4 ms·

Not commenting on OP, but you are talking about a single US regime. And Many countries did independently investigate, and refuse help.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
From late 2002 to 2003, it was very much the international consensus that Iraq might have active WMD programs. The Security Council never authorized a war, but they did issue a unanimous resolution declaring that Iraq was in violation of its disarmament obligations and offering "a final opportunity to comply".
GordonS 5y ago
Actually, the US worked to fabricate evidence in collaboration with the UK too. The UK had an expert produce the so called "dodgy dossier", that was used as Blair's justification to follow the US into their illegal war. The media called it out as obvious bullshit, then the guy that produced the report allegedly committed a timely suicide.
- wyuenho 5y ago
  But the EU didn't join the war.
  - baby 5y ago
    Thanks to France.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
    The EU doesn't ever go to war. Individual EU countries do. The UK, Spain, Italy and a few other EU countries took part in the illegal invasion of Iraq.
    - cbnotfromthere 5y ago
      Why would you call it "illegal"? I'm not trolling, I'm curious.
    - Goety 5y ago
      Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (chemical) and they didnt find evidence of nuclear weapons outside the email trail inside their military. It was not illegal
      - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        An invasion of another country that is neither carried out in self-defense against an imminent attack nor authorized by the UN Security Council is illegal under the UN Charter. This is one of the central principles of the modern international system. > Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (chemical) Even the US government admitted after the war that it could find no evidence of an Iraqi WMD program. All the US found were a few misplaced ancient, rusting artillery shells from the 1980s. These things were unusable, and were more of a danger to the people handling them than anything else. This is not the WMD stockpile the US claimed Saddam had. Nobody would ever have accepted to go to war on the basis of, "We think there are still a few misplaced, unusable artillery shells with degraded chemical agents in Iraq."
        Goety 5y ago
        HN frowns on political commentary so I'll attempt to be brief The vast majority of the most recent wars have not been UNSC authorized. UN involvement is not necessary for a war to occur nor do they prevent wars or proxy wars between countries on the UNSC. The "modern international system" is an ideal. The US was attacked. >ancient, rusting artillery shells (from the 1980s) 20-30 years old isnt ancient, they were serviceable, and they had chemical weapons in the quantity for the potential of wmds. That is only what they found, and I imagine there were more not found. >Nobody would ever have accepted to go to war There was reasonable evidence they had more that the allied force didn't find. The international community is more to blame for the conditions after involvement than the instigators 10+ years on. A neighbor is beating up another neighbor and both are blaming it on someone else.
        DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        > The vast majority of the most recent wars have not been UNSC authorized. Unless those wars are fought in imminent self-defense, then they're illegal. The invasion of Iraq was an especially egregious violation of international law for two reasons: 1. The US knew that the UN Security Council would reject a resolution authorizing war, so it decided in the end not to ask. 2. The war had catastrophic consequences for Iraq. It's not every day a country of 20+ million people is invaded and its government overthrown. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result. A third factor making this war particularly egregious is the deliberate campaign of disinformation that was carried out in order to justify it. > The US was attacked. Not by Iraq. > 20-30 years old isnt ancient, they were serviceable, and they had chemical weapons in the quantity for the potential of wmds. This is how the NY Times described the small number of chemical artillery shells found scattered across Iraq: > Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them. These were the misplaced remnants of the chemical weapons program that Iraq dismantled in the 1990s. > There was reasonable evidence they had more that the allied force didn't find. The US occupied Iraq for nearly a decade. It's simply not credible to claim that there was any sort of sizeable stockpile that the US did not find.
  - Goety 5y ago
    The EU does not have a foreign policy thus will never go to war. France has tried to boost their MIC as an alternative to the US and in doing so actively sought to damage US goals.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Source please.
  - GordonS 5y ago
    I doubt you'll find a credible source - the security services are afterall very good at what they do. It's all circumstantial, but at the time you'd have been hard-pressed to find a single citizen who believed Kelly very conveniently killed himself at just the right time to prevent further damage to the government and their web of lies with the US.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      That's shit though. That can be said of anything. Moon landings were faked but the CIA is very good at what they do.
      - GordonS 5y ago
        There is a bit of a difference - we have an abundance of evidence disproving the fake moon landing stories. OTOH, there were no witnesses of Kelly's death, and the timing was so very convenient - frankly, it's naive to think our security services wouldn't do this, especially with what was at stake. Keep in mind the the US and UK were fabricating evidence as justification for an illegal war. One that they knew would claim many, many casualties, and for which they must have known would end up destabilising the whole region and growing fundamentalists and terrorists (this was certainly obvious to many at the time). I do see your point, mind, but I don't think such damning circumstantial evidence is "shit"; by that logic, MI6 could never be responsible for anything, unless of course they signed a confession.
    - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
      I'm not sure I see what the theory is here. I could understand an argument that Kelly was killed to send a message, but it's hard to see what damage it could have prevented. If anything, his death confirmed the web of lies; the whole thing wouldn't have been a big deal if it were just a question of minor messaging details as the government was claiming.
AndrewUnmuted 5y ago
Many countries did also provide help, even though they knew the "single US regime" was likely to be lying & fabricating. This regime has remained in power ever since Bush's 8 year reign of terror. In fact, they were in power even before George W. Bush's administration. The name of the president may change, but the people running the US war machine remain the same.

