7 ms·

You don't need to ask us, you can just read about it. I should say upfront that while everyone today considers the US-led intervention a huge blunder for many

You don't need to ask us, you can just read about it. I should say upfront that while everyone today considers the US-led intervention a huge blunder for many reasons including humanitarian, Iraq gov at the time was not at all something people sympathized with, and was widely considered to be corrupt, bullying, aggressive to neighbors, etc. Iraq invading Kuwait in the 90s is a closer parallel to Russia invading Ukraine than anything involving the US. (Iraq literally claimed that Kuwait had always been an integral part of Iraq and only became an independent nation due to the interference of the British gov) At the time there were sanctions on Iraq, that had been there since the 1990s because of that invasion, and for perceived human rights violations. The US at the time considered these sanctions no longer particularly effective. The US (well, coalition led by the US) invasion was based on faulty/fraudulent premises, but the goals were still ostensibly humanitarian, and the nature of the WMD talk was not proved to be faulty until years later. At the time by failing to disarm and submit to weapons inspections, Iraq was in violation of U.N. Resolutions 660 and 678, and the U.S. could legally (whatever that means) compel Iraq's compliance through military means. If you are actually interested, you should probably read at least: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing

superkuh 5y ago
Yep, also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait >The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was an operation conducted by Iraq on 2 August 1990, whereby it invaded the neighboring State of Kuwait, consequently resulting in a seven-month-long Iraqi military occupation of the country.[17] The invasion and Iraq's subsequent refusal to withdraw from Kuwait by a deadline mandated by the United Nations[18] led to a direct military intervention by a United Nations-authorized coalition of forces led by the United States. These events came to be known as the first Gulf War, Iraq started the cascade by invading it's neighbor and trying to occupy it and take it over.
rbanffy 5y ago
> and the nature of the WMD talk was not proved to be faulty until years later. The international experts on the ground would probably not agree with that, as they were clearly stating there were no WMDs from the very beginning.
- tedivm 5y ago
  Do you have a source on that? Not that I don't believe you, but when the war started I was fairly young so I didn't realize experts were disagreeing at the time and would like to learn more.
  - meigwilym 5y ago
    There were huge disagreements at the time. Many people weren't happy with the invasion of Afghanistan, but realised it might have been necessary after 9/11. But the rationale for the invasion of Iraq was flimsy at the time, with papers literally copied off the internet being used as evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier This is just one example.
  - dfxm12 5y ago
    I like searching Google limiting the timeframe to see contemporary news stories. Everything was online at the time, so it's especially useful in this case. Look up weapons inspector Hans Blix's famous line "no smoking gun": https://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/ https://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/. This story is from Jan 2003. The invasion started in March. Keep in mind, it's hard to prove a negative. As you see, the Bush administration made their assertions with evidence that amounted to "Trust me, bro." How do you completely disprove that, you know? Time bound google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=blix+no+smoking+gun&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS953US955&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2002%2Ccd_max%3A3%2F31%2F2003&sxsrf=APq-WBtVEd_hhT7N63wXtEiwgL2lzuyGOw%3A1646232173247&ei=bYIfYtLGDqSp_Qb39bLgCA&ved=0ahUKEwiSsZ3f1Kf2AhWkVN8KHfe6DIwQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=blix+no+smoking+gun&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIFCCEQqwIyBQghEKsCOgQIIxAnOgUIABCRAjoOCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQowI6BQgAEIAEOggIABCxAxCDAToFCC4QgAQ6CwguEIAEEMcBEKMCOgsILhCABBDHARCvAToOCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQ0QM6BAgAEEM6CAguENQCEJECOggILhCxAxCRAjoECC4QQzoLCC4QgAQQsQMQ1AI6EAguELEDEMcBENEDENQCEEM6BwguELEDEEM6BwguENQCEEM6CAgAEIAEELEDOgoIABCxAxDJAxAKOgUIABCSAzoHCAAQsQMQCjoECAAQCjoKCAAQsQMQgwEQCjoGCAAQFhAeOgUIIRCgAUoECEEYAUoECEYYAFCHCFieG2CvHGgDcAB4AIABqgGIAdgNkgEEMTQuNZgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp https://www.google.com/search?q=blix+no+smoking+gun&rlz=1C1G...
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
Good summary. Thanks.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tablespoon 5y ago
> Iraq gov at the time was not at all something people sympathized with, and was widely considered to be corrupt, bullying, aggressive to neighbors, etc. Also it routinely violated the human rights of the Iraqi people. Also, if the Iraq war was a humanitarian disaster, the alternative was not too great either (i.e. akin to choosing to leave a child in the custody of an abusive parent because they're still being provided the bare necessities).
- yucky 5y ago
  >Also it routinely violated the human rights of the Iraqi people. So did we though.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> Also it routinely violated the human rights of the Iraqi people. > So did we though. Perhaps, but it's not a binary question, but one of kind and degree. People get their human rights violated in the US itself, too, but I don't think anyone could reasonable draw an equivalency to Saddam Hussein's Iraq because of that.
zozbot234 5y ago
> The US (well, coalition led by the US) invasion was based on faulty/fraudulent premises, but the goals were still ostensibly humanitarian This. Back in the day, people thought that the whole "exporting democracy" deal might actually work, to the benefit of the average Iraqi. Of course we know better nowadays, but the amount that the U.S. spent on this whole foolish campaign was arguably punishment enough.

