it has been 25 years since the end of the gulf war and now that the dust has settled i think its time to discuss whether bush's invasion was justified.
>Iraq annexes Kuwait
>Kuwait doesn't want to be Iraqi
That's the legal and moral side done. The practical side went like this.
>Iraq has a large proportion of the world's proven oil reserves
>so does Kuwait
>Saudi Arabia has even more oil
>if we don't do something about this, a single man will control 50% of the world's oil supply
dunno but the war did produce some great photographs
From 1991 to 2003 Iraq broke 1.6 UNSC resolutions a year, resolutions which Iraqi delegations had agreed to follow.
Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of kurds and he did that with chemical weapons.
Iraq had invaded Kuwait.
Iraq started the Iran-Iraq war.
They didn't cooperate with the inspectors.
The US was supported by several other countries.
And they were developing nuclear weapons.
Diplomacy had been tried several times already and didn't work. And as Clausewitz puts it, "war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means".
The only arguments against the invasion are:
Imperialism isn't really an argument, it's just RT propaganda not worth spending my time refuting. The only reasonable argument is that it was against UN protocols for the US and its friends to militarily intervene in the country without the UNSC's seal of approval. But then again, this can be easily refuted by the fact that there was nothing better to be done and the UN wasn't really doing anything to help except complain. The UN is a geopolitical grindlock.
Kuwait is a society of butt fuckers....literally. it's printed on the currency. " Men are for pleasure women are for breeding". Iraqi's call them fags then kick the shit out of them. Saddam just took it to another level.
>OP said it has been 25 years since the end of the gulf war in his OP. The Iraq War is considered as a part of the Gulf Wars and OP might well be a time traveller that posts this from 2028 so I'm in the right thread.
I'm seriously interested in hearing your rationale here.
From where I'm sitting.
>prior to 2003, Iraq was contained by the US
>the cost of containment was far from free, but far, far cheaper than war
>invading Iraq led to a civil war, which revived Sunni-Shia tensions across the entire region, and killed hundreds of thousands of people
>the campaign to stabilize Iraq cost America ~5k KIA, and severely hampered US military capabilities in Afghanistan
>the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan was largely a result of this shortage of combat troops from 2003 to 2011
>the Saddam government had inflamed sectarian tensions so badly that once he was removed, the government would inevitably become a Shia apartheid state controlled by Iran
>this apartheid state would inevitably fuel Sunni grievances, which manifested themselves in the form of ISIS
>instead of having Iran and Iraq contained and Afghanistan pacified, we ended up with Iran dominating the region, Iraq as a base for the exact sort of Sunni radicalism that caused 9/11, and Afghanistan being contested by a revitalized Taliban
the gulf war went from August 2, 1990 to February 28, 1991
The Iraq war is by no means part of the Gulf War. Two separate wars, separate reasons, with separate participants. Simply because both wars were against Iraq doesnt mean that theyre the same.
The other way around actually. Iraq owed kuwait money, and was insisting that both kuwait and saudi arabia cancel its war debts.
Then Iraq accused kuwait of slant drilling, which kuwait offered to pay 9 out of 10 billion of Iraqs proposed fee for this (even though it probably wasnt slant drilling), and Iraq invaded anyway.
>And they were developing nuclear weapons.
IIRC most of the WMDs found in Iraq were actually the ones we gave them during the Iran-Iraq war.
There was no evidence of nuclear weapons, though.
No evidence that they were to be used for nuclear weapons.
Vietnam ended only 15 years earlier, people had no faith in the ability of the US Military to win another war.
Think about how 9/11 is still brought up to this day as justification for doing XY and Z. 9/11 was 15 years ago too.
>I agree but 25 year rule
Based on all the discussions /his/ has about dawkins and harris, I'd say it is more like a "25 year suggestion."
/his/ is a weird mixture of /lit/,/k/,and /pol/
>Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of kurds and he did that with chemical weapons.
And who gave those to Iraq?
>see a two teens fighting
>give the other a gun because you don't like the person he's fighting
>let him keep the gun after the fight
>the next day, he brings his gun to school and starts shooting at his classmates
>WHAT THE FUCK HOW DID THIS HAPPEN