@McTag,
In life, particularly in political aspects of it, we must deal with real choices between available alternatives, not ideal ones. Moreover we must do so with imperfect knowledge. Finally, the governing aspects of such events are very often not those so easily cited by contemporary and after the fact critics.
The WMD issue is an excellent example. Our "European allies" made it clear that the Security Council would consider no other argument. We knew that Saddam once had a uranium enrichment effort going, but that it had very likely been destroyed during or after the Gulf War with at most a few isolated elements left and hidden away. He did however have the ability to create toxic gas & other like warheads and the means to deliver them. These were obviously not the reasons that motivated the Bush Administration to intervene, but they were politically useful, if somewhat duplicitous arguments. Blair was caught between the desires (and illusions) of the continental European nations for a peaceful senescence (before the flood to the south engulfs them) . They and his domestic political foes insisted on a Security Council resolution to make it "legal". America insisted on action. Those were Blair's choices.
This is not a simple issue in which virtue was all on one side and "immorality" on the other.
Another contemporary and parallel aspect of the Scottish Enlightenment (tho not part of it) is a curious rather vindictive Calvinism. Ian Paisley comes to mind. Not very attractive to me.
