fought predominantly for the wrong reasons, sold to the public with lies and deception. you could argue that concerning its alleged goals, it was justified, and strictly militarily speaking it certainly was a sound victory, basically achieving all mission targets - but with the benefit of hindsight, knowing the history of the region, i would definitely not put it in the "fundamentally just" category.

Given the size of the coalition, I find it hard to believe that it wasn't "just." It was one of the few times the UN agreed that use of force was appropriate. I'm about to go to bed but I'd love to see why you think kicking Saddam out of Kuwait was considered "unjust."

must be why all those felony parading convictions. All the jan 6th comission proved is what a bunch of lying frauds lefties are

that user is a descendant of those who believe in acquiring lebensraum at any cost

the restoring kuwait's territorial and political integrity rationale IS the "just" part. the not doing it for humanitarian reasons, but to protect cheap oil supplies, is the questionable part - especially if you consider the historical context and consequences.

a short summary, in case you're not so familiar with the history: previous to the gulf war, america heavily supported (billions in foreign aid, intelligence, training, supply of non-US weapons...) saddam hussein's attack and war against iran - after iranians had the audacity to overthrow their oppressive authoritarian puppet government, which the west had installed via a coup in order to cheaply exploit iran's oil resources. the result was an eight years war between the nations, in which iraq, despite massive financial and military support, was not able to make any meaningful progress, ultimately resulting in a stalemate. a now highly indebted iraqi government then turned on a militarily easy target right on its doorstep, but for some reason america suddenly wasn't so pleased with saddam doing that anymore, and hussein went from america's ally to the next hitler basically over night. him murdering kurds and iranians was fine with the US, as long as he was doing their bidding in the region, but threatening a country with western controlled oil fields on his doorstep somehow crossed a line... funny how that goes, huh?

anyway, the point is that america's concern with "human rights" and "integrity" of middle eastern nations is quite obviously just a convenient excuse to justify interventions for economic reasons. add to this the deliberate deception of the public, the previous support of hussein's crimes, the destabilising effect of america's meddling in the region, and i have a hard time subscribing to the adorably innocent notion of a "just" gulf war.

i will grant you that despite all of that, it was probably the closest america came to that post ww2 though - which is pretty damning.

Your red herring that the USA was playing offense Vs. defense is completely irrelevant.

The point stands that if Hitler had been able to properly reinforce Normandy, the USA wouldn't have made an inch into France - and this was largely because the operation was completely botched by the allied commanders who promised their men tanks and air support during the mission, but completely failed to provide these reinforcements and sent their men to their deaths anyway. The sick truth about Normandy is that if those men knew what they were actually signing up for, we wouldn't have even had enough volunteers to successfully do the mission - most of those men were slaughtered with a sense of deep regret and sadness about their betrayal. Also, the USA could have been facing the atom bomb as early as D-day if Hitler had actually allowed for atomic research - aka "jew science" to continue. You literally know nothing.

Get yourself some manners btw - or at least level up your IQ before you go insulting people.

This post was edited by LoverManGenius on Sep 15 2021 07:06am

what if
what if
what if
what if
almost
almost
great points

Not an argument.

This would be a semi decent response if my post wasn't backed up by the opinions of dozens of Ph.D level historians who think the same thing.


How about instead of yapping incoherent noise like a Boston terrier from the sidelines (like the annoying far left radical you are) - you pick up a book and read it.

This post was edited by LoverManGenius on Sep 15 2021 07:09am

This didn't happen.

maybe people have all agreed on this.
it like saying hindsight sports bs.. yea maybe right. but NONE of it happened so its pretty irrelevant.