I always saw WMDs as being a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for our invasion. After all, there is no shortage of nations with WMDs and we don't go threatening to invade any of them. This, coupled with the alleged Al-Quaeda link, plus all the other things (ignoring UN sanctions, refusing inspections, etc) all had a cumulative effect. But it is the WMDs that make them the immediate threat which might make an attack justifiable.
We, as any other nation, may choose to strike preemptively if we feel we are imminently about to be under attack, but it will always be a judgement call. Even if Saddam had been close to developing these weapons and preparing for war, it could be argued he was not a direct threat to us. Still, because of our interests in the region, and our allies, WMDs could be legitimately used as a reason. In Afghanistan, the only pretext we needed was an Al-Quaeda link.
The fact that neither of our initial justifications were true in Iraq's case is what put us in an untenable moral position. The other strategic opportunities I mentioned were no excuse for us to commit aggression, but they certainly were attractive reasons for us to do so. WMDs and Al-Quaeda might have been the pretext, it was those other factors that made the decision for us.
Perhaps my analysis of all this may appear too cynical, but I do believe that after 9/11 we had every right to make even a perceived alliance with our enemies as unwise a decision as possibile for any potential enemy.
Current Events » in reply to Here's where we differ
necessary but not sufficient
The whole thread (61 posts)
- Conservatives: If we could do it all over again, would we still invade Iraq?
- re: Conservatives: If we could do it all over again, would we still invade Iraq?
- re: Conservatives: If we could do it all over again, would we still invade Iraq?
- Hindsight is always 20/20.
- Probably not
- The problem with conservatives....
- Yes.
- Yes.
- re: Yes.
- Yeap.
- re: excellent, but you forgot one thing:
- That's pretty much how I see it. (n/t)
- Here's where we differ
- re: The two next presidential contenders
- The next President will not have to deal with the war in Iraq.
- And a further point to consider is...
- re: And in november?
- " The American people would never have supported an invasion of a foreign nation which posed no direct threat, simply for economic or geopolitical reasons. "
- your drinking cool-aid if you think it was for those reasons.
- re: " The American people would never have supported an invasion of a foreign nation which posed no direct threat, simply for economic or geopolitical reasons. "
- The next President will not have to deal with the war in Iraq.
- Loaded question. But yes.