Fundamentalism (General)

by Carl, Thursday, November 06, 2008, 18:33 (5859 days ago) @ David Turell

Walter says "I find it disturbing that Carl thinks the "most notable" thing about the invasion of Iraq was the incompetence of US leadership, and David supported the invasion but says the "post-war handling was atrocious". It seems that in principle you are both in favour of your government lying to its people and the rest of the world (about WMD and Al-Quaeda), and invading another country in order to get at its oil or, according to Carl, to take revenge against one man, so long as its done competently."
I looked back at my post, and I never mentioned oil. I would be surprised if I did, because that is not one of my convictions, though I can see it as a possible ancillary motive.
There are two possibilities of the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq.
One is that they honestly believed (with some paranoia) that Saddam was dealing with Al Qaeda and had biological and chemical weapons and a nuclear program with radioactive material. Most of the World believed this because Saddam went to lengths to pretend it was so. Even his own people believed it.
The other possibility is that they knew the truth and deliberately deceived the entire world (including Colin Powell) for other motives. There is no doubt that they had a grudge against Saddam they wanted to settle. Remember, Cheney was secretary of defense under Bush I, and would not have been pleased at being orderd to stop his troops at the Kuwait border.
If the premise for invasion had been true, that Saddam had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and was dealing with Al Qaeda, I would have approved of the invasion as justified self defense. The fact that the premise was untrue but was acted on could be either deception or incompetence. History will have to judge that. The fact that the entire operation was incompetently administered is beyond question.