What was the reasonable alternative to the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

not invading it

Not invading Iraq, or any other sovereign nation that isn't a direct threat for the USA.

>For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago.

>Who's to say that wasn't inevitable? Those dictators can't last forever
They have a short bloody coup and then a new one takes over, that's the history of the middle east. Trying to install democracy doesn't work and invading just ruins everything

It was literally all for oil

I still do not know how the governments and media convinced so many people that this whole ordeal was a good idea.

It takes a blatant desire towards stupidity and foolishness to even consider the whole casus belli anything other than a joke.

Continue bombing them.

Only Americans supported it in the majority.

"The governments". Maybe the government of the USA convinced so many people, but at least the UK and Spain entered the war without the will of their people and ignoring massive protests against the war.

9/11 made Americans mad and helped give the war approval, which makes more sense as to why some people think its an inside job.

Not invading.

A revolt there was likely. It would probably have happened in 2011 if the Arab spring still happens.

What then ?
Well maybe the rebels are crushed, maybe they get a swift victory, maybe it degenerates into a civil war.
But at least the west can't be blamed for it.
Which takes some wind out of the sails of the djihadists.
As it is now, the current conflict in the area grew over the decade-long instability (euphemism for bloody mess) created by the intervention. It paved the way to Isis.
If there's no intervention and shit happens anyway, then Isis can't appear as soon as it did. And the democratic forces in Syria and Iraq have a better chance.

Also, with no Iraq intervention, the west can afford to actually support a liberal rebellion, diplomatically, politically and financially.
The US might do better in Afghanistan if they don't have another mess to focus on too, and that would be good for everyone.

>>What happens when Saddam dies?
I mean dies of natural causes or is killed by his own people.
>They did.
When?
>They fight each other rather than hating the US.
And we will have to intervene, and things won't play out to the best scenario.

So just let it be a backwards shithole forever? The middle east isn't that backwards, they can accept democracy, but they are too tribal mix the different groups. The 3 state solution, which is something people knew about before Iraq was created, seems to be starting to take shape.

Ok, so what would you suggest and how do you think it would play out?

Arab spring wouldn't happen, the Arab spring happened because of the Iraq war.

Besides, the US wouldn't have been caught flat footed during the Arab Spring if it hadn't been for the massive losses to economy and prestige suffered during Iraq II. We would have actually had freedom of action.

>but the U.S. actually completely lied about that
Except they didn't? Look up literally any of the news stories about chemical weapon caches that were uncovered or yellowcake being smuggled out of Iraq.

I dont think multiple decade long personal dictatorships, mass unemployment and some poor hillbilly seeing no future in the beautiful republic of tunesia and setting himself on fire had anything to do with the Iraq War.

Or you are one of the guys who think the CIA and the jews were behind it all, but even then they would have done it regardless of the Iraq War

So Libya didnt happen?

Libya wasn't even the US. It was mostly France with a smidge of Britain.

Arab spring happened because people there were tired of being poor and having no control over their corrupt institutions and leaders, and then one guy set himself on fire and the rest took it as a signal to gather forces and do something.
It had little to do with the Iraq war.

>Thats the History of the Middle East
>less than One century era is the history of the 6000 years old Middle East

He's right though. The Middle East was always a giant fucking mess. Even when the Ottomans had control it was awful. Even Islamic Golden Age was fraught with war, rebellion and conquest. There's never been a good time to be an Arab.

>they can accept democracy
They really can't. Most of the world cant. You need a long history of democratic process to not have 50% of your nation chimp out if their candidate loses.
They totally lied, its all come out in the chilcot report, no evidence, not even today

Not invading? It's pretty obvious that invading Iraq was a mistake. But it was bound to happen as long as neo-cons held any sort of power in Washington. Those neo-con fuckers would messed up eventually, luckily they fucked up already so we don't ever have to take them seriously ever again.

>Rising food prices because of the governments subsidies to biofuels didn't cause the Arab Spring

Whew, you probably don't even know why the Iraq war happened.

If Europe became peaceful, then any region can do it.

Let's just hope they won't need two total wars like we did.

