Iraqi Defector Admits To Lying, Iraq Liberated By Mistake

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes, i know that it was massively screwed up, and you have a good point here. Still not a legitimate reason for war.

Okay that’s fine, but it still points to the fact that it took very extensive sanctions to curb Saddam’s power. Softer sanctions would have quickly become meaningless and still have no end.

]Into anything even remotely capable of changing the allies of the US-allies, much less with intervention by the USA?

The guy built a seven thousand tank army out of a one thousand tank army and almost got nuclear weapons in about eleven years, that’s certainly a regional superpower in the making. The 1990s had fairly low oil prices, but Iraq could pump a massive amount of oil and had many new fields which are only now starting to be exploited. So he’d have been rolling in dough.

Besides, that just a repetition of the "they could have done something bad, so violence was justified"-argument. Someone being a theoretical future thread is no justification for war.

We were already at war though. I know lots of people would rather just ignore it, but well before the US ‘invaded’ Iraq we were carpet bombing Iraqi troops and launching 100+ plane raids on the country. How the fuck is that not war? Any moral system which says that and sanctions are okay, but trying to resolve the conflict decisively is not is just useless as far as I see.

So by your logic, you would have a right to attack Germany if we don't do what you want?

Germany surrendered unconditionally, was cut into pieces by the allies, and not returned to true nation state status until after ten years of occupation, while still divided, and only and the active state level looting of German industry and property (Saddam was ordered to pay reparations, the check was lost in the mail. The new German state was then only allowed to form in exactly the way the US and western allies wanted. I’d say that’s a pretty big modifier to the situation with regard to the US making future demands. Iraq was subject to a highly conditional surrender with such a short occupation Coalition forces couldn’t always even finish destroying Iraqi war material they had already captured.

This just looks like a "might makes right"-argument to me.

The UN is based on might makes right and directly stems from a military alliance of primarily western states, so as far as legality goes, that is all that actually exists. The UN Security Council itself is charged with determining what is an aggressive act. So as far as the UN is actually concerned, a crime can’t exist until the council says it does and thus the US didn’t commit a crime. Law is fun hun?

As far as morality goes we differ of opinions. I do not consider it even remotely morally acceptable to more or less starve and plague a nation into submission when you can use any other option. I also think its fucking insane to hand Saddam a license to print money and a ticket to an atomic bomb. No one has presented anything remotely new on dealing with him, you're all pretty clearly fine with the situation just boiling on to whatever end. Fine if you like that and can morally accept that, but its 50,000 bodies a year and Saddam was only 66 years when he was toppled.

Yes, because they had a legitimate reason for the war back then. However, just because you had a casus belli in the past doesn't mean you have one in the present - and "they did not do what we want" is NOT a legitimate casus belli.

We already had active fighting. That’s a major factor in why the invasion in 2003 went over so well, the US has been preparing more and more since the last two years of the Clinton administration as nothing else obviously had any effect on Saddam.

Apparently, you don't get this, so let me repeat it:

No, you’re just blatantly trying to ignore all the fighting before March 20th 2003. Everyone always does when they try to argue this, I guess because as the theme seems to go, everything is okay as long as only Iraqis die. Personally I think people would be singing a different tune if the US had used a proper force and the invasion was actually competent, not that I don't doubt most or all of you opposed it prior to the fact, but we aren't changing any opinions with all this so I wont go on further.

[Thanas]

That really underestimates the Iran Iraq war.

How? He still held on to power with less trouble than during 1991.

I think one has to assume that once he had nuclear weapons; and a modern air defense system and regained his strength of seven thousand modern tanks with modern ammo he’d have rolled right back over Kuwait and the rest of the gulf. That’d take maybe ten years to be optimistic, the first Iraqi nuclear program was on track to take less time then that to first bomb.

It is not a given that he would get a nuclear weapons program and what rationale would there be for attacking Kuwait again? And where would he get the money for the new weapons, given that he already faced state bankruptcy in the early 1990s?

[Lonestar]

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait could have protected each other. And Saudi Arabia can be quite a potent adversary. Besides, it is not as if you would have needed a massive military US presence to deal with the Iraqi army.

Alright, stop. Allow me to make an appeal to personal authority here.

