Vortican:
You're reading something into what I posted that isn't there. No opinion was offered about the legitimacy of the policy. None whatsoever. It simply is. You and most others do not understand the policy and doctrine considerations that led to the invasion and your jumping to conclusions clearly confirms my point about average people.
P.S.
For centuries, leaders have believed it is their destiny to shape the world into their vision using doctrines of what's best for humanity. Martin Luther, Lenin, Napolean, Churchill, FDR, Lincoln, Hitler, Stalin, Truman, Hussein, Chirac, Tojo, Mao...
NUKE:
The world condition changed significantly between the first Gulf War and the second. The US foreign policy doctrine changed also. Hussein was not so much of a problem - he was just an excellent opportunity. You're looking at one move and not the whole chess board.
Hussein did not challenge the US foreign policy doctrine, something else did. George Bush (and Tony Blair) both know that the true strategic imperative for action would fly over everyone's heads. No one would get it and the press and legislatures of both countries would have a field day. Hussein, WMD, freedom for Iraqis - they are collectively and individually more credible to Mr. and Mrs. Average than trying to explain the real reason. Mr. Bush isn't exactly a gifted orator, but I doubt anyone could explain it in such a way that most people will nod their head and say, "Yup."
Again (he adds because it's like talking to 8 year-old girls here with fragile egos), you are not wrong, but that's not the whole story. You're missing the cold, hard reality of global economics and power. The kind of reality and thinking that policy makers and doctrine makers use as calls to action. The triggers are not what you think they are.
I was going to say something about your 'avatar-like' naivete of the world,' but I won't. I don't think you're a bad guy at all. I just think you haven't considered the 'why' as broadly as you could.
The election in Iraq is a good thing. But it is irrelevant, in the cold, harsh minds of policy and doctrine makers.
None of this belongs in this thread. If I get some time this week, I'll write up what the real reason was (and is since Iraq is just the beginning) for you, NUKE. It won't be easy, but after you read it and think about it, you'll agree with it. There is no conjecture in the reasoning. As Sgt. Friday would say, "Just the facts..."
It won't change anyone's position, that isn't my point. It will just open your eyes to what a snapshot of global economics and geo-politics may look like 15 years from now. And there is your first hint about some of the reasons.