>They totally lied, its all come out in the chilcot report, no evidence, not even today
>thousands of troops injured by uncovering the caches
>totally lied
>no evidence
>nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
>businessinsider.com/us-chemical-weapons-iraq-2014-10
???
Are you honestly retarded?

While Europes Golden Age was known for its peace and good neighborly relationships right? Or chinas? Or Indias? Or Persias?

>there are underage 16 year olds who won't remember the Iraq was posting on Veeky Forums
Shit

>While Europes Golden Age was known for its peace and good neighborly relationships right
Actually, yeah. The Victorian Era was amazingly peaceful with only one major war in over one hundred years.

Yet the Most Bloody wars in History happened in Europe and East Asia
Heck the Current Civil wars in Iraq and Syria don't really compare to The Great Congo war or even the First World War or even Pol Pot

I protested and was part of an al jazira news crew around.

I still wake up at night and hear the screwdrivers.

I would rather range it from around 1550 to 1914.

But even just taking the late 19th Century, you had the Crimean War, the various Italian Wars, the German War and the German-Franco War of 1871 to just name the ones where Great Powers fought against each other.

This is an important point that some people forget. Just a few decades ago, Europe plunged itself into two wars which make anything in the Middle East or Africa seem like a children's spat.

Give it some time. Things will sort themselves out. Globalism has its uses.

The only major war out of those was the Franco-Prussian War though.

>Crimean War wasn't Major

If you just count casualties, the Crimean war was far bloodier than the Franco-Prussian war, which was relatively swift and one-sided. And claiming that one was more influential than the others doesn't really work, since they are all a continuous chain of events.

When NATO attacks, people sees the USA. And for good reason.

The link between the rising food prices and the revolts is legitimate, as we agree poverty was one of the main causes. The one between the biofuel subsidies and the rising prices exists but is not major. The one between biofuel and the war seems pulled out of your ass.
Care to explain ?

Casualties or no, it was a minor conflict for everyone involved except the Ottomans. It wasn't a major conflict by any means. Bodycount doesn't necessarily mean it's a major conflict. More people died in the War of 1812 than the Revolution, and people consider it to be a very minor conflict, for example.

One of them had the two most powerful naval forces with the best trained armies of their time team up against the strongest land based power and multiple hundred of thousands died in the war.
The other war had a decisive battle (Solferino) that was bloodier then Gettysburg.

Please stop. You are only digging yourself deeper in.

In theory, the Iraq war wasn't a terrible idea. But it was executed so poorly that all advantages it could have brought were wasted.

Arab Spring is connected to America's actions in the Middle East.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973

>Libya wasn't even the US

The US invaded over nuclear weapons and extensive chemical/biological weapons.

We only discovered trace amounts of chemical weapons. This was not the justification promised by the US government for invasion.

Go play your semantics game somewhere else.

youtube.com/watch?v=gtUfYGBlYSw

>The Security Council resolution was proposed by France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom.[1][2]
You should learn to read.

How on fucking earth does that matter?

The US voted for it.

All it takes is one NO and the UNSC cannot do a thing.

America voted for the invasion of Libya, and launched the first strikes via tomahawk cruise missiles.

Now fucking kill yourself.

How exactly is this statement
>The Security Council resolution was proposed by France, Lebanon, and the United Kingdom.[1][2]
proof of this statement being true?
>Libya wasn't even the US. It was mostly France with a smidge of Britain.

>and launched the first strikes via tomahawk cruise missiles
That's patently false. The US had no action until over a month after the French invaded.

Kill yourself.

this pretty much. new question though:

is it morally acceptable to leave saddam in power? by all measures, he was arguably the worst dictator of the past century. my stomach turns when I read about him and his sons. when should we not topple people like that?

>The US had no action until over a month after the French invaded.

Patently false. Why are there so many historical revisionists on Veeky Forums?

>by all measures, he was arguably the worst dictator of the past century

>by all measures, he was arguably the worst dictator of the past century.

Not even of the last 20 years.

>historical revisionists
I believe the word you're looking for is, "trolls".

>is it morally acceptable to leave saddam in power?

Not only for the fact that he's a brutal dictator, but the fact that we had the power to alter the future of the region. But in a sense the decision was already made, the sanctions had destroyed the country, we already had set the ball in motion long ago.

