We agree on that...but we disagree on the nature of the choice. You think it was to attack Saddam in order to destroy Iraqs WMDs. I think it was to attack the entire Muslim world in order to force them to change their culture.
So in order to do that we attack one of the most secular, non-Muslim regiemes in the area.
Brilliant.
That was part of it. There were plenty of others, violation of the cease fire agreement, mass killings, etc.
I think it was to attack the entire Muslim world in order to force them to change their culture.
It was not an attack on 'the entire Muslim world', unless they all consider themselves bloodthirsty killers, that type, is who it was directed at. If it was at 'the entire Muslim world'(typical liberal[leftist] collectivist thinking) we would have gone in and tried to cause max damage to anything that moved as a warning. The fact that we targeted the regime and not just anyone, is more than enough proof for me who the real target was. God forbid a billion Muslims declare war on us like the Islamists have done, the carnage they would invite has never been seen before.
Anyway, if the Muslim culture includes(and is being hidden/denied) compulsive Jihad against the West, would it be such a bad thing to change that culture? If it is a culture that as a goal is to destroy other cultures, would that be such a great loss if we destroyed them before they destroyed us?
I give the majority of Muslims the benefit of a doubt, but am not blind to those who profess a desire to kill me(as the Islamists have done), that is the tolerant(liberal[classic]) thing to do, no?
(I know Saddam was not an Islamist, but had vowed the same kind of ambition)