Originally posted by: DoctorPizza
Honestly I think the ONLY motivation was to make sure he didn't pass along ANY MORE of his WMD to terrorists.
There is no evidence that he has passed
any WMDs to terrorists in the first place.
It is no secret that the Iraqi regime -- being, as it is, largely secular -- is unpopular with Islamic extremists -- most notably, al Qaeda. It seems extremely unlikely that that group, at least, would be supplied with WMDs by Saddam.
Freeing the people is a great plus, helps provide a better cover story. Saddam's actions make it easier for us, especially with his own people. But if he had fully complied and destroyed and documented his WMD we would not be there.
For all we know, they have been destroyed (or used...). The WMD motivation is severely undermined, I think, by the US's refusal to allow inspections to continue. This refusal seems very odd to me. Had WMDs been found, it would have swayed world opinion in favour of war. It would have removed a big question mark about the legitimacy of the invasion; it would almost certainly have resulted in a UN mandate.
But instead of allowing that to happen, the US decided to invade. Honestly, the only real justification I can see for this (from the US's PoV) is that if there was a very real fear that there was nothing for the inspectors to find. We know that the intelligence provided by the US and UK was not particularly well-received by the inspectors -- none of it constituted the smoking gun that I think the US hoped it would be. Perhaps there was a genuine fear that there was nothing to find.
I think too many countries worldwide did not place enough stock in Bush saying "we will wipe out terrorism", I don't think this will be the last step in that process by ay means.
That is certain. If that is the true aim then there will be no last step.