Originally Posted by P-rex
I'll give you Vietnam.... But the other two were strategic in name... Korean War for countering USSRs's sphere of influence and communism and WWII because GB begged
As for ousting Saddam ... Dickhead Cheney and papa bush moulded a young to be and will always be 'the biggest idiot president' to go against advisors and take Saddam out for the near assasination of papa bush in the first gulf war.... And the war in Iraq was AGAINST UN's approval... Hence why bush is wanted for war crimes
The motivation for Vietnam was the same as Korea and WW2 at the time - they were all "strategic." And WW2 was not because Great Britain begged - we were also attacked in the Pacific by a strong ally of the Nazis.
And there's that name-calling again... For the record, it's well documented that Bush Jr. didn't ask Bush Sr. for his advice on invading Iraq - if he would have, Bush Sr. would most likely have told him not to do it. And Bush didn't go against his advisors - they actually advocated for intervention in Iraq when Clinton was President. Technically, the war was approved by the UN in 1991, and continued the entire time (remember Clinton bombing Iraq in 1998?) - this was just continued military action. And finally, the US doesn't need the UN's approval for anything.
Jimmy Carter (was he a democrat?) said in 1979 that "any assault on the Gulf will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States." This was going on long before GWB.
While answering the Booty Call in the Oval Office, Bill Clinton bombed Yugoslavia without UN approval - killing civilians and destroying the country, all to depose a brutal dictator in a country that had no strategic interest for the US. Apparently that has been forgotten.