> please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago

>2003 was 26 years ago

There's people starting threads with nigger in the title so meh.

...

I thought you kids knew how to at least Google something
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

yep that was stupid. a fucking horrible awful murderous raping one though.

>What happens when Saddam dies?

He had great physical health, he would have lived to his 90's.

>What happens if the people revolt?
They get gassed, revolt ends in less than a month, goes back to stability

>What happens if he starts another war?
>he starts
Nice try Kurdish/Persian/Zionist/Kuwaiti/American pig

Iraq was a giant fucking American mess from the very beginning.

Playing Iraq vs Iran, 2 countries who used to be quasi aligned with the US, and giving the former chemical weapons. Then there was that whole clusterfuck of the Gulf war that happened because the US ambassador to Iraq couldn't communicate properly. Iraq, the country that the US supported so vigorously a couple of years ago with chemical weapons, became an enemy of America.

Saddam got btfo but was kept in power because daddy Bush feared that the country would go to shit (lol). Then came the sanctions that made life hell for your average Iraqi and caused the death of scores of children.

Then came George "I'm a retard" W. Bush who invaded Iraq because of God knows what reason with his bitch Blair. He toppled the government and then had no idea wtf he was doing. He basically dismantled the Iraqi state, which predictably led to a clusterfuck of such a magnitude that it's effects can still be seen today (hello Isis). Iraq erupted into civil war while under American occupation and Al Qaeda in Iraq (now known as IS) went from a fringe group to an entity that controls a third of the country.

Not to mention the fact that this massive weakening the Iraqi state allowed Iran to dominate the Shia crescent.

The US could have no supported Saddam in the 1980's. The US could have not kept him in power in 1991. In 2003 they could have not lied and not gone to a pointless war.

Daily reminder that the United States purposefully starved Iraqi citizens.

Also, you forgot the part about it only being for oil, you dumbfuck.

US is very proficient in using false flags.

Not invade Iraq.

Is that Justin Trudeau on the left?

Wait for the Arab spring and give Saddam another excuse for genocide and use of chemical weapons, or intervene in Arab spring possibly resulting in the same thing we have now.

Holy shit.

T. Michael Moore

That an the fact that Saddam had already used wmd before.
And annexed Kuwait that one time.
And that one time they attacked Iran for no reason.
And the fact that Saddam literally sponsored terrorism by giving out rewards for every time a suicide attack was made in Israel.

him being a bad guy isnt reason enough to invade Iraq

The King of Saudi Arabia is fucking evil, finance fundamentalist Islam all over the world, the people who did the september 11 attacks were Saudis, and they are allies of the USA.

>he was arguably the worst dictator of the past century

Not with Pol Pot around he wasn't.

...

You're saying invading Saudi Arabia wouldn't be morally justified? Gonna have to disagree with you there mate. The world would be a better place if Saudi Arabia would be civilized and democratized by force. Nobody wants to do it because it's bad pr and economically a bad decision.

rip in rip sweat prinse

>seize Mecca and Medina
>ensuing holy wars last for hundreds of years

> Look up literally any of the news stories about chemical weapon caches that were uncovered

You are thinking of old desperate news articles that misreported that the military found depleted chemical weapons (they were of no use) buried in the sand. The weapons were buried because they were disposed of as was part of the agreement. They all old 90s broken surplus. This was exactly what was supposed to happen and what Saddam said he did. But this was back when people were still trying to hold on to the WMD lie and justify the Iraq War that way.

It made the rumor rounds particularly in conservative circles but was never actually a real thing. Just a misunderstanding combined with wishful thinking and irresponsible journalism. No serious official thinks we found WMD in Iraq. You just haven't updated your knowledge base.

Nobody gives a shit about morality in politics. That's why Saudis and Kims still hold power.

Hire an assassin. Assassin kills Saddam and all his supporters, puppets take the leadership.

Okay?

>Saudi Arabia
>democratized by force

t. Bush

He was laughing because he knew it to be true.

Well, that's my wishful thinking. It just seems like every leader in the Middle East is sitting on ticking time bombs.

Doing nothing. The people in Iraq are the ones that have to decide who they want in power. Eventually they would get fed up with Saddam.