|
Basically, if Gore had been elected in place of Bush, the US would certainly have skipped the whole Iraq war, liberation, etc...at least they probably wouldn't have gone without the UN's backing.
Now the real question is the following, ultimately, the choice of the American people was obviously more important for the Iraqis than whichever choice they could have taken (you can tell me they had no choice, I'll tell you that they had, anyway the point is moot).
The definition of liberty is that individuals choices shouldn't infringe on other individuals choices, in the way that my choice is purely mine and not yours.
You see the dilemna, American people voted the regime of the Iraqi people.
How could that be Operation Iraqi Freedom...
You can say that the ends justify the means, but this is not the rule in a state of law, point and fact, when you go to a trial and swear to tell the truth, you are expected to tell the truth even if it protects someone who doesn't deserve it.
In a state of law, the ends never justify the means, when you want to enforce liberty, you have to respect the established laws, else you set a precedent that nullify your efforts.
That's how I see it at least. Breaking the law to bring freedom is something I just fail to understand.
|