Why Libya?

[Kasz216]

Rath said:

dib8rman said:

Rath said:

I agree that in the end Iraq is going to end up a better place than it was before the war, there is no denying that Saddam was a tyrant who had comitted terrible crimes against humanity. However if war can be waged purely to remove a tyrant, I don't think Saddam would be top of the list and they should have said that was their intention before they did it.

The evidence of any WMD program was slim to none at the time of the war and none surfaced during the war, the intelligence saying there was was either a pretense for war or a complete and utter cock up - I'm not sure which. However the intelligence community undeniably should have known that the program had ended. There is no denying that Saddam once had WMDs and a WMD program, however this seems to have ended long before the war began.

There is no evidence that Al-Qaeda was established in Iraq before the war, Saddam's Baath party was strictly secular and he would have seen Al-Qaeda as an affront to his power.

 

Also can you link me to the part of the Geneva convention that gives the right to revoke the sovereignity of a nation?

In reverse:

Do your own research? I could point at a few good sources but I wouldn't be sure if you could find them quite as plainly as I've laid them out. Those are the four reasons though, note that only genocide on it's own gives the authority for invasion the others require diplomacy first, which is why I keep saying the Libya-America conflict is either illegal or has innocently skipped a step. I would think you could just Google Geneva convention or international law in regards to invasion, I’ve never taken the time to use the web to search for something I already knew.

The Ba'th party was secular, but their weapons suppliers were based in Sudan and are known as a section or were (we eliminated them) known as the Mesopotamian Al Qaeda branch. If you've read through Bin Laden's grievances you'd see secular Saddam or not he just wanted to west to die which is what Saddam wanted as well.

Either way it is well reported that Iraq got it's chemical weapons from Sudanese production facilities since 1998 or at least had proof of it since then after various chemicals were found in soil samples covertly collected.

I'll make it clearer then: If Bush had sent US soldiers into Afghanistan without attacking Saddam first he risked Saddam using a chemical weapon on US soldiers  while on a campaign to kill his WMD supplier.

Now this is just how it is, take it or leave it. This is the reason for saying that WMD's were there it was always an unspoken truth that if he had WMD's he would not waste time to use them on US soldiers again.

I rather enjoy a better safe than sorry approach.

I've already listed 3 ways that have nothing to do with saving baby seals for reasons to invade Iraq.

As for Korea what happened there can never be compared to any other War the US was in and I would agree with you if you said the administration then needs to be hung for their crimes.

I would do my own research but to be honest there is quite a lot of text in the conventions and I do not plan on reading them all just to find those specific points. All I'm asking for is which chapter of which convention (and if possible which articles of that chapter) are relevant to the points of revoking sovereignity?

I'd also like to ask for a link about the Sudan Al Qaeda? The link between Al Qaeda and Saddam seems to have been entirely discredited.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html

And Osama Bin Laden said of Saddam;

"the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is fucking his mother."

@Kasz. Civilian supporters of the rebels were also expected to be targeted.

Different from vietnam... how?