Like I said, the UN were killing more people with sanctions, so rather than ask a pointless ("compartmentalised" in your world) moral question about the war, you have to ask if sanctions should have continued with a greater number of deaths.Exi5tentialist wrote:No, the invasion lacked reasonable pretexts and any moral 'high ground' for reasons other than that it may not have been the best solution nor a good decision.HomerJay wrote:The UN were already killing more Iraqi people than the merkins managed during the war.JimC wrote:The invasion was based on a very dodgy pretext, with many a hidden agenda and little in the way of the high moral ground, IMO...
Arabs wouldn't do much because they feared that the Shia majority would come to dominate, which is why so many foreign Sunni fighters jumped into the fray and prolong and exacerbate the war.
The invasion may not have been the best solution, nor a good decision but it doesn't follow from that, that the invasion lacked reasonable pretexts and any moral 'high ground'.
But then you have to understand the reasons for the sanctions.
