Removing a tyrant was one of the many justifications for going into Iraq.
It was...but IIRC, the case we made in front of the UN was the existence of WMDs. I don't think there was much denying that Saddam was a tyrant.
As for WMD - There were enough components, documentation, precursors, dual-use materials and so on to justify the claim. Remember that shipload of yellow-cake that was sent out of Iraq to Canada.
Can't say I'm all too knowledgeable about the yellow cake, but from what I remember, we found the mustard gas and other chemical weapons in such a badly-degraded state that there was no evidence they had been produced recently.
Should the sanctions have been completely lifted without removing Saddam - chances are pretty good he'd have had an operational program up and running as soon as was possible. There was no way Saddam was going anywhere without considerable motivation.
No argument from me there. Saddam had to go--he was a menace to his own people and was a threat to regional security. My problem with Iraq is that we rushed in, we failed to account for a number of factors, we made some irresponsible decisions at the outset, and a lot of innocent people (including thousands of Americans) died because we failed to plan.
There seems to be something of a lack of information about the rebels and who backs them - how closely associated with such entities as the MB for example. We may be trading the enemy we know for something worse.
I'm not sure how close the Libyan rebels are to the MB, and I think this "terrorist connection" is a meme being forced by Gaddafi to drum up support against the rebels, but yes, we do need to watch our friends as close as our enemies. Once the revolution ends in Libya, we need to be actively involved in the reconstruction, otherwise, we end up with a repeat of 1980s Afghanistan. Religious extremism won't prey as well on a healthy, democratic Libya as it would on a power vacuum.
The Libyan military has several militia units loyal to Gaddafi in addition to the regular forces. These are the ones that will potentially engage the coalition forces from civilian areas, resulting in more collateral damage and civilian casualties.
Very true, but from what I can tell, the coalition is primarily targeting regular army artillery and armored units, not the militias.
True enough - but I suspect we're going to regret going in half cocked and that the group of people we're supporting might well turn out worse than Gaddafi in terms of global security.
Exactly. Like I said, we have to see this through to the end. If we don't...Libya could very well be our next Afghanistan.
