMD. America feared Iraq as a supporter of terrorists and a source of weapons, both traditional and WMD. That's why America attacked Iraq, and that's where any pro- vs anti-war debate should be, on the justification for the war on that basis. The whole Iraqi freedom thing - a good and wonderful thing it is to see Saddam's boot no longer held over his people - is a side issue.
Regards
WUWT |
