If the Iraq War was wrong, why didn't the world stop America?

[Cordelier]

Some Jews thought the Nazis weren’t so bad either, but that doesn’t change the nature of the German regime.

Either way, Saddam was cagey enough to play all of the ethnic groups in Iraq off against one another... he wasn't going to be deposed from within.

 

[Tigerace117]

Either way, Saddam was cagey enough to play all of the ethnic groups in Iraq off against one another... he wasn't going to be deposed from within.

The Iranian military was kicking Iraq’s ass at that point in the war. Without all that aid pouring in, the odds of an outright Iraqi collapse were not slim.

 

[Cordelier]

The Iranian military was kicking Iraq’s ass at that point in the war. Without all that aid pouring in, the odds of an outright Iraqi collapse were not slim.

Well, that's debatable. isn't it?

What isn't debatable is that we devastated his military in a matter of weeks, and he still found a way to survive it. Even if his military did "collapse" in 1988, he still would have been in better shape then he found himself in 1991.

 

[Tigerace117]

Well, that's debatable. isn't it?

What isn't debatable is that we devastated his military in a matter of weeks, and he still found a way to survive it. Even if his military did "collapse" in 1988, he still would have been in better shape then he found himself in 1991.

Uh....no, not really. The Iraqis had burned through much of their prewar stockpile by November 1980. It’s true that Iran’s western tanks were shredded by Iraq’s Soviet ones at Dezful, but by November of 1981 Iraqi morale was starting to collapse, as shown by Operations Tariq-ul- Quds, Fath ol-Mobin, and especially Beit- ol- Moqaddas in the spring of 1982.

“The fighting had battered the Iraqi military: its strength fell from 210,000 to 150,000 troops; over 20,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed and over 30,000 captured; two out of four active armoured divisions and at least three mechanised divisions fell to less than a brigade's strength; and the Iranians had captured over 450 tanks and armoured personnel carriers.

The Iraqi Air Force was also left in poor shape: after losing up to 55 aircraft since early December 1981, they had only 100 intact fighter-bombers and interceptors. A defector who flew his MiG-21 to Syria in June 1982 revealed that the Iraqi Air Force had only three squadrons of fighter-bombers capable of mounting operations into Iran. The Iraqi Army Air Corps was in slightly better shape, and could still operate more than 70 helicopters., Despite this, the Iraqis still held 3,000 tanks, while Iran held 1,000.

At this point, Saddam believed that his army was too demoralised and damaged to hold onto Khuzestan and major swathes of Iranian territory, and withdrew his remaining forces, redeploying them in defence along the border. However, his troops continued to occupy some key Iranian border areas of Iran, including the disputed territories that prompted his invasion, notably the Shatt al-Arab waterway. In response to their failures against the Iranians in Khorramshahr, Saddam ordered the executions of Generals Juwad Shitnahand Salah al-Qadhi and Colonels Masa and al-Jalil.”

Iran–Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That’s because Bush I wasn’t dumb enough to try an occupation of Iraq....unlike his son.

 

[Cordelier]

Uh....no, not really. The Iraqis had burned through much of their prewar stockpile by November 1980. It’s true that Iran’s western tanks were shredded by Iraq’s Soviet ones at Dezful, but by November of 1981 Iraqi morale was starting to collapse, as shown by Operations Tariq-ul- Quds, Fath ol-Mobin, and especially Beit- ol- Moqaddas in the spring of 1982.

“The fighting had battered the Iraqi military: its strength fell from 210,000 to 150,000 troops; over 20,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed and over 30,000 captured; two out of four active armoured divisions and at least three mechanised divisions fell to less than a brigade's strength; and the Iranians had captured over 450 tanks and armoured personnel carriers.

The Iraqi Air Force was also left in poor shape: after losing up to 55 aircraft since early December 1981, they had only 100 intact fighter-bombers and interceptors. A defector who flew his MiG-21 to Syria in June 1982 revealed that the Iraqi Air Force had only three squadrons of fighter-bombers capable of mounting operations into Iran. The Iraqi Army Air Corps was in slightly better shape, and could still operate more than 70 helicopters., Despite this, the Iraqis still held 3,000 tanks, while Iran held 1,000.

At this point, Saddam believed that his army was too demoralised and damaged to hold onto Khuzestan and major swathes of Iranian territory, and withdrew his remaining forces, redeploying them in defence along the border. However, his troops continued to occupy some key Iranian border areas of Iran, including the disputed territories that prompted his invasion, notably the Shatt al-Arab waterway. In response to their failures against the Iranians in Khorramshahr, Saddam ordered the executions of Generals Juwad Shitnahand Salah al-Qadhi and Colonels Masa and al-Jalil.”

Iran–Iraq War - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

That’s because Bush I wasn’t dumb enough to try an occupation of Iraq....unlike his son.

By the time Bush, Jr. came into office, I don't see that we had any other alternatives. It was go in there and occupy Iraq or let him off the hook. We had tried every other option,

 

[Tigerace117]

By the time Bush, Jr. came into office, I don't see that we had any other alternatives. It was go in there and occupy Iraq or let him off the hook. We had tried every other option,

America proudly helped him wage war against Iran and carry out genocide for years. The Reagan administration explicitly declared Iraq “could not be allowed to lose”. Pretending the US cared about “letting Saddam off the hook” when he would have been toppled decades earlier without the US jumping in to help him is hilarious.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Full transparency, but I am questioning your intentions with the 2 threads I've seen you create so far. This thread comes off as revisionist.