One of the sites we support at my place of work has a retired USAF Colonel who was a liason with the Saudis in the 1st Gulf War, and they (the US) were under immense pressure to create a scenario where the Saudi Air Force could shoot down a Iraqi plane. When the chance prevented itself American and other Coalition warplanes were used to box in Iraqi Mirages, but were not permitted to fire while awaiting the "crack" Saudi pilots to shoot down the Iraqi Mirages. It took so goddamn long for the Saudi Pilot to work himself up to it the American controllers were seriously concerned that the Iraqi airplanes were going to run out of fuel(as they were being herded by American aircraft so they wouldn't escape) before the Saudi pulled the trigger. The Saudi pilot was later given $20 mil worth of Gold by the Saudi Royal Family, and pissed off every gringo in the OPS center by acting as if he fucking Maverick.


Hearing stories like that does not give me a "oh well the Saudis could be a potent adversary" feeling.

[LaCroix]

It had no UN mandate and was aggressive. The rationale was made up in purpose. Can't think of anything to make it any less legal...

Of course, the US would use their veto right to avoid it being declared being illegal... So it's 'controversial'...

[The Kernel]

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait could have protected each other. And Saudi Arabia can be quite a potent adversary. Besides, it is not as if you would have needed a massive military US presence to deal with the Iraqi army.

Yes you would have. Saddam at his height had a million man army, even with superior technology you need a serious amount of manpower and resources to provide a credible counter. It's not impossible but it would be bloody expensive to keep up with (see North Korean containment).

WTF are you smoking? There were no sanctions against Germany due to the UN not existing back then.

I should have been more clear with my analogy, I meant that getting the international community to agree to create sanctions against Nazi Germany after their broke the terms of Versailles and started rearming and threatening their neighbors was not an easy process and years of debate and appeasement (which let them rearm more) took place before anyone could agree on action.

The point was to show that the world community is difficult to get to agree on putting sanctions on even the most insane regimes. Don't take the analogy any further than that.

If you freely admit that Iran was an even crazier regime and did not pose such a large threat without such sanctions and restrictions, what makes you think this would have been any different in Iraq's case?

They are crazy but they aren't nearly as aggressive as Saddam was. He wanted to forcibly annex his neighbors and fought two wars in a decade in furtherance of that goal.

[The Kernel]

And this is a legitimate reason for war how exactly? And how exactly is the Middle East now more stable?

I didn't say the invasion was the right choice and I vehemently opposed it at the time. I'm pointing out though that there weren't any good or easy solutions to the problem.

So i suppose the USA had no way to change those sanctions? When did they stop being members of the UN Security Council?

Stop backpeddling, the US didn't unilateral make decisions about sanctions which is exactly what you implied.

[Serafina]

@Sea Skimmer:
Your argument is still based on the fact that Iraq COULD have been a threat to US-interests in the region.
If we accept that as a legitimate reason for war, then the term "crime against peace" just lost all meaning and nearly all wars would be legitimate. This would include the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor - that fleet was a serious potential threat to japanese interests after all, and they were just taking pre-emptive action. This would include the german attack on Poland - after all, the Polish army WAS a potential threat to Germany, and the polish government was acting contrary to german interests. If we apply your logic, those were legitimate wars.

Now i realize that the Iraq war is most likely never going to be declared a crime against peace. But this is not because there was any legitimate reason for the war, it's because the USA is simply powerful enough to dodge a system. But a mafia boss that controlls the justice system is still a criminal, and his actions are still wrong - the only reason no one is persecuting him is because no one dares to do so.


You are arguing that the Iraq war was necessary, justified or at least morally right. But just because breaking the law can lead to moral good (and i don't think so it did in this case) every now and then doesn't mean that doing so is not illegal. If it is possible to change the law in such a way that the line can be drawn in such a way that we can seperate between moral good and moral bad, then it should be done.
But we can not do that in this case. "We were protecting our interests" can NOT become a legitimate reason for war - i have demonstrated so above. "They COULD have become a threat" is not a legitimate reason either, because that can be used to attack virtually every country that could build a strong military force.

If you want to redraw the line, the only possible justification that doesn't make the prohibition against war meaningless would be clear evidence that your opponent is making immedeate preparations to attack you. Ironically, this is EXACTLY what the US-government was trying to claim prior to the Iraq war: They were claiming that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready to launch, that the threat was grave and immedeate. If that HAD been true, then an attack could have been legitimate.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, such evidence is easy to fake. Since it WAS fake, the leaders of the USA during these days are also guilty of conspiracy in order to commit a crime against peace - which they prompty did.

