6 ms·

The Iraq war was a terrible error but it still can't be compared to Ukraine. America had no plans to colonise Iraq or absorb it into its empire. Despite the eno

The Iraq war was a terrible error but it still can't be compared to Ukraine. America had no plans to colonise Iraq or absorb it into its empire. Despite the enormous death and suffering the war caused, America's aim was naive altruism: getting rid of an unquestionably evil dictator who used WMDs on his own people. There are conspiracy theories that America invaded to steal Iraq's oil but they are not plausible.

youarethebest 5y ago
WMDs? That was a lie. They invaded to preserve the dollar regime/oil. Not plausible? I think you've been watching too many Marvel movies where good vs evil is "obvious"
- jsmith99 5y ago
  How would the invasion preserve the dollar regime? As for the WMDs, I referred to Saddam's history, not to America's discredited invasion pretext.
  - Ambolia 5y ago
    https://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000911 https://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000911
yongjik 5y ago
> America had no plans to colonise Iraq or absorb it into its empire. Well, of course, because then America would have had to give Iraqis the same rights as other Americans, or build a discriminatory system where "real" Americans enjoy more rights than them. Not that colonizing Iraq would have been justified, but since the war wasn't justifiable anyway - the decision to not colonize Iraq was not out of goodwill, but because it was cheaper that way.
hnhg 5y ago
It should be assessed on its own merits, including the aftermath, in all its glory, such as: https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/09/21/new-study-documents-depleted-uranium-impacts-on-children-in-iraq/ https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/09/21/new-study-do... I'd also remind you that we have insufficient evidence to suggest that the aim was naive altruism. It could have been naively ideological: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...
spacechild1 5y ago
> There are conspiracy theories that America invaded to steal Iraq's oil but they are not plausible. Did you forget the /s? Honestly can't tell if this is satire or not...
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
> There are conspiracy theories that America invaded to steal Iraq's oil but they are not plausible. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...
randomsearch 5y ago
Much as I’ve defended the US in some other cases, I think that view on Iraq is somewhat naive. Yes, some wanted to get rid of an evil dictator, but it was motivated more by geopolitics than any sense of altruism.
- jopsen 5y ago
  Probably true, hehe... But there was a coalition of naive countries going along with the US. And it wasn't a surprise attack without serious diplomatic attempts. And even then, the US did actually worry about the legality of the invasion. It was a mistake, but it's not the same.
modo_mario 5y ago
Greenspan who was US chair of the fed at the time is a bit less naive about the matter. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimel...
cracrecry 5y ago
>Despite the enormous death and suffering the war caused, America's aim was naive altruism. Invading Iraq was on the agenda way before 9/11. The people that decided it are anything but naive. >There are conspiracy theories that America invaded to steal Iraq's oil but they are not plausible. Why not? The second largest oil producer in the world is invaded because of altruism out of their great heart. Geopolitics have nothing to do with that. I believe is someone is naive here is you. At least you should respect as a valid and plausible theory(not calling it conspiracy in order to denigrate it) that the biggest army in the world are interested in controlling the energy producing countries just like any other empires before. And remember that was USA the ones that ousted the British Empire from Persia and the ones that toppled the democracy there.
- jsmith99 5y ago
  Perhaps I am naive about it, and I certainly agree that Iraq's oil is relevant, although more in the sense of ensuring availability than stealing it. But my point was that America's seemingly uncontrollable urge to export democracy is not always based on $$$, rather Bush and Blair had a messianic ideal that was often well intentioned.
- roca 5y ago
  > Why not? If America's plan was to take Iraq's oil, what went wrong with the plan, given Iraqis still control their oil?

youarethebest 5y ago

WMDs? That was a lie. They invaded to preserve the dollar regime/oil. Not plausible? I think you've been watching too many Marvel movies where good vs evil is "obvious"

jsmith99 5y ago
How would the invasion preserve the dollar regime? As for the WMDs, I referred to Saddam's history, not to America's discredited invasion pretext.
- Ambolia 5y ago
  https://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000911 https://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000911

yongjik 5y ago

> America had no plans to colonise Iraq or absorb it into its empire. Well, of course, because then America would have had to give Iraqis the same rights as other Americans, or build a discriminatory system where "real" Americans enjoy more rights than them. Not that colonizing Iraq would have been justified, but since the war wasn't justifiable anyway - the decision to not colonize Iraq was not out of goodwill, but because it was cheaper that way.

hnhg 5y ago

It should be assessed on its own merits, including the aftermath, in all its glory, such as: https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/09/21/new-study-documents-depleted-uranium-impacts-on-children-in-iraq/ https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2019/09/21/new-study-do... I'd also remind you that we have insufficient evidence to suggest that the aim was naive altruism. It could have been naively ideological: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_C...

spacechild1 5y ago

> There are conspiracy theories that America invaded to steal Iraq's oil but they are not plausible. Did you forget the /s? Honestly can't tell if this is satire or not...

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

> There are conspiracy theories that America invaded to steal Iraq's oil but they are not plausible. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...

randomsearch 5y ago

Much as I’ve defended the US in some other cases, I think that view on Iraq is somewhat naive. Yes, some wanted to get rid of an evil dictator, but it was motivated more by geopolitics than any sense of altruism.

jopsen 5y ago
Probably true, hehe... But there was a coalition of naive countries going along with the US. And it wasn't a surprise attack without serious diplomatic attempts. And even then, the US did actually worry about the legality of the invasion. It was a mistake, but it's not the same.

modo_mario 5y ago

Greenspan who was US chair of the fed at the time is a bit less naive about the matter. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimel...

cracrecry 5y ago

>Despite the enormous death and suffering the war caused, America's aim was naive altruism. Invading Iraq was on the agenda way before 9/11. The people that decided it are anything but naive. >There are conspiracy theories that America invaded to steal Iraq's oil but they are not plausible. Why not? The second largest oil producer in the world is invaded because of altruism out of their great heart. Geopolitics have nothing to do with that. I believe is someone is naive here is you. At least you should respect as a valid and plausible theory(not calling it conspiracy in order to denigrate it) that the biggest army in the world are interested in controlling the energy producing countries just like any other empires before. And remember that was USA the ones that ousted the British Empire from Persia and the ones that toppled the democracy there.

jsmith99 5y ago
Perhaps I am naive about it, and I certainly agree that Iraq's oil is relevant, although more in the sense of ensuring availability than stealing it. But my point was that America's seemingly uncontrollable urge to export democracy is not always based on $$$, rather Bush and Blair had a messianic ideal that was often well intentioned.
roca 5y ago
> Why not? If America's plan was to take Iraq's oil, what went wrong with the plan, given Iraqis still control their oil?