[riehwvfbk]

That particular Security Council decision was entirely driven by the US though, including getting the Saudis to pay 1B USD to the ailing Soviet Union to buy their Yes vote (and by then it was already in the final stages of Perestroika).

I wonder what your justification for Saddam's invisible WMDs is. That lie was not invented by someone at the Pentagon?

[_djo_]

Again, such an arrogant US-centric view. You do realise that other countries have agency too, right?

The idea that the US drove the Saudis to lobby the Soviets is absurd: The Saudis were independently lobbying everyone they could because all signs were that the much more powerful Iraqi military would invade them next in order to gain control of much of the world’s oil supplies. That’s why the first coalition response was to form Desert Shield to protect Saudi Arabia from an Iraqi invasion.

34 countries took part in the military operation to push Iraqi forces from Kuwait, which they had invaded without any legal justification at all. The operation was clearly and unambiguously authorised by the United Nations Security Council. It’s as clear an example of Jus ad Bellum in the modern era as you could hope for. And you still aren’t satisfied.

As for your last sentence, you’re conflating events thirty years later. It’s irrelevant to a discussion about whether the 1990 UN-authorised ejection of Iraqi forces from Kuwait was legally sound and justified.

[riehwvfbk]

I'm not that crazy yet, I am aware that the two Iraq wars were separately wielded by father and son.

Kind of funny that you accuse me of a US-centric view. Usually I get told I am a paid Russian troll. One last question: how long do you think the Ukraine war would last if the US decided to pull out? Other countries having agency? I'm just not seeing it. Looks like they just do what they are told from where I am sitting.

[_djo_]

US-centric doesn’t mean that you like the US, it means you speak and act like the US is the sole or primary cause of everything that happens in the world, is the only country with grand plans, and that other countries have no agency and can merely react to it. It’s a refusal to believe that much of the time the US is reacting to plans set in motion by other countries.

Ukraine is a key example: The US (and the rest of the West) clearly didn’t want Russia to invade. They used every diplomatic means at their disposal to convince it not to. But once Russia did, and once Ukraine’s resistance was successful, they reacted by supporting it.

So, no, the idea that only the US has agency is patently absurd. Do yourself a favour and go read some autobiographies, biographies, and history books that focus on the leadership of other major powers and how they acted and thought during various crises. It’ll open your mind as to how the world actually works.

[riehwvfbk]

Thanks for the high brow dismissal (hey, it's better than low brow). I do quite a lot of reading; I also know that Americans like telling everyone how they are the only ones with the truth and their world view is gospel. I think you guys believe in your own version of history so deeply yourselves that not only do you never question it, you are very effective preachers.

And there, there. You are smarter than anyone foreign. You read more, your mind is more open, and you are always right.

[_djo_]

I’ll save you from taking that attempted profiling any further: I’m not American.

I’m from a rather boring part of the world, from where it’s clear to see the meddling and machinations of all the world’s powers, big and small, if you want to pay attention to it.

Funny enough, it’s your view that promotes American exceptionalism and the idea of Americans as smarter and more knowing than anyone else. My view treats them as just another power, often as incompetent and reactive as any other.