Given that "they are about to attack us" is easy to fake via propaganda, i do not think we should move the line by a single inch. The only legitimate reason for war is and should be defense against an occuring attack. If you want to be save, prepare appropriate defenses. If you want to go beyond that, you need an UN-mandate - this is arguably not a good solution, but it is better than what you are proposing and the USA did.
Once you HAVE been attacked, you are justified to do conquer the enemy and bring down his government (tough you still have to refrain from war crimes etc.). But if you choose not to do so, you can not simpl change your mind a decade later.

I didn't say the invasion was the right choice and I vehemently opposed it at the time. I'm pointing out though that there weren't any good or easy solutions to the problem.

There were two problems here:
-The USA did not like Saddam and he was a potential threat to their interests. As i have explained time and time again, this is NOT a legitimate reason to go to war. Nor is it a legitimate reason to starve the enemies civilian population (tough a part of that blame is on Saddam).
-The sanctions and their impact on the civilian population. However, just as you are not justified to go to war because someone is a potential threat, you can't just go to war with a country because you do not like their internal affairs - especially not if you are largely responsible for their problems in the first place. We DO have a mechanism for intervention with internal humanitarian crisises - it is hardly perfect, but it get's much worse if you can just decide to attack everyone you want to.

[Shroom Man 777]

Lonestar, why the hell did the Saudi pilot take so long to shoot? What the hell was his problem? Heck, what the hell is the problem of the Saudi military inferred from that poor showing?

[Sarevok]

I think Lonestar was talking about this incident.

Two kills were scored by a Saudi F-15C pilot, Captain Ayehid Salah al-Shamarni, against Iraqi Mirage F1 fighters during the Gulf War.

According to the wiki article AIM-9 missiles were used.

[The Kernel]

There were two problems here:
-The USA did not like Saddam and he was a potential threat to their interests. As i have explained time and time again, this is NOT a legitimate reason to go to war. Nor is it a legitimate reason to starve the enemies civilian population (tough a part of that blame is on Saddam).

Classic appeal to motive fallacy. There were plenty of legitimate reasons to remove Saddam besides ones that were self-serving to the US including:

1) He waged two unprovoked wars of aggression on his neighbors in the span of less than a decade.

2) He was ruthlessly oppressing two of the three ethnic groups in Iraq.

-The sanctions and their impact on the civilian population. However, just as you are not justified to go to war because someone is a potential threat, you can't just go to war with a country because you do not like their internal affairs - especially not if you are largely responsible for their problems in the first place. We DO have a mechanism for intervention with internal humanitarian crisises - it is hardly perfect, but it get's much worse if you can just decide to attack everyone you want to.

Yes, we have the containment strategy (see North Korea) which was probably the best of a bunch of bad options for dealing with Iraq.

[Metahive]

1) He waged two unprovoked wars of aggression on his neighbors in the span of less than a decade.

2) He was ruthlessly oppressing two of the three ethnic groups in Iraq.

First off, neither was used by the US and the Coalition of the Willing to justify their war, it was all about "Saddam can have nuclear bombs ready in 48 hours" and "Saddam supports terrorism", remember? Retroactively reading humanitarian goals into Bush's pet war would be nothing but odious revisionism. Second, how are those valid reasons for aggressive warfare? The latter is especially nonsensical, do you really mean the slavery/Jim Crow laws would have likewise justified preemptive warfare against the US? Is the PRC a valid target now because they oppress Tibetans and Uighurs? The former is also weak, that would at best justify his neighbours to arm up and be on the guard, not some wannabe world policeman from 6000 miles away to march in and fuck the place up.

Saddam was the target because his army was weak as shit and he sat on top of lots of natural resources. Humanitarianism was an afterthought at best.

[The Kernel]

First off, neither was used by the US and the Coalition of the Willing to justify their war, it was all about "Saddam can have nuclear bombs ready in 48 hours" and "Saddam supports terrorism", remember? Retroactively reading humanitarian goals into Bush's pet war would be nothing but odious revisionism.

Total red herring. I'm not justifying the US backed invasion of Iraq.

Second, how are those valid reasons for aggressive warfare? The latter is especially nonsensical, do you really mean the slavery/Jim Crow laws would have likewise justified preemptive warfare against the US? Is the PRC a valid target now because they oppress Tibetans and Uighurs? The former is also weak, that would at best justify his neighbours to arm up and be on the guard, not some wannabe world policeman from 6000 miles away to march in and fuck the place up.

Try a thought experiment for a second. Please apply exactly what you said to Nazi Germany circa 1939 and tell me what you come up with.

Anyway, you are perfectly entitled to an isolationist viewpoint of the world. I tend to take a more measured look at it and realize that open warfare spreading across the Middle East from an unchecked Iraq would have been a bad thing.

