No, seriously USA, why did you invaded Iraq in 2003?

No, seriously USA, why did you invaded Iraq in 2003?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/rOuLkfJjtgQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189928/Man-dug-hole-hide-Saddam-Hussain-months-talks-devotion-Iraqi-leader.html
rferl.org/content/ukraine-i-was-a-separatist-fighter/25455466.html
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I'M KOREAN
SON OF A BITCH AMERICAN
AMERICAN IS PIG
DO YOU WANT A HAMBURGER?
DO YOU WANT A PIZZA?
AMERICAN IS PIG DISGUSTING
GEORGE WALKER BUSH IS A MURDERER
FUCKING U.S.A

Just a bit of banter

Because Saddam was acting up. He was our associate, our responsibility.

Iraq and its neighbors, however, never were US responsibility.

Because FUCK ISLAM

and cheap oil

Deal with it Ibrahim

Jesus Christ why are Europeans so retarded?

what did he mean by this?

>not using petrodollar

To build bases in iraq and afghanistan,armenia,azerbaijan,turkey and pakistan. All of that only to attack Iran i think.

Because Khalijis are master race.

i know right lad?

like they defend dem sandnigroes and shit

i imagine iran as a poor scared girl (the wolves already slightly undressed her with claws) who sees a pack of wolves ringing around her closer and closer

aww... usa, why are you such a bully

look how little people came to greet the big, american heroes

you'd think the entire city would be jam packed with celebrations

really makes you think

>i imagine iran as a poor scared girl (the wolves already slightly undressed her with claws)
Thats how I imagine Ukrainians.

>you'd think the entire city would be jam packed with celebrations
We dont cut peoples heads off or put them in acid, no fun to watch.

To defend the petrodollar. Black Pigeon Speaks has a great video on it.

youtu.be/rOuLkfJjtgQ

revenge for Kuwait... wait they won that one. maybe they just wanted to go back to make sure they won

yeah because that totally happened under saddam

iraq is now a freedom loving country because of america, right babe?

what a retard you are lmao

>The DECLINE of American Empire

>yeah because that totally happened under saddam
Ya it did, ask Kurds. So did chemical weapons.

What a retard you are lmao

To stop Saddam Hussein.

And get rid of the Taliban.

Watch the whole thing you faggot

>saddam beheaded and dropped kurds in acid

you'd think with so much access to information on the internet, americans would stop buying into the propaganda the bush administration fed them

i bet you still think saddam had nukes or some stupid shit like that

we made a cease fire with Iraq in 1991
they violated it many times
broken cease fire = war resumes

because freedom and democracy

>you'd think with so much access to information on the internet
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
If the US hadnt removed Saddam, WWIII triggered from Iraq-Iran conflicts would engulf the civilized world.

You're welcome for me being older and more education than you.

>This amount of delusion

Justin is that you?

Iraqis were very grateful about having their freedom creators in their lands

It has been proved many times in the past that Iraqis had nukes, along with the chavistas druglords and Iranian rats

They've been funded by Russia to threaten american national security

Cause of 9/11. If Saddam didn't attack us first we wouldn't care about him.

>DUDE SADDAM BEHEADED AND THREW KURDS INTO ACID

>uh no he fucking didn't

>....HE USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH IS COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO MY POINT BUT IM NOW GOING TO CLAIM AN INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY TOWARDS YOU

kys

The US didn't remove Saddam for violations of human rights. He was selling oil to people he shouldn't have. Since the US was the reason he had power, he got removed. Also, don't act like your country wasn't complicit in this, every time the US goes to war, all of NATO follows. You guys were in Iraq too.

>you'd think with so much access to information on the internet...

You mean the same internet where the idea of the "New World Order controlled by the Illuminati and the Cultural Marxists" emerged? The Internet makes people stupider, not smarter.

>I'M USING ALL CAPS AND GREEN TEXT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN PROVEN HOPELESSLY WRONG.
>SADDAM HUSSIEN HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND WAS ALREADY USING THEM
>AGAINST IRAN
You were probably sucking your thumb on 9/11.

>listening to wingnut propaganda

Wew

gr8 b8 m8

Why? The Ukrainian army is killing civilians in Donbass.

>Iraqis were very grateful about having their freedom creators in their land

no they weren't you stupid spic

hence why there was a massive insurgency against the americans

hence why the man who personally guarded saddam when he was hiding from the americans is seen as a hero in iraq

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2189928/Man-dug-hole-hide-Saddam-Hussain-months-talks-devotion-Iraqi-leader.html

you need to kys too, but you'll just starve to death anyways

We did it to free the Iraqi people from an evil dictator and support democracy in the Middle East (and around the world).

