Was he in the right?

I don't see a whole lot of "state not holding together" in your greentexts

Using the fact of holding your state together as a metric of stability is retarded when you want to conquer all of your neighbors. Saddam was the opposite of stability. He could hold himself together, but would it be worth it if he was knocking out everyone else and also taking control of oil? It may seem heartless, but oil was a motivating factor in the war and that's not the fault of CHENEY HALLIBURTON REEEE it's the fault of geopolitics. Oil, for the foreseeable future, is the lifeblood of our civilization and we obviously have a vested interest in toppling a leader that would've extorted our nations for its use.

Would you consider the House of Saud to be stable?

Yes to all questions

Thought you were describing the US for a second there.

So why exactly would it be worth to have a four-way regional war between Iran, Israel, Iraq, and the Gulf Arabs? Like can you justify that situation or explain why it wouldn't have happened?

So why exactly would it be worth to have a two-way world war between NATO and the Soviet Union? Like can you justify that situation or explain why it wouldn't have happened?

It would be worth it to whoever won. Worth is subjective

i don't care what your stance is, if you order the genocide of people you aren't in the right.

>illegally invaded Kuwait
That isn't accurate at all. And what is a "legal invasion" anyways? Sounds like a kike term.

>Iraq also accused Kuwait of exceeding its OPEC quotas for oil production. In order for the cartel to maintain its desired price of $18 a barrel, discipline was required. The United Arab Emirates and Kuwait were consistently overproducing; the latter at least in part to repair losses caused by Iranian attacks in the Iran–Iraq War and to pay for the losses of an economic scandal. The result was a slump in the oil price – as low as $10 a barrel – with a resulting loss of $7 billion a year to Iraq, equal to its 1989 balance of payments deficit.[40] Resulting revenues struggled to support the government's basic costs, let alone repair Iraq's damaged infrastructure. Jordan and Iraq both looked for more discipline, with little success.[41] The Iraqi government described it as a form of economic warfare,[41] which it claimed was aggravated by Kuwait slant-drilling across the border into Iraq's Rumaila oil field.[42]

>In early July 1990, Iraq complained about Kuwait's behavior, such as not respecting their quota, and openly threatened to take military action. ...Saddam believed an anti-Iraq conspiracy was developing – Kuwait had begun talks with Iran, and Iraq's rival Syria had arranged a visit to Egypt.[48] Upon review by the Secretary of Defense, it was found that Syria indeed planned a strike against Iraq in the coming days. Saddam immediately used funding to incorporate central intelligence into Syria and ultimately prevented the impending air strike. On 15 July 1990, Saddam's government laid out its combined objections to the Arab League, including that policy moves were costing Iraq $1 billion a year, that Kuwait was still using the Rumaila oil field, that loans made by the UAE and Kuwait could not be considered debts to its "Arab brothers".

That doesn't answer my question. The Soviet Union would've inevitably fallen apart and a war would not have been desirable because there would've been most likely severe damage to the global human population, if not an outright nuclear holocaust. It wouldn't have happened because on both sides of the aisle there wasn't anybody with a faith fanatical enough to wage such a war. The Soviet Union and United States had diplomatic corps run by educated, civilized individuals. Evangelicals were in the Reagan Administration, but it's not like they were gung ho about setting up the apocalypse by nuking Moscow.

Meanwhile, Saddam had no qualms with going to war with the entire world and had little remorse about using weapons of mass destruction, as he did in the Iran-Iraq War and the Al-Anfal Campaign. Iran is run by a bunch of theocratic mullahs that have little regard for the material world and adhere to a strict doctrine of Islam. Just look at how Khomenei went to war in the 80s if you want to see how fanatical the Iranian leadership is. As for the Gulf Arabs, they would be perhaps a bit more civilized, but they aren't going to tolerate Shias spreading influence across the Middle East. Just look at how the Saudis have invaded Yemen and have been seriously working towards intervention in Syria. The politics of the Shia vs. Sunni conflict can't be compared to a NATO-Soviet sphere and are much more analogous to the Protestant vs. Catholic conflicts. It's not about the strategic interests of your country; it's about the strategic interests of your faith. And just as in the case of the Protestant vs. Catholic conflict, allowing a guy like Saddam to usher in a Sunni-Shia War combined with Arab nationalists and Israelis would've produced the same result: Thirty Years' War on steroids.

The Israelis wouldn't have let all these anti-Israel power spheres accumulate power to such an extent that it would threaten their right to exist either.