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

From late 2002 to 2003, it was very much the international consensus that Iraq might have active WMD programs. The Security Council never authorized a war, but they did issue a unanimous resolution declaring that Iraq was in violation of its disarmament obligations and offering "a final opportunity to comply".

GordonS 5y ago

Actually, the US worked to fabricate evidence in collaboration with the UK too. The UK had an expert produce the so called "dodgy dossier", that was used as Blair's justification to follow the US into their illegal war. The media called it out as obvious bullshit, then the guy that produced the report allegedly committed a timely suicide.

wyuenho 5y ago
But the EU didn't join the war.
- baby 5y ago
  Thanks to France.
- DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
  The EU doesn't ever go to war. Individual EU countries do. The UK, Spain, Italy and a few other EU countries took part in the illegal invasion of Iraq.
  - cbnotfromthere 5y ago
    Why would you call it "illegal"? I'm not trolling, I'm curious.
  - Goety 5y ago
    Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (chemical) and they didnt find evidence of nuclear weapons outside the email trail inside their military. It was not illegal
    - DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
      An invasion of another country that is neither carried out in self-defense against an imminent attack nor authorized by the UN Security Council is illegal under the UN Charter. This is one of the central principles of the modern international system. > Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (chemical) Even the US government admitted after the war that it could find no evidence of an Iraqi WMD program. All the US found were a few misplaced ancient, rusting artillery shells from the 1980s. These things were unusable, and were more of a danger to the people handling them than anything else. This is not the WMD stockpile the US claimed Saddam had. Nobody would ever have accepted to go to war on the basis of, "We think there are still a few misplaced, unusable artillery shells with degraded chemical agents in Iraq."
      - Goety 5y ago
        HN frowns on political commentary so I'll attempt to be brief The vast majority of the most recent wars have not been UNSC authorized. UN involvement is not necessary for a war to occur nor do they prevent wars or proxy wars between countries on the UNSC. The "modern international system" is an ideal. The US was attacked. >ancient, rusting artillery shells (from the 1980s) 20-30 years old isnt ancient, they were serviceable, and they had chemical weapons in the quantity for the potential of wmds. That is only what they found, and I imagine there were more not found. >Nobody would ever have accepted to go to war There was reasonable evidence they had more that the allied force didn't find. The international community is more to blame for the conditions after involvement than the instigators 10+ years on. A neighbor is beating up another neighbor and both are blaming it on someone else.
        DiogenesKynikos 5y ago
        > The vast majority of the most recent wars have not been UNSC authorized. Unless those wars are fought in imminent self-defense, then they're illegal. The invasion of Iraq was an especially egregious violation of international law for two reasons: 1. The US knew that the UN Security Council would reject a resolution authorizing war, so it decided in the end not to ask. 2. The war had catastrophic consequences for Iraq. It's not every day a country of 20+ million people is invaded and its government overthrown. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a result. A third factor making this war particularly egregious is the deliberate campaign of disinformation that was carried out in order to justify it. > The US was attacked. Not by Iraq. > 20-30 years old isnt ancient, they were serviceable, and they had chemical weapons in the quantity for the potential of wmds. This is how the NY Times described the small number of chemical artillery shells found scattered across Iraq: > Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them. These were the misplaced remnants of the chemical weapons program that Iraq dismantled in the 1990s. > There was reasonable evidence they had more that the allied force didn't find. The US occupied Iraq for nearly a decade. It's simply not credible to claim that there was any sort of sizeable stockpile that the US did not find.
- Goety 5y ago
  The EU does not have a foreign policy thus will never go to war. France has tried to boost their MIC as an alternative to the US and in doing so actively sought to damage US goals.
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Source please.
- GordonS 5y ago
  I doubt you'll find a credible source - the security services are afterall very good at what they do. It's all circumstantial, but at the time you'd have been hard-pressed to find a single citizen who believed Kelly very conveniently killed himself at just the right time to prevent further damage to the government and their web of lies with the US.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    That's shit though. That can be said of anything. Moon landings were faked but the CIA is very good at what they do.
    - GordonS 5y ago
      There is a bit of a difference - we have an abundance of evidence disproving the fake moon landing stories. OTOH, there were no witnesses of Kelly's death, and the timing was so very convenient - frankly, it's naive to think our security services wouldn't do this, especially with what was at stake. Keep in mind the the US and UK were fabricating evidence as justification for an illegal war. One that they knew would claim many, many casualties, and for which they must have known would end up destabilising the whole region and growing fundamentalists and terrorists (this was certainly obvious to many at the time). I do see your point, mind, but I don't think such damning circumstantial evidence is "shit"; by that logic, MI6 could never be responsible for anything, unless of course they signed a confession.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    I'm not sure I see what the theory is here. I could understand an argument that Kelly was killed to send a message, but it's hard to see what damage it could have prevented. If anything, his death confirmed the web of lies; the whole thing wouldn't have been a big deal if it were just a question of minor messaging details as the government was claiming.

AndrewUnmuted 5y ago

Many countries did also provide help, even though they knew the "single US regime" was likely to be lying & fabricating. This regime has remained in power ever since Bush's 8 year reign of terror. In fact, they were in power even before George W. Bush's administration. The name of the president may change, but the people running the US war machine remain the same.