It's not our fault Iraqis didn't put in any effort to help themselves.

was that worth 3 trillion dollars and more dead americans than the number that died in the twin towers?

What's sad is I've actually herd fellow burgers say this irl

It was an accident!

Go to Russia if you're Russian; its that simple.

However, Iran targets American citizens who are just visit. They are butthurt dictatorship.

No, because they are subhumans that can't into democracy. We found this out after the fact

>was that worth 3 trillion dollars
The US takes in $5 trillion in taxes a year. And millions of people are born daily.

Are you autistic?

oh boy i smell of mohammad in here

i bet you also believe americans did 9/11 too

Iraqis, just like Afghans, have always searched for american protection and leadership

hence why they sell them cheap oil as grateful-ness

>insurgency against americans

proof

That "argument" is worn out and simply pathetic.

Both sides have killed civilians.

And why is your english so bad?

>That "argument" is worn out and simply pathetic.
The argument that if you claim to be Russian you should find it on a map and go live there?

Instead of try to thwart other nations?

are you seriously minimizing the deaths of 3,000 americans?

SHOW SOME FUCKING RESPECT

I dunno lol

this spic is actually asking for proof of an insurgency against the americans

fuck man, i know your government had censorship but jesus

were you not alive from 2003-2010?

is your mind going south from malnutrition?

>are you seriously minimizing the deaths of 3,000 americans?
No, saying Saddam didnt have weapons of mass destruction is though.

Since its blatant wrong. And you dont even know how much the US tax revenues are. So you think you can imply what is expensive and what isnt.

>resorting to ad hominems instead of giving proof

Iraqi shill spotted

I can't believe you're so ungrateful mtowards your american brothers that have always kept you secure and defended you.

The middle east is controlled by americans as a middle eastern request, they need them, they love the freedom and security american administration gives them.

Now Iraq doesn't have nukes
Now they don't represent a threat to democracy in the world.

Aren't you happy about that?

>Venezuela
>Europe
Hey look! a Brexit supporter

>complains about ad hominems then proceeds to write an entire post based on ad hominems\

alri lad, i'm off to eat dinner

i expect you to still be here since you've already had your daily ration

Sometimes the reasons are simple. This is such a case. The Bush people convinced themselves through group think that Iraq had a nuke program. They thought removing Sadam would be easy, and that the US should not be afraid to use its military power. They believed in action and creating facts on the ground - and they thought that showing US superiority would help reaffirm unipolarity by demoralizing would-be challengers and troublemakers. They honestly thought the post-war scenario would be very simple.

Revenge, oil, and worse conspiracy theories really aren't necessary when the obvious explanation is pretty damn satisfactory.

enjoy your falafel you fucking muslim tard

Why did the British sink your ships in WW2? That is the real question.

>the rebels use civillians as human shields
>OH NO EVIL UKRAINIAN ARMY IS MURDRING CIVILIANS
P*lestinian tactic

The actual warzone in Donbass is mostly populated by ethnic Russians (and some russian-reaking Ukrainians) who declared independence from Ukraine. Western media keeps telling us that the Russian military is responsible for the deaths of those civilians. That means Russia would basically kill it's own people.
Meanwhile the Ukrainian army (supported by neonazi battalions) dindu nuffin? They're in Donbass but don't kill any people? Very interesting.
By the way it's the same media that told us the lies about "weapons of mass destruction" to justify the invasion of Iraq.

remember that mission accomplished banner after like 6 months or something hilarious

god bush 43 was just a comedy of errors

Saddam did nothing wrong.

So should the government just watch its territory being occupied and write a thank-you card to the rebels?

So apparently it's Russia's fault that the Ukrainian army is killing civilians. Ok. It's always Russia's fault, no matter what.

Absolutely true when it's responsible for fueling the riots to escalate into a "civil war".

No, it's a civil war and civilian casualities can't be avoided. But I want Westerners to stop saying that it's Russia who is killing civilians.

What exactly do you mean by " fueling the riots?"
Do you mean the escalation of the Maidan movement or the independence movement in Donbass?

Huh? No one in the west insist that Russia is the only one that is killing civilians.
The one that plays with "Save the Donbas Children" card is Russia, not the west.

>Do you mean the escalation of the Maidan movement or the independence movement in Donbass?
The latter.

>ask Americans a question
>Germany and Korea argue with each other the whole thread

Never change Sup Forums

cuz MUH OIL

To ruin Iraq, of course. Also to steal their oil and screw up the whole region. And to distract from the fact that it was really al-Qaeda that attacked us and they're funded mostly by Saudis and the attackers were all Saudis and Egyptians and the Administration had screwed up the war in Afghanaland.

