4 ms·

> Show up with tanks, rig an election in favor of your candidate, and disenfranchise an entire segment of the population... I protested the Iraq invasion in 20

> Show up with tanks, rig an election in favor of your candidate, and disenfranchise an entire segment of the population... I protested the Iraq invasion in 2003 but this is a revisionist and historically inaccurate version of why it failed so spectacularly. The U.S. didn't occupy a functional country and then destroy it. The outbreak of mass murder and tit-for-tat violence wasn't motivated by political grievances against U.S. policy. The U.S. removed a dictator that was keeping the lid on religious sectarian infighting. It erupted immediately into a civil war and that was further inflamed by third parties. "The fall of Baghdad saw the outbreak of regional, sectarian violence throughout the country, as Iraqi tribes and cities began to fight each other over old grudges. The Iraqi cities of Al-Kut and Nasiriyah launched attacks on each other immediately following the fall of Baghdad to establish dominance in the new country, and the U.S.-led Coalition quickly found themselves embroiled in a potential civil war. U.S.-led Coalition forces ordered the cities to cease hostilities immediately, explaining that Baghdad would remain the capital of the new Iraqi government. Nasiriyah responded favorably and quickly backed down; however, Al-Kut placed snipers on the main roadways into town, with orders that invading forces were not to enter the city. After several minor skirmishes, the snipers were removed, but tensions and violence between regional, city, tribal, and familial groups continued." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

joe_the_user 8y ago
The U.S. didn't occupy a functional country and then destroy it. The outbreak of mass murder and tit-for-tat violence wasn't motivated by political grievances against U.S. policy. The U.S. removed a dictator that was keeping the lid on religious sectarian infighting. The US got a lot of good will right after the invasion. It destroyed that by disbanding the Iraqi army, by failing achieve basic safety for the country and by managing the country in an incompetent fashion. Moreover, the country was in horrific shape due to ten years of draconian sanctions. They were theoretically against Saddam but the average Iraqi suffered horribly - the looting of priceless Iraqi artifacts by destitute mob was an expression of what US sanctions had reduced the country to (along with Saddam himself, of course).
BurningFrog 8y ago
> The U.S. didn't occupy a functional country and then destroy it. But they did disband the Iraqi army and the whole Iraqi state! >"The fall of Baghdad saw the outbreak of regional, sectarian violence throughout the country, as Iraqi tribes and cities began to fight each other over old grudges." These are things the Iraqi Army and Police could have kept under control, had they existed. Instead, unemployed soldiers made up much of the sectarian fighting forces. A country without a state devolving into anarchy shouldn't be that surprising. But to the US, it apparently was!
- mirimir 8y ago
  It wasn't surprising to the US. That was the whole point. To destroy the Iraqi oil industry.
  - h4b4n3r0 8y ago
    Why would the US, the country dependent on oil prices being low, would want to destroy the oil industry of a major producer?
    - freeflight 8y ago
      Depends on who you ask. There is a somewhat popular conspiracy theory out there [0] that claims Saddam (just like Gaddafi) got "removed" for selling oil in Euros instead of Dollars [1], which would have hurt the petrodollar in the long term. [0] https://www.quora.com/If-Saddam-Hussein-and-Gaddafi-were-ousted-from-power-for-attempting-to-sell-oil-in-euros-gold-instead-of-US-dollars-why-is-Maduro-still-in-power-if-he-recently-announced-that-Venezuela-will-sell-its-oil-in-Yuan https://www.quora.com/If-Saddam-Hussein-and-Gaddafi-were-ous... [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/ http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.r...
      - mirimir 8y ago
        Yes, that and what I said in another subthread. Also, Sadam had outlived his utility.
mirimir 8y ago
A dictator that the US had supported, initially because he killed lots of communists, and then fought a proxy war against Iran.
- freeflight 8y ago
  It's quite similar to what happened in Syria. When the Syrian government was torturing "terrorist suspects", for the CIA nonetheless [0], it was also considered a US ally. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/syria-us-ally-human-rights https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/syria-...
acct1771 8y ago
Revisionist if you don't have a clue what Special Forces/CIA et al do....
burntrelish1273 8y ago
Donahue, Peter Arnett, Chris Hedges and more sacrificed their careers and lost corporate-sponsored, mainstream audiences for doing the Right Thing(tm). Layer waves of journalists and talk show anchors like Cenk Uygur and Jesse Ventura (post conspiracy theories) were out at places like MSNBC because they offended powerful people in Washington. It's a shame when the mainstream media loses all integrity and sides with corporations regardless, and do like Rachel Maddow: kowtow and just barely scratch the surface with limited, incrementalist imagination that would be okay for upper-case corporate Democrats. It's very difficult, nigh impossible, for any cable TV anchor, reporter or talk show host to speak their mind freely without going to RT or similar organization not beholden to DC politics.