superkuh 5y ago

Yep, also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait >The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was an operation conducted by Iraq on 2 August 1990, whereby it invaded the neighboring State of Kuwait, consequently resulting in a seven-month-long Iraqi military occupation of the country.[17] The invasion and Iraq's subsequent refusal to withdraw from Kuwait by a deadline mandated by the United Nations[18] led to a direct military intervention by a United Nations-authorized coalition of forces led by the United States. These events came to be known as the first Gulf War, Iraq started the cascade by invading it's neighbor and trying to occupy it and take it over.

rbanffy 5y ago

> and the nature of the WMD talk was not proved to be faulty until years later. The international experts on the ground would probably not agree with that, as they were clearly stating there were no WMDs from the very beginning.

tedivm 5y ago
Do you have a source on that? Not that I don't believe you, but when the war started I was fairly young so I didn't realize experts were disagreeing at the time and would like to learn more.
- meigwilym 5y ago
  There were huge disagreements at the time. Many people weren't happy with the invasion of Afghanistan, but realised it might have been necessary after 9/11. But the rationale for the invasion of Iraq was flimsy at the time, with papers literally copied off the internet being used as evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier This is just one example.
- dfxm12 5y ago
  I like searching Google limiting the timeframe to see contemporary news stories. Everything was online at the time, so it's especially useful in this case. Look up weapons inspector Hans Blix's famous line "no smoking gun": https://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/ https://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/. This story is from Jan 2003. The invasion started in March. Keep in mind, it's hard to prove a negative. As you see, the Bush administration made their assertions with evidence that amounted to "Trust me, bro." How do you completely disprove that, you know? Time bound google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=blix+no+smoking+gun&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS953US955&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2002%2Ccd_max%3A3%2F31%2F2003&sxsrf=APq-WBtVEd_hhT7N63wXtEiwgL2lzuyGOw%3A1646232173247&ei=bYIfYtLGDqSp_Qb39bLgCA&ved=0ahUKEwiSsZ3f1Kf2AhWkVN8KHfe6DIwQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=blix+no+smoking+gun&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIFCCEQqwIyBQghEKsCOgQIIxAnOgUIABCRAjoOCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQowI6BQgAEIAEOggIABCxAxCDAToFCC4QgAQ6CwguEIAEEMcBEKMCOgsILhCABBDHARCvAToOCC4QgAQQsQMQxwEQ0QM6BAgAEEM6CAguENQCEJECOggILhCxAxCRAjoECC4QQzoLCC4QgAQQsQMQ1AI6EAguELEDEMcBENEDENQCEEM6BwguELEDEEM6BwguENQCEEM6CAgAEIAEELEDOgoIABCxAxDJAxAKOgUIABCSAzoHCAAQsQMQCjoECAAQCjoKCAAQsQMQgwEQCjoGCAAQFhAeOgUIIRCgAUoECEEYAUoECEYYAFCHCFieG2CvHGgDcAB4AIABqgGIAdgNkgEEMTQuNZgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp https://www.google.com/search?q=blix+no+smoking+gun&rlz=1C1G...

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

Good summary. Thanks.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tablespoon 5y ago

> Iraq gov at the time was not at all something people sympathized with, and was widely considered to be corrupt, bullying, aggressive to neighbors, etc. Also it routinely violated the human rights of the Iraqi people. Also, if the Iraq war was a humanitarian disaster, the alternative was not too great either (i.e. akin to choosing to leave a child in the custody of an abusive parent because they're still being provided the bare necessities).

yucky 5y ago
>Also it routinely violated the human rights of the Iraqi people. So did we though.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> Also it routinely violated the human rights of the Iraqi people. > So did we though. Perhaps, but it's not a binary question, but one of kind and degree. People get their human rights violated in the US itself, too, but I don't think anyone could reasonable draw an equivalency to Saddam Hussein's Iraq because of that.

zozbot234 5y ago

> The US (well, coalition led by the US) invasion was based on faulty/fraudulent premises, but the goals were still ostensibly humanitarian This. Back in the day, people thought that the whole "exporting democracy" deal might actually work, to the benefit of the average Iraqi. Of course we know better nowadays, but the amount that the U.S. spent on this whole foolish campaign was arguably punishment enough.