Saddam was the target because his army was weak as shit and he sat on top of lots of natural resources. Humanitarianism was an afterthought at best.

Appeal to motive and a red herring on top of that. I'm not justifying the US led invasion and occupation of Iraq. I'm simply pointing out that it's clear that the status quo wasn't working and lifting sanctions would have probably just left us in the same mess after Iraq got a chance to rearm. As you say, Saddam was sitting on a ton of natural resources, there would be nothing stopping him from rearming and then trying again to attain regional superpower status. And that's a war that could have killed tens of millions of people.

[Serafina]

Classic appeal to motive fallacy. There were plenty of legitimate reasons to remove Saddam besides ones that were self-serving to the US including:

1) He waged two unprovoked wars of aggression on his neighbors in the span of less than a decade.

2) He was ruthlessly oppressing two of the three ethnic groups in Iraq.

Neither is a legally legitimate reason for war. They might be morally justiable, but if you base a general principle on that you run into a huge problem - you can now suddenly declare war on almost anyone, the definition of "crime against peace" would be almost meaningless.
Again, you can't just declare war on another country just because you don't like what they do - and much less due to what they did in the past! If Iraq had actually attacked the USA or one of it's allies in 2003, then you would have had a legitimate reason to go to war. Your reasons are NOT legitimate legal reasons.

All of your reasons could be used to justify both Germanies and Japans acts during WW II:
- "We were at war with the allies in the past, they are clearly potential threats".
- "Germans are being supressed in Poland"
- "The USA is threatening japanese interests"
- "The USA has the means to attack us, we must strike first".
and so on. None of those were legitimate reasons back then, why should that be otherwise now?

You are also a blatant hypocrite. Neither "he went to war in the past" nor "he is a dictator" was named as a reason for the war back then - it was all about "OMG he is going to use WMDs every second!!". Now granted, the first point is somewhat related to this, but it shows that the Bush-administration actually KNEW that the reasons you are naming would not be legitimate reasons for war. The only legitimate reason to go to war is being attacked. An actual, impeding attack (as in "they are amassing troops at our border") is a bit of a grey zone, but this wasn't even the case here - but the Bush-administration knew that this would be the only way to make the war appear legitimate, which is why they spread all that propaganda about Iraqi WMDs.

[Serafina]

Try a thought experiment for a second. Please apply exactly what you said to Nazi Germany circa 1939 and tell me what you come up with.

Please do the same. You should notice that i have been doing so all along.
By the way, if anyone wants to call "argument ad hitlerum" here: The reason why i bring up Nazi Germany is because the concepts (crime against peace) were actually introduced back then. It is therefore the best example to illustrate why wars of aggressions are illegeal, and what constitutes a war of aggression.

Now, no one went to war with Nazi Germany aggressively. The rest of the world went to war with them because they attacked first. Defending yourself or your allies is a completely legitimate reason to go to war. And once you are in such a war it is also completely legitimate to conquer and occuply the enemies territory.
I honestly don't know what your point was here. No one went to war with Nazi Germany because they were evil, or because they were a potential threat. That situation is in no way comparable to the Iraq war - unless you put the USA in the place of Nazi Germany and the Iraq in the place of Poland (and yes, my argument is that this is largely the case).

[The Kernel]

Neither is a legally legitimate reason for war. They might be morally justiable, but if you base a general principle on that you run into a huge problem - you can now suddenly declare war on almost anyone, the definition of "crime against peace" would be almost meaningless.
Again, you can't just declare war on another country just because you don't like what they do - and much less due to what they did in the past! If Iraq had actually attacked the USA or one of it's allies in 2003, then you would have had a legitimate reason to go to war. Your reasons are NOT legitimate legal reasons.

Funny how I'm not arguing about whether it was legal or even a good idea is it? Take your strawmen elsewhere.

For all your bluster I haven't yet heard a single good solution about how to deal with the Iraq problem. Personally I would have argued for continuing sanctions until a diplomatic solution could be reached, but the fact that it had been dragging on for over a decade was not encouraging.

Just so I understand your position, what exactly are you arguing should have been done? Continue sanctions and let people continue to starve? Remove sanctions and risk Iraq continuing to rearm?

All of your reasons could be used to justify both Germanies and Japans acts during WW II:
- "We were at war with the allies in the past, they are clearly potential threats".
- "Germans are being supressed in Poland"
- "The USA is threatening japanese interests"
- "The USA has the means to attack us, we must strike first".
and so on. None of those were legitimate reasons back then, why should that be otherwise now?

