Why Libya?

[dib8rman]

Rath said:

ssj12 said:

 

No other country was on the cusp of genocide. The rebels were and are laughably bad as a fighting force.

@dib8r. I liken Vietnam to Iraq in the fact that both were fought for US interests rather than the interests of the people of the country. In the case of Vietnam it was because of Communism and in Iraq it was so G.W could look like he was doing something in the 'war on terror' as far as I can see.

Hypothetical scenario, what if America did not get involved militarily with the Mesopotamian region? Well first and foremost no American soldiers would have died, the Iraqi Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party would still hold it's iron grip on it's people, Osama Bin Laden would still be manufacturing chemical weapons for use of genocide against the Shia' and the the revolt in Libya would have been stemmed already because Qaddafi would still have WMD's and that's just painting a picture of the short term.

The long term would be that Saddam's rule would of ended leaving his two sons who more than likely would not have shared power or ceded power to the other -- would cause a bloody civil war sending Iraq to a point where some foreign body would have to get involved... logically the most eager nations would be Saudi Arabia with intent to bolster the Sunni ranks and then in response Iran in support of the Shia' ranks, and now keep in mind each of these regimes would want to be recognized as liberators of a sort. The last would be Turkey for the Kurdish representation, and there we have it another Congo right there in the resource capital of the world. Then what would the developed world be saying when these events unfold? How could we let this happen? How much money would have been lost to pay the insanely high oil prices? Three? Five? Seven Trillion dollars? All indications are that it would of been impenetrably higher than the mind could contemplate.

But America did get involved.

After 9/11, all American intelligence told us the one's responsible were in Afghanistan but it would have been irresponsible to push into Afghanistan without securing Iraq, to put it plainly Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with before Osama Bin Laden and a full engagement in Afghanistan would leave room for Saddam who up until the point of his death had refused to allow UN inspectors to search his facilities for WMD's. George Bush had to make a decision on if America should engage in the war of demand or start an unpopular war to secure the the front of another war. I'm not being too kind either when I say that the mans heart was in the right place but he had not the mind to do it efficiently. I must add also that though it took much longer than it should have the war in Iraq came to a successful end for the US.

Well what is success? If I haven't argued this clearly enough in the opening then I'll do it again but from the inverse juxtaposition. By America engaging war on Iraq we have allowed for through the efforts of American and Iraqi soldiers for free elections thus political ideologies, free press, less corrupt economic systems, not even arguably a more humane society and the thanks of many Iraqis some of which built monuments in honor of the soldiers who protect them and us while we sleep. These are the people who want independence but are afraid of what will happen when the last American leaves Iraqi soil.

Success is when Qaddafi decides that holding on to WMD's isn't worth it and surrenders his weapons which America had long suspected him of having to not the UN or NATO or any European Nation but to the UK and the US; those weapons after analysis back tracked to Pakistan and North Korea.

Success is ending the Mesopotamian powers of Al Qaeda which had seen it's end to it's major chemical based functions purportedly by the actions of President Clinton's bombings on suspected factories in Sudan. It's odd how people can even suggest that Al Qaeda doesn't exist or that the Iraq war is a farce and all these event's were set in motion by the US or Zionists. The truth is always found in the inconvenient because mistakes are always indifferent, the US and UK went into Iraq under the idea that Saddam had WMD's but it just so happens that Clinton had bombed the correct factories so the ones he had were completely degraded. It's not a question of if he ever had them because he did, he used them on American troops in Kuwait and on his own people. The truth is that we thought he still had more but he didn't and that's a good thing, it also shows that there was never a conspiracy of any sort due to the lack of convenience. One thing is for certain if the US did not engage Iraq Saddam would have had a fresh supply of WMD's from the Mesopotamian Al Qaeda front and if America had left Iraq any sooner than the Iraqi's needed that various factions of radicalism would have been even more so present and forceful there.

The most successful part of the Iraq war was that it battle hardened to American troops, they have seen combat and can make brilliant field decisions while in that area of the world. The experience that they took from Iraq carried over to Afghanistan and soon will be needed in Pakistan and eventually maybe Lebanon.

The idea that America is a paper tiger went out the window once America set out troops on the middle east, but the paper tiger was shot with a flaming arrow on it's way out when America also launched an attack in Afghanistan. I'm talking about cases like Syria who immediately began talks of recognizing Lebanon's sovereignty to where now Hezbollah receives larger funding from Iran than they do from Damascus.

The fact is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would prove only insanity by invading the gulf or Pakistan or claiming a Nuclear power or other WMD while American troops rest on two of his borders.

There are four reasons that a countries sovereignty may be revoked before the Geneva convention.
1. Genocide
2. The Illegal Annexing of another sovereign nation
3. Usage of unsanctioned WMD's
4. The violation of human rights

On all four accounts Saddam was long overdue to be removed from power by any UN member and the UK and US by far had every legal authority to invade him... or was the convention for nothing? Let's not forget the $10,000 Saddam would offer to anyone willing to commit an act of terror against the US or UK in one case even leading to the attempted poisoning of Britans water supply with rice.