Iraq was not a stable, safe country. It was a brutal dictatorship, and the only reason there wasn't a civil war is that Hussein was successful in eradicating his opponents. By your logic, it is an unjust war to oppose the really successful tyrants and mass-murderers, but perfect fine to oppose the ones that aren't quite as efficient.MrJonno wrote:Libya already had a war going on it , we took sides it wasnt a stable safe country.
It is certainly worse in Libya NOW than it was a year or two ago.MrJonno wrote: We were also sensible enough not to put troops in there which would have just united much of the country against us. This was at least for the moment a successful foreign policy Libya may turn into a hell hole in the future but I don't believe NATO can be blamed for this if it does happen
So, you're saying we should have done it in 1992, and wrongly delayed action, and when we finally took the action we should have taken (after trying non-military methods for 10 years), that action became wrong by virtue of delay?MrJonno wrote:
We did have tha to opportunity in the early 1990's with Iraq and we should have taken it then to support then rebellion instead we let them lose for our political self interest.
Yours is the argument Hitch always made, except he concluded that the liberation of Iraq was the right thing to do, and was long delayed. See The Long Short War. His seems the more logical conclusion - that if we made the mistake of not intervening once, that to repeat that mistake would not be the right thing to do.
