I live for this, Moggy
Moggy wrote:Your point was that history would show it to be the correct decision. That’s not quite a free pass, but it is saying that Blair will be forgiven.
No it's not. It's just saying that the decision will be shown to be correct. Nothing about forgiveness or passes at all, that's your bias clouding things.
Moggy wrote:Saddam was a monster, that is true. But so are many other world leaders, why did we not invade those countries? Lives are being lost every day over the entire world and we don’t do anything, why was Saddam so special?
I completely agree, and I'd support regime change in any country with a brutal dictator. The fact that we are in 2018 and there are still brutal dictatorships out there is a travesty, especially when you consider that the UK and its allies have the means to obliterate these regimes in a weekend. But not going after Saddam just because there are other dictators out there is not a strong moral position to take.
Moggy wrote:That is not in any way justifiable and especially isn’t when you have no plans for the aftermath of the invasion.
It was a bad way of going about it, but it was justifiable in the sense that Saddam is now dead and the people of Iraq no longer live under his regime.
Moggy wrote:The way Saddam was removed was like knowing where a serial killer lives and blowing up the entire town around him. Sure you get to kill the bad guy, but you also kill thousands of innocents. History will not be kind just because the bad guy died in the omelette along with those eggs.
Mission Accomplished!
But yeah, that's a good analogy and I don't disagree with you, but my point remains. It was the lesser of two evils. To quote our good friend Edmund Burke - “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
You could argue (quite successfully) that neither Blair or Bush are good men, but they did defeat an evil psychopathic dictator. Sounds cold to say, but the end justified the means.