American conflict with Iraq go back to 1990. It is a long story.
Iraq attacked USS Stark in 1987 - US settled for Iraqi compensation.
Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. US gave Iraq 1 year to leave Kuwait. Not a small time.
The point of no return came in 1991.
It comes down to provocations; crossing a red line if you will.
Otherwise, how so many countries are safe or not attacked?
As for the WMDs trope, US troops did find chemical weapon cashes in Iraq. This is documented. But tropes are repeated ad hominem.
The focus should be on Facts and Figures, not on tropes and speculations.
Saudi and Turkey are angry that US have done much about Iran. But both will deny it. US has to fight for everybody, right?
I guess you are failing to understand or I failed to explain the difference of opinion on fundamental level, if we understood each other no further post would be required.
Let me try to explain in a different way.
There can be two different arrangements:
Arrangement 1:
The current superpower and it's allies are dominant in every spectrum. Weapons, military, tech, economy, basically everything. They want to sustain this all spectrum dominance forever or as long as possible. So other nations can comply with whatever is in superpower's interest even at the expense of their own nations' aspirations. In return, these nations get to live somewhat of a good life but give up their sovereignty and independence to a great degree. This is comparable to a slave master and slave arrangement. The slave still lives somewhat of a good life, he still eats, he still gets to wear clothes, has a roof over his head but he is not a free man, he can't leave the job and get a job of his choosing. This compulsion is created and perpetuated by the superior tools and capabilities the slave master has at his disposal. He can continue to live the somewhat good life by being compliant for the rest of his life and giving up his aspirations to be a free man, get any job he wants, trade with anybody he wants, doesn't work at all whenever he doesn't want to and so on.
Arrangement 2:
The current superpower and it's allies are dominant in every spectrum. Weapons, military, tech, economy, basically everything. They want to sustain this all spectrum dominance forever. Other nations don't want to be subjected to their all spectrum dominance. They want to break free and pursue their own aspirations as a nation, make friends with whoever they want, trade with whoever they want, build whatever weapon they see fit to defend their country and so on. This is comparable to the slave trying to break free of his slave master and the system of slavery and become emancipated.
From the above two arrangements, it just happens to be the case that some nations like the arrangement 2 and they will pursue it. What you say a nation should do by being in compliance is suitable for arrangement 1. The subjectivity of the actions of a nation is dependent on the context, in the context of arrangement 2 what you say doesn't work.
I hope we understand each other now. I don't particularly disagree with you, I just don't think what you say is applicable to the context of arrangement 2 and it is just a reality that there are many nations who are the subscribers of arrangement 2.
for community notes
