Nice of you to take pity on the poor Iraqi's who have now idea what's best for them even though they have lived there for thousands of years.
So like the imperialistic British, we need to go to other countries, invade them, subdue them, and teach them our ways which are vastly superior.
Heck, the American Indians didn't know what was good for them until we showed them the white man's way.
HUGE non sequitur my friend. Back up and try again.
We didn't threaten or invade Germany to start a war. But once they started a war, we finished it.
We didn't threaten or invade Japan to start a war. But once they started a war, we finished it.
We didn't threaten or invade Iraq to start a war. The difference there is that once they started a war, we just stopped it. We didn't finish it on the spot. If we had we might have avoided all the grief and tragedy of the twelve long years of sanctions followed by endless war.
What would have happened if had just stopped Germany and Japan and then went away allowing the same people to hold the power and allowing them to rebuild on their terms? Would the outcome have been as satisfactory even as both retain the best of their previous cultures? I can almost guarantee you that it would not. Nor do I think the outcome in Iraq will be as satisfactory as it would had we determined to demand unconditional surrender and then helped them rebuild into a peaceful prosperous nation.
The situation with the American Indians is a completely different circumstance as is the circumstance of all peoples who give over land and power to others who come in. That had little in common with winners and losers in war.
Iraq never started a war with us.
Neither did Germany.