Like it or not, the major selling point to the invasion was the threat to the US. That consisted of both WMD and direct links to Al Quaeda, neither of which have been proven. When neither of these direct cause goals was achieved, Bush CHANGED the reason for invasion to helping the people of Iraq.
If Bush had come out before the invasion and said "The primary reason for invading Iraq is to free the people of Iraq", without the threat to the US, he would not have had nearly the same level of support.
If we start invading countries that refuse to follow UN mandates, then Israel would be next.
If we start invading countries that kill their own people, then China and North Korea would be next.
If we start invading countries that invade their neighbors, then Russia and (again) China are next.
If we start invading countries with strong ties to Al Quaeda, then Saudi Arabia is next. Ooops, we just left there, didn't we?
The logic is flawed, the argument is indefensible. WMD and definitive links between Saddam and bin Laden are necessary. Without those, we simply appear as an imperialistic nation protecting its source of oil through an invasion of a vastly inferior country. |