>worth is subjective

That's avoiding the question- why would it be more advantageous for the US to have this conflict rather than simply invade Iraq, waste a couple trillion, and just have anarchy afterwards. Yes, Iraq was a complete shitshow, but don't act like ISIS is some kind of powerful state. They wage a few terror attacks in Europe, but they don't pose an existential threat to the West as a whole or the world for that matter, so long as they don't obtain nuclear weapons. On the other hand, a massive war in the Middle East would've thrown the entire world into first, a Great Depression that would make the 70s look like the Roaring 20s, and then presumably a global war as everyone tried to bet on their horses.

This is why he was removed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

Ian Buruma wrote in August 2003 in the New York Times that:[7]

>Douglas Feith and Richard Perle advised Netanyahu, who was prime minister in 1996, to make "a clean break" from the Oslo accords with the Palestinians. They also argued that Israeli security would be served best by regime change in surrounding countries. Despite the current mess in Iraq, this is still a commonplace in Washington. In Paul Wolfowitz's words, "The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad." It has indeed become an article of faith (literally in some cases) in Washington that American and Israeli interests are identical, but this was not always so, and "Jewish interests" are not the main reason for it now.

Buruma continues:[7]

>What we see, then, is not a Jewish conspiracy, but a peculiar alliance of evangelical Christians, foreign-policy hard-liners, lobbyists for the Israeli government and neoconservatives, a number of whom happen to be Jewish. But the Jews among them—Perle, Wolfowitz, William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, et al.—are more likely to speak about freedom and democracy than about Halakha (Jewish law). What unites this alliance of convenience is a shared vision of American destiny and the conviction that American force and a tough Israeli line on the Arabs are the best ways to make the United States strong, Israel safe and the world a better place.

All at the cost of 1 trillion US dollars and approximately 10,000 US/European lives.

I feel like you're replying to the wrong person here. I simply said that Saddam ran a well oiled (kek) state and effectively quashed opposition. Don't know where this whole discussion about the gulf war started

>Who got us into the Iraq War?

>A Lost of prominent jewish neoco

Stopped reading there.

TRASHED

You'll never understand geopolitics user. Just because YOU have a certain set of moral obligations and rules doesn't mean everyone else does. I could have removed the jewish line and it still would be an accurate image, only your narrow worldview would have to eventually come to that conclusion.

>sounds like a kike term
lol fuck off back to /pol/

>"Iraq also accused Kuwait of exceeding its OPEC quotas for oil production. In order for the cartel to maintain its desired price of $18 a barrel, discipline was required"

You're literally shilling for OPEC to shaft the West with higher oil prices. That was my point, if you allowed Saddam to invade Kuwait, then he would've had the momentum to invade other territories in OPEC and raise the price of oil.

>" The result was a slump in the oil price – as low as $10 a barrel – with a resulting loss of $7 billion a year to Iraq, equal to its 1989 balance of payments deficit."

United States oil producers were also hurt by this, does that justify us going in and knocking out other oil producers?

>"The Iraqi government described it as a form of economic warfare"
If you consider capitalism and the marketplace as violating your Arab socialist safe space, you probably don't deserve to have a country

>"Iraq complained about Kuwait's behavior, such as not respecting their quota, and openly threatened to take military action"

Do you think that this is justifiable behavior in the international community? Would you then support Saddam attacking North Dakota so that OPEC could make more Dinars by shafting the US with $200/bbl prices?

>"Saddam believed an anti-Iraq conspiracy was developing – Kuwait had begun talks with Iran, and Iraq's rival Syria had arranged a visit to Egypt."

Perhaps because he made open military threats to Kuwait and was trying to make the Middle East his bitch, despite barely escaping destruction in the Iran-Iraq War because he was given a few chemical weapons?

You're basically shredding the case that Saddam would've been a stable ruler. Invading your neighbors so that you can overcharge the West for oil and fuel a military build-up is not at all stable behavior.

What would have been the cost to the United States of a recession with triple digit oil prices and resource wars across the entire Middle East?

>blatantly throwing around the word geopolitics to justify your chimping out

Did you think that by ignoring

>Upon review by the Secretary of Defense, it was found that Syria indeed planned a strike against Iraq in the coming days. Saddam immediately used funding to incorporate central intelligence into Syria and ultimately prevented the impending air strike. On 15 July 1990, Saddam's government laid out its combined objections to the Arab League, including that policy moves were costing Iraq $1 billion a year, that Kuwait was still using the Rumaila oil field, that loans made by the UAE and Kuwait could not be considered debts to its "Arab brothers".

That you won the argument. You lost Ari.

You can't prove that would have happened. Meanwhile it is already proven that Iraq cost over 1 trillion.

