[quote=“Richardm”]At the risk of getting back on topic, here is the senario I have.
Someone very bad does something very bad with a bunch of planes and the World Trade Centers. Then the Whitehouse goes nuts and starts saying, “Iraq?” “Did Iraq do this? Tell me Iraq did this! We need to attack Iraq.” Why would intelligent, sane, responsible individuals act in such a manner? What was their motivation? Apparently it had nothing to do with National Security.[/quote]
Interesting… 
I’ve seen you ask something to this effect a couple times, Richardm. But up to now, I’ve never thought too much about it. I always just figured it was just a cute thing to say – a clever quip – since, of course, Iraq did not “do” 9-11, and I have never seen a single person who has ever discussed the issue in these forums who thought that Iraq did.
I should probably add here that it is not necessary to post opinion polls showing that many Americans surveyed in poll XYZ did/do think that Iraq was responsible for 9-11. I’ve seen those polls. I’ve also seen the polls that show that a solid 1/4 of Americans cannot find the US on a world map. I’ve seen polls that show that majorities think that the three branches of government in the US are “Democrat, Republican, and Independent”. Even the “Sun revolves around the Earth” proposition gets a pretty good amount of support when the question is put out there in polls.
So I assume your question was why anyone who was actually intelligent —no, scratch that: let’s say someone who was engaged and paying attention— would think that Iraq caused 9-11. The answer is that nobody who was engaged and paying attention ever did think that (at least not that I ever saw). And that includes people who supported the war in Iraq.
[b]“Well then,” you may ask “why go to war in Iraq then?”
Answer: Because revenge for a past bad act is not the only (or even the best) principal on which to base a foreign policy.[/b]
Sure, immediately after 9-11 there were plenty people who just wanted to “get even with those bastards that did it.” Of course most of the people who actually did it died on the planes. Yes, you can go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban and OBL. We can argue about the extent to which that has been done. But the more important question was then, and is now: “What do we do to keep ourselves safe in the future?”
Whether invading Iraq was a good idea to keep us safe in the future is the subject of numerous threads, and it would be pointless to discuss it an umpteenth time here.
But… whether you agree with it or not making us safer in the future was motivation (or at least it was the idea for everyone I’ve ever talked to who supported the war). Nobody was talking about revenge for some past act.
Let me ask you think: If your kid gets hit with a rock at school, what do you do? Yes – you might want to get revenge on whoever did it. You might also, logically, consider the person who threw that rock to be a major threat to your kid’s safety. But if you complain about the bully who threw the rock, and that bully go into hiding, and then you see some other bully who you think might be about to throw another rock… then what?
Again, I’m not arguing about how likely it was that Iraq wwas going to be “the next kid to throw a rock.” That’s another discussion with many dedicated threads (indeed entire websites).
My point is that most of those (that I’ve either read or talked to, anyway) who supported the invasion of Iraq either (a) thought that Iraq was the next likely rock thrower, (b) thought that Iraq was the next likely rock thrower we could actually do anything to stop (invading Iran or the DPRK were then, and are now, not realistic), or (c) thought that changing Iraq’s government would be a good way to positively influence a number of potential rock-throwers in the region.
I realize that you disagree with all of those notions. That’s fine. All I’m saying is that nobody I’ve ever seen or read (once again – this doesn’t include the “Sun revolves around the Earth” poll respondents) said that the reason to invade Iraq was because Iraq was responsible for 9-11. People argued (rightly or wrongly) for going in as a way of preventing future harm, not for revenge.
For most people keeping us safe in the future was more important than “getting even” for what happened in the past. And when you say “Yes, but the action your doing has nothing to do with getting revenge”, many people will probably (as I did) assume you are just making a joke – because getting revenge is so obviously a secondary priority compared to protecting future safety. (And of course, arguing that future safety is not, in fact, enhanced by the war in Iraq hardly adds any support to the proposition that “revenge is the only good reason to go to war.”)