Especially as so many people choose to purposefully ignore that there were chemical weapons in Iraq. Wikileaks proves it. Iraq itself proved it when they turned over to the UN multiple bunkers and weapon facilities when they signed the Chemical Weapon Treaty in 2009.

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — 13 March 2018 — The Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Ambassador Ahmet Üzümcü, congratulated the Government of Iraq on the completion of the destruction of the country’s chemical weapons remnants, during today’s visit of the Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research of Iraq, H.E. Dr Abdulrazzaq Al Jaleel Essa.

Iraq’s initial declaration, submitted in March 2009, referred to remnants of chemical weapons stored in two storage bunkers at the Al Muthana site. Owing to the hazardous conditions within the bunkers, Iraq was not able to conduct a detailed on-site inventory immediately after the initial declaration. Destruction activities started in 2017, once the on-going security situation had been addressed.

In November 2017 and February 2018, OPCW’s Technical Secretariat confirmed that the four former chemical weapons production facilities in Iraq were completely destroyed.

One former chemical weapons production facility in Iraq remains subject to inspection until 2028. In 2012, OPCW approved a detailed plan, submitted by Iraq, for this facility’s conversion for purposes not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

OPCW Director-General Congratulates Iraq on Complete Destruction of Chemical Weapons Remnants

www.opcw.org

It is incredibly revisionist to try and deny what even Iraq admitted did exist, and turned over so they could be destroyed.

Oh, and WMDs are not just chemical weapons. The UN also sanctioned them for their long range missiles, which were also classified as WMDs. And Iraq claimed they had destroyed them all multiple times. Which is rather funny, considering in 2003 they launched a lot of the missiles they claimed they no longer had.

 

[rhinefire]

We here nothing about Iraq now so does anyone know how it is operating and what type of government is in power?

 

[Fledermaus]

We here nothing about Iraq now so does anyone know how it is operating and what type of government is in power?

Federal parliamentary republic

 

[bomberfox]

I don't agree with what happened to Arbenz in Guatemala. He always struck me as someone who was trying to walk down the yellow line in the middle of the road. No matter what happened, he was destined to be hit by the oncoming traffic from one direction or the other.

Look at it the other way - we didn't try to intervene to try and keep Batista in power in Cuba... do you think that turned out any better?

Batista made Castro look like a saint which is why there was a revolution in the first place. I would have tried to address the causes of the revolution. It wasnt simply “oh yeah these commies were simply brainwashed”. I think our biggest long lasting problem has always been we throw armaments at every problem and never seek to understand the causes of violence.

 

[bythoughts]

The basic reason -- money talks in many different languages. The U.S. didn't invade Iraq out of some misguided politics, but in service of private interests which, for the most part, we still don't even understand. Those private interests have sway in many other countries that potentially could have moved to interfere. Even though they may not have, individually, the power for "world domination", they have interlocking interests with other private interests in the same fossil-fuel boat that have regional ties elsewhere.

I mean, the U.S. still has troops in Syria right now! They have been drawing them down, transitioning over to groups like SFA that are nominally part of the new Syrian government, but I imagine the oil is still sold under all the right accounts.

 

[Cordelier]

Batista made Castro look like a saint which is why there was a revolution in the first place. I would have tried to address the causes of the revolution. It wasnt simply “oh yeah these commies were simply brainwashed”. I think our biggest long lasting problem has always been we throw armaments at every problem and never seek to understand the causes of violence.

I can't argue with that, but like I was saying to @Nickyjo, history isn't usually made by making "big picture" decisions - all too often it's made by making a lot of convenient short-term decisions. In the heat of the moment it's just hard to make a concrete tactical decision that goes against your interests in favor of some abstract strategic goal. Like John Maynard Keyes once said, "The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead."

 

[bomberfox]

I can't argue with that, but like I was saying to @Nickyjo, history isn't usually made by making "big picture" decisions - all too often it's made by making a lot of convenient short-term decisions. In the heat of the moment it's just hard to make a concrete tactical decision that goes against your interests in favor of some abstract strategic goal. Like John Maynard Keyes once said, "The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead."

Economics is the study of the long run. I dont believe that is meant as a general statement that applies to all situations. That we dont even try to plan for the long run is why we make things worse and worse.

That quote is a warning about sacrificing the short term needs for some unsightly long run which i agree with. A more poignant example is waiting for the market to correct itself during the depression. Indeed we would have all been dead.

We keep supporting greater evils in the national interest.

 

[Cordelier]

Economics is the study of the long run. I dont believe that is meant as a general statement that applies to all situations. That we dont even try to plan for the long run is why we make things worse and worse.

That quote is a warning about sacrificing the short term needs for some unsightly long run which i agree with. A more poignant example is waiting for the market to correct itself during the depression. Indeed we would have all been dead.

We keep supporting greater evils in the national interest.

I don't think it's simple as that, though... there are other players in the game. If you keep making short-term sacrifices in pursuit of a long-term strategy, and your opponent capitalizes on those moves, you're liable to find that the long-term goal you're hoping to achieve is out of reach before too long.