Maybe if you were American and it was your country you would be invested in what happens to it and the people who abuse and undermine it instead of chimping out yourself.

>"including that policy moves were costing Iraq $1 billion a year"

This is basically saying "The oil price isn't high enough, therefore we have to extort Westerners more so that I can cover my ass." Again, not in our interest to maintain.

>"that loans made by the UAE and Kuwait could not be considered debts to its "Arab brothers"

Chimping out because you can't afford to pay your debts to your neighbors

>"that Kuwait was still using the Rumaila oil field"

Perhaps a legitimate grievance, but certainly not worth risking Iraqi dominance of Middle Eastern oil.

You seem to be presenting the case for the Gulf War from an Iraqi perspective without answering my question of why Iraqi dominance of the Middle East would have been advantageous to the United States?

You have to give a rational reason why this would not have taken place.

Not an argument

Neither is chimping out over pointing out JEWISH ISRAELIS working with JEWISH AMERICANS high in the US government worked a plan as early as 1996 for the removal of Saddam, Assad, and other hostile Middle East regimes.
>I've been found out
Next time don't recoil so hard.

Still haven't addressed why it wouldn't be advantageous for us, regardless of Israeli involvement, considering you haven't disproven the alternative lol

>cost of the war- 1 trillion dollars plus thousands of lives in addition to the fomenting of terrorism which created ISIS which partially created the refugee crisis which will cost the US and Europe billions

I want to hurt you user. Very badly. Or at least break your computer so I don't have to read retarded posts like yours.

So why would a regional conflict that would immeasurably more, both financial and human costs, be better exactly?

The refugee crisis would've been much worse in that situation and while ISIS is bad it isn't an existential threat to the West.

What the fuck are you on? After Desert Storm Saddam's forces were obliterated, all the US had to do to make peace was place pressure on the Kuwaitis to play nice and reopen discussions with Saddam, who as we found out had 0, none, nada, WMDs.
All we had to do was not invade and open diplomatic channels.

The question is irrelevant. The relevant question is whether, on balance, his presence served the interests of the American State. And the answer is yes. stupidly, Bush younger intervened in the name of Christ and ego, and stupider still, the next president announced in clear language his timetable for vacating the benighted, backward and savage country, as if they would have suddenly gained the capacity for thought.

All of this is what is so excellent in the simple fact of a trump administration: Trump has repeatedly repudiated both previous administrations, and offers hope of a maverick middle way.

nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html

nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/

>what were Operations Avarice and McCall

It wasn't merely a matter of what Iraq possessed per se, but more so what their actions demonstrated. Iraq was behaving aggressively and increasing regional tensions all throughout the 90s. Had he been allowed to stay in power, his unstable nature would've caused a regional arms race.

>Iraq was behaving aggressively and increasing regional tensions all throughout the 90s.
I already addressed that here
Saddam was in the right regarding Kuwait, and he was never affiliated with Al Queda. As far as your sources none of them equate to the expenditure of American lives and money in Iraq.

Saddam provided shelter to terrorists including:
-Abu Abbas: mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking that killed Leon Klinghoffer, a US citizen, and forced passengers to throw his body overboard

-Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: Orchestrated the assassination of Laurence Foley

-Abdul Rahman Yasin: The one terrorist behind WTC 1993 that got away fled to Iraq

You still haven't proven why Saddam's unstable and aggressive behavior wouldn't risk a regional arms race, if not a regional war.

A regional arms race was something the US had no problem or funding prior, and Saddam had, like I said earlier, his military power greatly diminished post Desert Storm. I'm not going to talk to a broken record.

>Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations were made by the U.S. government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).[1] In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States,[2] basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others. The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."

Once again the reason for the Iraq War was Israeli interests.

>in the long run, the Iraq War was good
This is what's called the broken window fallacy. We simply don't know what would have happened had the war not been, but when comparing the current situation to the absolute worst case scenario without a war then, yeah, it does look like it was the right call.

Much like how it's easy to say that a broken window stimulates the economy when you can't see what it's owner would have spent the money on otherwise.

Fuck no, he was a fucking dickhead.
>B-but muh middle eastern stability!
Iraq did just fine under a monarchy and they did just fine even before that.

>>You still haven't proven why Saddam's unstable and aggressive behavior wouldn't risk a regional arms race, if not a regional war.
Are you so dense that you don't see that the entire region was destabilized by US aggression? Iraq has become a huge black hole, and the overthrow of Saddam was the catalyst. He may have been an asshole, but he was a known quantity, unlike the present day tribal morass.