47 ms·
How many politicians built their careers on the blood spilt in this pointless and expensive exercise? Overthrowing governments is awful foreign policy. This wa
by cletus 5y ago
How many politicians built their careers on the blood spilt in this pointless and expensive exercise?
Overthrowing governments is awful foreign policy. This was never going to work, just like it didn't in Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, the Congo, Guatemala, Syria and elsewhere.
Here's the kicker: the invasion of Iraq was based on a convenient lie by hawks who had been keen to overthrow Saddam Hussein ever since the First Gulf War. This convenient lie was easily debunked to. It's really simple.
If Saddam Hussein had WMD, why wouldn't he give them up to save himself and his regime? Invasion clearly wasn't an empty threat and that would not end well for him. Hussein was never a religious ideologue. He didn't dream of martyrdom or jihad. He was a self-serving dictator (creates by the US I might add as a tool against Iran in the 1980s in a war that resulted from a revolution against the Shah, a government created by the US; are you beginning to see the pattern?). The only explanation was that Iraq did not in fact have WMDs.
People pointed out in the early days after 9/11 so this isn't some kind of historical revisionism. None of this ever made sense.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> creates by the US I might add as a tool against Iran in the 1980s No, earlier than that as a tool against Communism in Iraq. Later, the US rushed to support him (including in his use of chemical weapons) when he got bogged down in war with Iran that he launched expecting a quick territorial gain, but that's not where US involvement with him started.
- AndrewBissell 5y ago> Overthrowing governments is awful foreign policy. This was never going to work, just like it didn't in Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, the Congo, Guatemala, Syria and elsewhere. It worked perfectly for the people who implemented the policies and their patrons. The point was never to make average Westerners more secure. It was to hand billions to contractors and oil companies, practice new forms of counterinsurgency and drone warfare, and make token moves against the latest bogeyman used to distract from the empire's exploitation and subjugation of its own people. All the examples you cite similarly benefitted the elites calling the shots in one way or another.
- tablespoon 5y ago> Overthrowing governments is awful foreign policy. This was never going to work, just like it didn't in Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, the Congo, Guatemala, Syria and elsewhere. IIRC, the US didn't overthrow any government Vietnam: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam#Founding_of_South_Vietnam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Vietnam#Founding_of_Sout.... There's probably some parallels that can be drawn between US support of South Vietnam and US support of South Korea.
- Spooky23 5y agoThat’s pretty naive. It seems incredulous that the US didn’t muck around with the ARVN military junta or various coups. It was a CIA puppet state.
- eaglelamp 5y agoThe US didn't directly overthrow the government of South Vietnam, but the US did tell the South Vietnamese army that they would lose funding and support if they didn't overthrow Diem in 1963. Given that the army of South Vietnam was basically an appendage of the American military at that point it was a threat the South Vietnamese generals couldn't afford to ignore.
- refurb 5y agoNo, the US basically said “we won’t try and stop you” when a coup against Diem was proposed by the Generals.
- namelessoracle 5y agoThe lesson of Gaddafi is that if you ever have even just chemical WMDs, never ever EVER give them up. The United States will not attack a country that can actually deploy a WMD on it's forces and especially not on its homeland. Even back in the day it was obvious Saddam didnt have WMDs because he didnt use them when America invaded.