If they were popular, they wouldn't have needed China to invade. China was supporting them just like the US supported revolutionaries that overthrew their governments.

There were no popular pro-US movements fighting Saddam’s rule

The Kurds.

This was purely a strategic invasion to set up military bases and secure oil and resources by making up false claims of WMDs.

Their are no us military bases in Iraq and all the oil money goes to Iraq.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If they were popular, they wouldn’t have needed China

Why wouldn't commoners in a feudal slave state not want help from a nearby government whose views match their own?

just like the US supported revolutionaries that overthrew their governments

The US overthrew democratically elected popular governments, like Mosaddegh's in Iran, or Salvador Allende's in Iraq, replacing the latter with a military dictatorship, because their policies benefitted their own countries instead of the US.

Their are no us military bases in Iraq and all the oil money goes to Iraq.

...What? There are still military bases in Iraq even now, and the economic dependence on the US that Iraq is now in is exactly what the US wanted/wants. ExxonMobil, Chevron etc. extracting oil for cheap from a war-torn country that doesn't have a choice; even CNN admits it.

[–] Blue_Morpho 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Why wouldn’t commoners in a feudal slave state not want help

Yes many wanted it. But if it was popular, Chinese invasion would not have been necessary. Nor would 1.2 million Tibetans need to have been killed.

There are 2500 US troops in Iraq today compared to 300,000 Chinese troops in Tibet today. The US did not annex Iraq or the other countries you mentioned.

Iraq Balks at Chinese control of their oil:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/iraq-balks-greater-chinese-control-its-oilfields-2022-05-17/