why we are there?

[low_delta]

Somebody asked why the reason for the war changed from Disarming Saddam, to saving the people of Iraq from Saddam. My answer was:

The MO changed more than that. Remember when it was "that man tried to kill my daddy?" They use whichever excuse they think will fly at any given moment.

The assassination bit helped to garner initial support. To kind of break the ice. Then when we needed a real reason, "Saddam is a very bad man" wasn't a good enough reason to invade, so they made him into a threat. Then, when we started to see throught that, it became ever more clear what evil things the guy did to his people, and that was suddenly the real reason.

Soon, it will be obvious that the people of Iraq are not much better of than they were before. I wonder what the justification will be then.

Comments

[dwivian]

Er....from the beginning, the war was fought to "Compel Iraq to comply with the disarmament requirements of the United Nation, by removal of any impediment to that compliance."

We're still in the same rules. The sound-bites have changed, but that's the press.

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

True, but few people really use that argument when they try to convince you that we should be there. The war-favorable popular opinion seems to be otherwise.

[lonita.livejournal.com]

And since history is written by the victors, what we'll end up with in the end will be so far from the truth as to bear almost no relation to it whatever.