Why didn't the world save Iraq and stopped America from invading it?

[Prodromos]

There's arguments for and against bombing Iran as a solution to the problem, but by now it's clear that this discussion is likely a bridge to nowhere, since you don't believe there is a problem that needs solving at all, hence, in your view, any and all solutions to the problem are inherently the wrong course of action. There is no common ground for a productive discussion here.

[95thrifleman]

There's arguments for and against bombing Iran as a solution to the problem, but by now it's clear that this discussion is likely a bridge to nowhere, since you don't believe there is a problem that needs solving at all, hence, in your view, any and all solutions to the problem are inherently the wrong course of action. There is no common ground for a productive discussion here.

Actualy that is not the case.

You are creating, in your mind, these binary positions to protect your American-centric worldview. I have never defended Iran, I have pointed out the failures in the concept of regime change and America's historical failures in this regard.

[anant]

Stop them how? Bomb the US? Go to war with the US...over Iraq?!?!?! Think about the absurdity of your question...

[Papay]

Political competition? Isn't that a cold war? Okay, so you're saying Iran isn't in violent conflict with America at all? There's been no attacks on Americans by Iran?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

How about this atrocity committed by Americans against Iran?

[Prodromos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

How about this atrocity committed by Americans against Iran?

What about it?

[conon394]

There's arguments for and against bombing Iran as a solution to the problem, but by now it's clear that this discussion is likely a bridge to nowhere, since you don't believe there is a problem that needs solving at all, hence, in your view, any and all solutions to the problem are inherently the wrong course of action. There is no common ground for a productive discussion here.

So far you asserted Iran is at war with America and Bombing it will solve that. You have provided no detailed discussion of that. In I can be wrong but you seem to be supporting bombing as a means of regime change which I simply stated was questionable given US post war history. I looking for evidence of this war. I will not except actions in either Iraq or A-stan since our friend Pakistan is clearly more of enemy than Iran there.

[Basil II the B.S]

Because the Neocon-liberal alliance controlled the US and the Western media. Indeed no problem can be addressed until we get rid of them.

[Prodromos]

So far you asserted Iran is at war with America and Bombing it will solve that. You have provided no detailed discussion of that. In I can be wrong but you seem to be supporting bombing as a means of regime change which I simply stated was questionable given US post war history. I looking for evidence of this war. I will not except actions in either Iraq or A-stan since our friend Pakistan is clearly more of enemy than Iran there.

I can only repeat myself: if you deny the existence of a conflict between Iran and America, either you're lying to further your political ideology, or you've been living under a rock for the past 30 years. Regardless of our views, what do you hope to achieve in this discussion when we disagree on the basic facts?

[95thrifleman]

I can only repeat myself: if you deny the existence of a conflict between Iran and America, either you're lying to further your political ideology, or you've been living under a rock for the past 30 years. Regardless of our views, what do you hope to achieve in this discussion when we disagree on the basic facts?

It's a bit of an anti-climax really. The day you finaly get called out on your mad ramblings and are too scared to put forward your asinine "team america" geopolitical theory and hide behind "you disagree with me so i won't play anymore."

[NosPortatArma]

probably because no one really cares about iraq, it then being a dirt poor dictatorship, and because people caring about the USA, being the worlds largest economy and mightiest country and all. I mean, if you'd side with iraq against teh USA.. what are you going to do anyways? attack USA?.. lol

[95thrifleman]

probably because no one really cares about iraq, it then being a dirt poor dictatorship, and because people caring about the USA, being the worlds largest economy and mightiest country and all. I mean, if you'd side with iraq against teh USA.. what are you going to do anyways? attack USA?.. lol

There have been several successful attacks on the USA over the years, from terror to cyber. The "world's largest economy and mightiest country" hasn't been able to stop them now has it?

9-11 was a good example. After the twin towers went down the Americans launched two pointless and expensive wars only to find out that the Saudi (America's ally) responsible was hiding in Pakistan (also America's ally).

It can be argued that America's enemies had no reason or intention of stopping America going into Iraq because they could see what a disaster it'd be and where busy grabbing the popcorn to watch the farce unfold.

[Prodromos]

There have been several successful attacks on the USA over the years, from terror to cyber. The "world's largest economy and mightiest country" hasn't been able to stop them now has it?

9-11 was a good example. After the twin towers went down the Americans launched two pointless and expensive wars only to find out that the Saudi (America's ally) responsible was hiding in Pakistan (also America's ally).

The US reaction to 9/11 wasn't limited to the wars in the Middle East. This interview with FBI Director Wray is interesting. The threat of terrorism is still ubiquitous, but treating it as an actual war instead of a minor nuisance has saved countless lives. There's a lot of work being done behind the scenes that people don't quite appreciate.

NORAH O’DONNELL: Do you think another 9/11-style attack could happen today?

CHRISTOPHER WRAY: Well, I would say this, we are dramatically better positioned, the FBI is a totally different kind of organization in a lot of ways. …

O’DONNELL: Can you say how many terrorist attacks you’ve thwarted in the past year?

WRAY: In the last year, or so, we’ve thwarted attacks in San Francisco on the pier. … We’ve prevented an attack in a shopping mall in Miami… We prevented an attack in Cleveland, on the July Fourth holidays, where… there would have been thousands of people to celebrate our freedom. … We had about 1,000 investigations into just these homegrown violent extremists. That’s out of about 5,000 terrorism investigations.

O’DONNELL: Right, that doesn’t even include the ISIS or al Qaeda-related.

