>>Like it or not, the major selling point to the invasion was the threat to the US.<<
Indeed it was the major selling point, but that is a far cry from it being the essential reason justifying the attack. Bush clearly justified the attack because of the earlier U.N. mandates. He sold it by referring to 911 and reports of Iraqi WMDs. Even without 911 and even without WMDs, the justification existed in full force simply because Saddam had been required by the world community to certifiably disarm and yet in response to that requirement he decided to shoot the moon at the world. 911 and the WMD reports were simply the straws that broke the camel’s back.
>>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.<<
Agreed. Bush is a politician. He effectively sold the plan using 911 and WMDs, and justified it based on the obligation of the world community to enforce its mandates. He helped the world stomach the assault by showing how the assault produced Iraqi Freedom. There is not a shred of contradiction here. What we see here is a very artful use of politics. You must be more supple-minded and see the thing in all its essential parts. Then we must integrate them as Bush has obviously done.
>>If we start invading countries that refuse to follow UN mandates, then Israel would be next.<<
The circumstances are quite different here. As are their essential components.
>>If we start invading countries that kill their own people, then China and North Korea would be next.<<
See above.
>>If we start invading countries that invade their neighbors, then Russia and (again) China are next.<<
See above
>>If we start invading countries with strong ties to Al Quaeda, then Saudi Arabia is next. Ooops, we just left there, didn't we?<<
See above.
>>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.<<
The logic is impeccable and you know it. The WMD’s are needed only to show that the threat to the U.S. was harrowing and imminent. But the underlying justification for the war exists even without them. |