Funny, I don't remember the US waging totally unprovoked wars of territorial aggression against our neighbors.

Furthermore, this wasn't just about history, this was the same fucking leader who had made those previous decisions to invade his neighbors.

You are also a blatant hypocrite. Neither "he went to war in the past" nor "he is a dictator" was named as a reason for the war back then - it was all about "OMG he is going to use WMDs every second!!". Now granted, the first point is somewhat related to this, but it shows that the Bush-administration actually KNEW that the reasons you are naming would not be legitimate reasons for war. The only legitimate reason to go to war is being attacked. An actual, impeding attack (as in "they are amassing troops at our border") is a bit of a grey zone, but this wasn't even the case here - but the Bush-administration knew that this would be the only way to make the war appear legitimate, which is why they spread all that propaganda about Iraqi WMDs.

Take your strawman elsewhere, I'm not arguing for the Bush-led invasion of Iraq.

[The Kernel]

Now, no one went to war with Nazi Germany aggressively. The rest of the world went to war with them because they attacked first. Defending yourself or your allies is a completely legitimate reason to go to war. And once you are in such a war it is also completely legitimate to conquer and occuply the enemies territory.

I fail to see the difference between France and Britain declaring war because Germany invaded Poland and the US stepping in because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I honestly don't know what your point was here. No one went to war with Nazi Germany because they were evil, or because they were a potential threat.

Bullshit, that's EXACTLY why Britain and France declared war on Germany. They saw Germany's territorial advances as a threat and they responded.

Did Germany attack France or Britain directly before they declared war? No.

That situation is in no way comparable to the Iraq war - unless you put the USA in the place of Nazi Germany and the Iraq in the place of Poland (and yes, my argument is that this is largely the case).

[mr friendly guy]

Now, no one went to war with Nazi Germany aggressively. The rest of the world went to war with them because they attacked first. Defending yourself or your allies is a completely legitimate reason to go to war. And once you are in such a war it is also completely legitimate to conquer and occuply the enemies territory.

I fail to see the difference between France and Britain declaring war because Germany invaded Poland and the US stepping in because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Ah dude, she is talking about the second Gulf war, not the first one.

[Serafina]

Just so I understand your position, what exactly are you arguing should have been done? Continue sanctions and let people continue to starve? Remove sanctions and risk Iraq continuing to rearm?

Preferrably change the sanctions (why should it be such a black&white solution?), otherwise the latter.
However, none of this changes the fact that the Iraq war was illegeal and that the Bush administration is guilty of crimes against peace.

And again, we can apply your reasoning to Nazi Germany: They, too, were faced with a dillema with three solutions:
-Continue the status quo, even if we don't like it.
-Try to change it without agression, which has so far been futile.
-Go to war over it.
This was pretty much Germanies position regarding Poland and Danzig. Now, i admit that they did not have legitimate humanitarian concerns there - but humanitarian reasons are also just one part of the problem you presented. The basic reasoning is the same "we can not solve this peacefully, therefore we go to war". This can NOT be a legitimate reason to go to war - sometimes you have to acccept that you can't solve a problem.

[The Kernel]

Ah dude, she is talking about the second Gulf war, not the first one.

I know but Sea Skimmer is correct, the Second Gulf War was largely a conclusion of the first one. The hostilities never ended, they just took on a low intensity form.

[Serafina]

I fail to see the difference between France and Britain declaring war because Germany invaded Poland and the US stepping in because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Sorry, but you are evidently incapable of reading, as well as understanding the subject at hand.
First of all, i am talking about the second Gulf War (also known as the Iraq War), which started 2003.
Second, i explicitly stated that it is a legitimate legal reason to go to war in order to defend your allies.

Bullshit, that's EXACTLY why Britain and France declared war on Germany. They saw Germany's territorial advances as a threat and they responded.

Did Germany attack France or Britain directly before they declared war? No.

Go read a history book. Both France and Britain declared war on Germany due to the anglo-polish alliance, which was essentially a one-sided defense treaty between the UK and Poland (if someone attacked Poland, the UK would come to their aid, but not the other way round or if Poland attacked someone), while France was in turn allied with the UK.
The declaration of war from the UK and France upon Germany was therefore a legitimate, non-aggressive act of war.

That situation is in no way comparable to the Iraq war - unless you put the USA in the place of Nazi Germany and the Iraq in the place of Poland (and yes, my argument is that this is largely the case).