I always hear people blaming Russia for the it. In fact, 42% of Americans, 37% of Canadians, and 40% of Britons blame only Russia for the violence.

Donbass has always been - along with Crimea - a pro-russian stronghold within Ukraine.
A counter movement to the Euromaidan was forseeable, and after Yanukovich illegitimately got kicked out the situation escalated.

I am not Korean and he may not be German either.
I'm from HK.

I'm half Polish

>In fact, 42% of Americans, 37% of Canadians, and 40% of Britons blame only Russia for the violence
Because without Russia the riots would have been subdued and there would be no civil war?

>Donbass has always been - along with Crimea - a pro-russian stronghold within Ukraine.
Which does not justify Russia's intervention in foreign politics.
The pro-Russians have the right to revolt against the new government, but Russia doesn't have the right to meddle in.

And half what?

Wut. Are you working here?
Why would you want to get discriminated?

No. Studying.
>Why would you want to get discriminated?
What? You can't discriminate a person who looks identical to your kind.

There was no need for the Russian government to fuel the riots. The situation was already extremely tense and about to escalate. And I don't think a civil war in Ukraine was of Russia's geopolitical interest. The sanctions hit Russia's economy hard.

> without Russia the riots would have been subdued and there would be no civil war?
uhm, no? Russia didn't even recognize the indepence of Donetsk and Luhansk.

> Russia doesn't have the right to meddle in
The only time Russia actively took action in Ukraine was when taking Crimea. And if Crimea didn't went under Russia rule, it yould face the same fate as Donbass today: civil war. And most Crimeans know this.

German, obviously.

It doesn't matter if you look like identical.
Once they realize you are from HK, they will secretly make fun of you for being Chinese.

>There was no need for the Russian government to fuel the riots.
To take land in Crimea.

Thats why the ethnic Russians wont go back to Russia.

The population of Crimea and Donbass is made up by ethnic Russians and russian-speaking Ukrainians. They prefer being a part of the Russian Federation rather than being a part of Ukraine, which now seeks a Nato- and EU integration. Russia didn't have to intervene in any way to fuel the protests. It was unavoidable, Ukraine was torn into 2 parts from the very beginning.

>There was no need for the Russian government to fuel the riots.
But you can find evidence of tons of weapons supplied from Russia and even man force from Russia.

>And I don't think a civil war in Ukraine was of Russia's geopolitical interest.
Which is contradictory to what Russians claim.
Ukraine's integration to western world is very unfavorable to Russia. Civil war in Ukraine would weaken Ukraine and makes it less likely for the west to build closer ties with Ukraine.

> Russia didn't even recognize the indepence of Donetsk and Luhansk.
It's irrelevant to the fact that the governments are basically monitored by Russia.

>The only time Russia actively took action in Ukraine was when taking Crimea
Lmao. First Russia denied its intervention in Crimea and later it admitted it. The same for Donbass.

rferl.org/content/ukraine-i-was-a-separatist-fighter/25455466.html

The secession of Crimea was a reaction of what was happening in Kiev, to protect their only fleet on the Black Sea. It was a rather spontanous action. Or do you think Russia planned the Euromaidan and the fall of Yanukovich beforehand?

I hope you're trolling. South Koreans are smart enough to know HKers are different from Chinese.

>to protect their only fleet on the Black Sea.
You mean the pro-western government would have closed the Russian naval base in Crimea to gain NATO membership? That's your illusion.

>But you can find evidence of tons of weapons supplied from Russia and even man force from Russia.
AFTER the declaration of independence. That's not the same as fueling of riots.
I agree that Russia now supports the separatists, but they didn't actively push for an escalation before the civil war started. At least there is no evidence for it.
Anyway it's almost 3 in the morning and I'm out now.

Petrodollar

>venezuela
>why are europeans...

brexit best day of our lives.

Do you think Nato would accept a country that has a Russian naval base with Russian soldiers stationed in it?

The United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland invaded Iraq so don't just blame the United States.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

>That's not the same as fueling of riots.
It is though.

Cmon Francesco

>Do you think Nato would accept a country that has a Russian naval base with Russian soldiers stationed in it?
No. But do you think Ukraine would kick out the Russian soldiers from the naval base?

>"let's sacrifice 18 years old americans for the profit of the industrial military kike complex, more people will be born anyway"
>calls other autistic

are you literally retarded?

>We did it to free the Iraqi people from an evil dictator and support democracy in the Middle East (and around the world).
>WE WUZ DERE FOR FREEDUUUM

yes you are.

Why not? It's not like anyone could stop us, in fact, most joined in on the fun.

>yes you are.
man it was bait

Halliburton defense and infrastructure contracts,mind you the good old dicky in the vp place was a huge shareholder for Halliburton.