Why did George H.W. Bush illegally invade Iraq more than 25 years ago when Iraq's Democratic president Saddam Hussein didn't attack America? If America is the world police, then Why didn't America invade China when they invaded Tibet decades ago?

>>17863645 (OP)
Obviously because 9/11 WMDs and his dad's unfinished business

>>17863645 (OP)
>Democratic
>Saddam Hussein
Bait or mental retardation.
Also, it was George W. Bush that invaded Iraq, not George H.W. Bush

Bush was a Democrat at heart but a war hawk in policy. He and his son were 80 IQ imperialists that bought into the greater Israel project. There's a reason the war hawk Democrats abandoned their failing socialist party and brought their foreign policy into the GOP

>>17863942
>Bait or mental retardation.
Another anon in another thread pointed out that there seems to be a raid going on.
Seeing even more engagement-baiting threads than usual

>>17863645 (OP)
>Why did George H.W. Bush illegally invade Iraq more than 25 years ago when Iraq's Democratic president Saddam Hussein didn't attack America?
Because the USSR was imploding and all that American surplus military equipment had to be tested somewhere by Yankee imperialists. Iraq seemed to have a real army after a decade of total war against revolutionary Iran, it wasn't supposed to be a meme army like Panama and Grenada.

>>17863645 (OP)
>Why did George H.W. Bush illegally invade Iraq more than 25 years ago
Because they invaded an ally: Kuwait.

>Why didn't America invade China when they invaded Tibet decades ago?
A far more interesting question. My understanding of the answer to this question is that, probably, they didn't invade because when China originally invaded in 1950-51 we had more pressing issues to attend to at the moment. The people living in the western provinces are clearly being genocided right now by the communist party of China, and the CPC are doomed because they are godless. But whether diplomacy or some kind of intervention turns out to be the correct approach to this situation remains to be seen. That's what seems to be driving the strategic ambiguity approach from my understanding.

International relations are shaped by a mix of law, power, interests, and pragmatism.