It's all about oil!
Of course it's about oil! Don't you think oil resources are worth protecting especially when a psychopath like Saddam is in charge of them? This is the looney tune who ignited Kuwaiti oilfields as he was retreating in 1991and flooded waterways with fire and pollution.
If you mean it's about America ensuring a secure supply for the future then surely it would have been far easier and far less costly to have simply done a deal with Saddam.
America has invaded another country, again without the backing of the UN.
If we're going to talk about going against the UN, let's start with Saddam shitting all over UN Resolution 1442 for twelve years. Where were the peace protesters then? But back to America. Yes she is in Iraq without UN backing but then so are Britain, South Korea, Italy, Poland, Ukraine and 21 other countries. And by the way America and Britain have been enforcing a no-fly zone over the north and south of Iraq since 1991 against the wishes of the UN, saving countless Kurdish lives. Would you have wanted that to stop?
Why doesn't America invade other repressive states, like North Korea for example?
This seems to me to be a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't! Has North Korea, for example, violated the Geneva Convention, invaded two neighbouring states or financed suicide bombing? There are other ways of dealing with dictators apart from attacking them, like economic sanctions. We could have tried that with Iraq I suppose. Oh hold on! We did do that and Saddam cared more about holding on to power than the fact that his people were starving to death.
The occupation of Iraq was the cause of 7/7 and other terrorist attacks.
The last military action America was involved with before 9/11 was the bombing of Serb-occupied Bosnia, specifically to protect Bosnian muslims. Did that "cause" the attacks on America?
More to come!