Roll your eyes all you want. Legally, the USA commited an act of aggressive war upon the Iraq - an act which has been illegeal ever since 1934. In that respect, there is no difference between Germanies attack on Poland and the US attack on the Iraq.
So far, you have been utterly incapable of showing otherwise (and you claim that you don't contest it) - all you are doing is saying "but it was morally justified and we had no other option" (and yes, you ARE saying that, even if you claim otherwise).

[The Kernel]

Preferrably change the sanctions (why should it be such a black&white solution?), otherwise the latter.

So you would prefer the isolationist approach and allow Saddam to rearm himself? Are you willing to accept the consequences of that? He had the resources at his disposal to completely rebuild his military and would pose a continuing threat to the region.

It was pretty clear to anyone that was paying attention in the 80's and early 90's that this was a regime that was bent on regional conquest. Allowing them to rearm was a quick way towards seeing them invade Kuwait again or worse still starting another massive war with Iran.

However, none of this changes the fact that the Iraq war was illegeal and that the Bush administration is guilty of crimes against peace.

I don't care to argue the legal aspects of your strawman. Take this bone you wish to pick elsewhere.

And again, we can apply your reasoning to Nazi Germany: They, too, were faced with a dillema with three solutions:
-Continue the status quo, even if we don't like it.
-Try to change it without agression, which has so far been futile.
-Go to war over it.

Oh for fuck's sake, Germany was hell bent on eastern conquest from the moment the Nazis took power. You know it and I know it. Hell Hitler made that abundantly clear in his writings.

This was pretty much Germanies position regarding Poland and Danzig.

Don't be absurd, Danzig wasn't the only issue on the table. Germany had already rearmed the Rhine and moved into Austria and Sudetenland at this point. They were clearly looking to take as much as they could get and were hell bent on conquest in the east.

You honestly think if the allies had let them have Danzig that they would have stopped there? Hitler was preparing for a war in the east from the very start.

Now, i admit that they did not have legitimate humanitarian concerns there - but humanitarian reasons are also just one part of the problem you presented. The basic reasoning is the same "we can not solve this peacefully, therefore we go to war". This can NOT be a legitimate reason to go to war - sometimes you have to acccept that you can't solve a problem.

Sorry but unprovoked aggression against national interests is absolutely a good reason to go to war.

[The Kernel]

Sorry, but you are evidently incapable of reading, as well as understanding the subject at hand.
First of all, i am talking about the second Gulf War (also known as the Iraq War), which started 2003.

Which Sea Skimmer already explained to you was merely the conclusion of the First Gulf War. The hostilities never ended--we hoped that the situation would resolve itself via uprising against Saddam by the native Iraqi population. That didn't materialize so a low intensity war was fought over the next decade.

Did you miss the fact that we had been bombing Iraq damn near consistently since Desert Storm?

Second, i explicitly stated that it is a legitimate legal reason to go to war in order to defend your allies.

Yep and the conflict never ended.

Go read a history book. Both France and Britain declared war on Germany due to the anglo-polish alliance, which was essentially a one-sided defense treaty between the UK and Poland (if someone attacked Poland, the UK would come to their aid, but not the other way round or if Poland attacked someone), while France was in turn allied with the UK.
The declaration of war from the UK and France upon Germany was therefore a legitimate, non-aggressive act of war.

Britain and France didn't give two shits about Poland, they did nothing to help them defend themselves against Germany. They had a defense treaty in place merely to try and contain Hitler from any further armed aggression.

[Serafina]

Ah dude, she is talking about the second Gulf war, not the first one.

I know but Sea Skimmer is correct, the Second Gulf War was largely a conclusion of the first one. The hostilities never ended, they just took on a low intensity form.

The USA signed a cease fire. At the very least they broke that one unilaterally.
Furthermore, it is highly questionable whether you can just stay in a perpetual state of war if you just don't sign a peace treaty.

[The Kernel]

The USA signed a cease fire. At the very least they broke that one unilaterally.

No Iraq had consistently broken the terms of the ceasefire for years (and gotten the shit bombed out of it for doing so in a number of actions, the largest of which being "Desert Fox").

Furthermore, it is highly questionable whether you can just stay in a perpetual state of war if you just don't sign a peace treaty.

Says who? You? Korea has been in the same constant state of war for decades, are you saying it isn't real?

[Serafina]

I don't care to argue the legal aspects of your strawman. Take this bone you wish to pick elsewhere.

How is that a strawman?
You can't just dismiss an entire argument as a "strawman". The legal issue is arguably somewhat seperate from the moral issue, but that doesn't make the legal issue moot.