Of course there are reasons to everything. And the evidence shows that the liberation of the Iraqi people wasn't a big reason at all for the invasion.
This is also why the actual "liberation" and the setting up for a democracy, was not planned and handled with incredibly clumsiness by the USA, whereas the oil fields were quickly secured and plans were already in place (thanks to the energy Taskforce) for what was to happen with them.
The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein
It probably is.
But the incompetence and clumsiness of the operation that achieved the overthrowal, also led to a civil war causing the death of hundreds of millions of people. Is the world better off with that?
Would that civil war have happened had the US not forced things? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Either way airmchair generals such as yourself should be a bit more humble about the glorious wonderfulness of your invasions.
I feel that the liberation of Iran would have been easier and the Islamic Republic was an even graver threat than Saddam and would have been much much easier and quick.
The neo-cons also thought the invasion of Iraq would be easy, that the transient violent effects would be over within months and that the whole affair would pay for itself in a mere decade just by oil revenue.
Look at how it turned out.
You can't honestly tell me that there are Americans who haven't learned any lessons from that.
Funny you would say that now since it's your own little initiating little rant about anti-USA sentiment, directed at no one but your own imaginary strawman, that brought this specific country into this discussion while it had been nation neutral up until that point. You get what you ask for ;)
More anti-American rhetoric
I'm crying with laughter here. You just like talking to yourself!
I've never denounced the USA, I loved living in the USA. I am talking about colonialism, the impact of western civilisation at large. Colonialism killed off millions of First Nations peoples right here in the Americas. This is simply general knowledge, any book will do. But what your statements make abundantly clear is that you have decided that the USA is the nicest nation in the world, and nothing at this point would change your mind. So I'm giving you time, time may be your only ally. Good luck with your future discussions.
to return to the topic, secularization wud mean less wars. i have foundthat in general secular people do not go around picking fights with people based on unfounded rumors, like we did in iraq. if president bush and say half of his administration were secular, no i do not believe we wud have even considered attacking iraq.
The world changed after 9/11. Saddam Hussein had defied the United Nations and the international community for years. Even President Clinton had said that eventually we would have to get rid of Saddam Hussein. The international community and intelligence agencies of foreign nations believed that he had biological, chemical, and potentially nuclear material. At the end of the day, the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. At the same time - I think Iran was a bigger threat and think that it would have been a wiser decision to liberate Iran as Iranians are secular, not divided into major ethnic groups like in Iraq, and simply are not fundamentalist like the Arab Muslims. The aftermath of Iran would have been nearly bloodless. The terrorists who infiltrated Iraq from other Arabic nations would not have been able to infiltrate into Iranian society.
And to note: just because Bin Laden and most of the terrorists were Saudi does not mean the Saudi government was involved. The Saudi government was very much trying to get rid of Bin Laden and his Saudi network.
May I ask, have you read Lawrence Wright's, "The Looming Tower"??