joe_the_user 8y ago

The U.S. didn't occupy a functional country and then destroy it. The outbreak of mass murder and tit-for-tat violence wasn't motivated by political grievances against U.S. policy. The U.S. removed a dictator that was keeping the lid on religious sectarian infighting. The US got a lot of good will right after the invasion. It destroyed that by disbanding the Iraqi army, by failing achieve basic safety for the country and by managing the country in an incompetent fashion. Moreover, the country was in horrific shape due to ten years of draconian sanctions. They were theoretically against Saddam but the average Iraqi suffered horribly - the looting of priceless Iraqi artifacts by destitute mob was an expression of what US sanctions had reduced the country to (along with Saddam himself, of course).

BurningFrog 8y ago

> The U.S. didn't occupy a functional country and then destroy it. But they did disband the Iraqi army and the whole Iraqi state! >"The fall of Baghdad saw the outbreak of regional, sectarian violence throughout the country, as Iraqi tribes and cities began to fight each other over old grudges." These are things the Iraqi Army and Police could have kept under control, had they existed. Instead, unemployed soldiers made up much of the sectarian fighting forces. A country without a state devolving into anarchy shouldn't be that surprising. But to the US, it apparently was!

mirimir 8y ago
It wasn't surprising to the US. That was the whole point. To destroy the Iraqi oil industry.
- h4b4n3r0 8y ago
  Why would the US, the country dependent on oil prices being low, would want to destroy the oil industry of a major producer?
  - freeflight 8y ago
    Depends on who you ask. There is a somewhat popular conspiracy theory out there [0] that claims Saddam (just like Gaddafi) got "removed" for selling oil in Euros instead of Dollars [1], which would have hurt the petrodollar in the long term. [0] https://www.quora.com/If-Saddam-Hussein-and-Gaddafi-were-ousted-from-power-for-attempting-to-sell-oil-in-euros-gold-instead-of-US-dollars-why-is-Maduro-still-in-power-if-he-recently-announced-that-Venezuela-will-sell-its-oil-in-Yuan https://www.quora.com/If-Saddam-Hussein-and-Gaddafi-were-ous... [1] http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/ http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.r...
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Yes, that and what I said in another subthread. Also, Sadam had outlived his utility.

mirimir 8y ago

A dictator that the US had supported, initially because he killed lots of communists, and then fought a proxy war against Iran.

freeflight 8y ago
It's quite similar to what happened in Syria. When the Syrian government was torturing "terrorist suspects", for the CIA nonetheless [0], it was also considered a US ally. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/syria-us-ally-human-rights https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/19/syria-...

acct1771 8y ago

Revisionist if you don't have a clue what Special Forces/CIA et al do....

burntrelish1273 8y ago

Donahue, Peter Arnett, Chris Hedges and more sacrificed their careers and lost corporate-sponsored, mainstream audiences for doing the Right Thing(tm). Layer waves of journalists and talk show anchors like Cenk Uygur and Jesse Ventura (post conspiracy theories) were out at places like MSNBC because they offended powerful people in Washington. It's a shame when the mainstream media loses all integrity and sides with corporations regardless, and do like Rachel Maddow: kowtow and just barely scratch the surface with limited, incrementalist imagination that would be okay for upper-case corporate Democrats. It's very difficult, nigh impossible, for any cable TV anchor, reporter or talk show host to speak their mind freely without going to RT or similar organization not beholden to DC politics.