Originally posted by K_Kinnison
They didn't because:
- There was no good succesor for Saddam
- Iraq was succesfully 'contained' by other countries
- We have seen how it has destabilised the area
- There ARE no links between Al-queda and Saddam
- Militants would rised up and oppose any non-muslim force that occupid the country
No, no, no, no, and no.
We didn't have to worry about a successor in 1991. Someone would have emerged after the war. Iraq was contained only because of the no-fly zones. Iraq's collapse wouldn't have destablized the region in 1991. It was already unstable and its not like you could extra destablize it. Al-Qaida did not exist in 1991. Militants rose up against Hussein
following the 1991 war.
The reason we didn't go for the deathblow was we didn't want to piss off Saudi Arabia.
They they could have invaded Iraq after:
- When The invading forces were lead by the UN
No American soldier should ever
for any reason, be subject to a UN commander. The US should bow to no one. We're sovereign for a reason.
We had the full support of the UN in resolution from teh 1991 resolution authorizing the use of force to repell the invasion of Kuwait. Unfortunately, the UN is a bunch of chumps and ignored their own resolution. The US needed exactly one casus belli to invade Iraq in 2003. We had no less than four:
Saddam Hussein repeatedly and flagrantly violated the terms of that cease-fire. Violating a cease-fire is a casus belli.
During the interbellum period, Saddam Hussein repeatedly fired on American aircraft lawfully patrolling the no-fly zones imposed on his country as part of that cease-fire. Attempting to kill troops is a casus belli.
Saddam Hussein initiated a plot to assassinate former President Bush. Plotting to kill a foreign dignitary is a casus belli.
Saddam Hussein granted shelter to terrorists who'd killed Americans, including Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. Harboring terrorists is a casus belli.
By invading Iraq and occupying it, the US has given all of the Al-queda members, and new recruits something to hate and 'defend' against.
They call it the Flypaper Theory. Seems to be working.