WRAY: Doesn’t include ISIS, doesn’t include al Qaeda, it doesn’t include domestic terrorism even. … This is a significant issue. We had about 120 arrests, terrorism-related arrests, last year alone. That’s just in the arrest context. So there’s a lot happening every day, 365 days a year right now in the terrorism front.

It can be argued that America's allies had no reason or intention of stopping America going into Iraq because they could see what a disaster it'd be and where busy grabbing the popcorn to watch the farce unfold.

Sure, let's see the argument then.

[95thrifleman]

The US reaction to 9/11 wasn't limited to the wars in the Middle East. This interview with FBI Director Wray is interesting. The threat of terrorism is still ubiquitous, but treating it as an actual war instead of a minor nuisance has saved countless lives. There's a lot of work being done behind the scenes that people don't quite appreciate.





Sure, let's see the argument then.

Prior to the Iraq invasion the nation was a toothless, paper tiger but it was internaly stable and in a position to be a foil against Iran. The government was anti-Iran but was also not subject to the religous extremism prevalent in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. We'd effectively destroyed the Iraqi military in the first gulf war and the no fly zone maintained that status quo by ensuring the iraqis could never develop or sustain an air defence network.

Eventualy Saddam or his successor would be forced to come back to the table and Iraq could again be developed as a fol against Iran and even, perhaps, a third party/proxy to instigate the war against Iran that you seem to so desperately want.

The botched invason and complete dismantling of Iraq removed a substantial threat to Iran's border, blew the lid on the complex mix of ethnic tensions that Saddam had kept under control which broke Iraq into a fragmented collection of hostile sectarian factions and gave birth to isis. Iran has now been able to effectively take over large areas of Northern Iraq and spread it's influence into Syria.

As a bonus prize, America's enemies got to watch 4,424 American service personel die for Iran's extension of geo-political control of the region.

The only winner of the Iraq invasion was Iran.

[Prodromos]

Prior to the Iraq invasion the nation was a toothless, paper tiger but it was internaly stable and in a position to be a foil against Iran. The government was anti-Iran but was also not subject to the religous extremism prevalent in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. We'd effectively destroyed the Iraqi military in the first gulf war and the no fly zone maintained that status quo by ensuring the iraqis could never develop or sustain an air defence network.

Eventualy Saddam or his successor would be forced to come back to the table and Iraq could again be developed as a fol against Iran and even, perhaps, a third party/proxy to instigate the war against Iran that you seem to so desperately want.

The botched invason and complete dismantling of Iraq removed a substantial threat to Iran's border, blew the lid on the complex mix of ethnic tensions that Saddam had kept under control which broke Iraq into a fragmented collection of hostile sectarian factions and gave birth to isis. Iran has now been able to effectively take over large areas of Northern Iraq and spread it's influence into Syria.

As a bonus prize, America's enemies got to watch 4,424 American service personel die for Iran's extension of geo-political control of the region.

The only winner of the Iraq invasion was Iran.

Can't say I completely agree, but I'm not sure how that supports your argument, unless you believe Iran is America's ally.

[95thrifleman]

Can't say I completely agree, but I'm not sure how that supports your argument, unless you believe Iran is America's ally.

Actualy that was due to a typo in my post. By America's allies I meant to type America's enemies. This is what happens when you type after being up all night with a poorly child.

I'll edit that original.

That being said, a dismantled Iraq was very positive for Saudi Arabia and it's attempts to export their own brand of wahabist theology in the region.

[Prodromos]

Actualy that was due to a typo in my post. By America's allies I meant to type America's enemies. This is what happens when you type after being up all night with a poorly child.

I'll edit that original.

That being said, a dismantled Iraq was very positive for Saudi Arabia and it's attempts to export their own brand of wahabist theology in the region.

Oh, okay. Well, a lot of people benefited from the Iraq war, to include the Iraqis themselves. The occupation was handled pretty poorly, but this War on Terror thing isn't finished yet. Iraq's neighbors are heavily invested in ensuring its failure. There's really nothing to gain from withdrawing and throwing Iraq to the wolves.

[95thrifleman]

Oh, okay. Well, a lot of people benefited from the Iraq war, to include the Iraqis themselves. The occupation was handled pretty poorly, but this War on Terror thing isn't finished yet. Iraq's neighbors are heavily invested in ensuring its failure. There's really nothing to gain from withdrawing and throwing Iraq to the wolves.

Yet you are advocating doing the exact same thing in Iran.

Regime change is always a failure without something along the lines of the Marshall Plan to rebild and America is just not in a position to do that. Afghanistan is a similar failure with warlords and the Taliban back to owning half the damn country.

Have the Iraqis really benefitted? This obsession with democracy has led to Muqtada Al-Sadr gaining 54 seats and the majority in the Iraqi parliment combined with a past willingness to form an alliance with the Iraqi communists.

What happens when Iraq becomes dominated by an anti-American, pro-Iran Shia faction? This is the reality of Al-sadr's growing popularity. Will America indulge in regime change again?

America has, in effect, replaced an anti-Iran foil with a pro-Iran, anti-American faction which will become a thorn in America in the years to come.

[Prodromos]

Yet you are advocating doing the exact same thing in Iran.

Regime change is always a failure without something along the lines of the Marshall Plan to rebild and America is just not in a position to do that. Afghanistan is a similar failure with warlords and the Taliban back to owning half the damn country.

Have the Iraqis really benefitted? This obsession with democracy has led to Muqtada Al-Sadr gaining 54 seats and the majority in the Iraqi parliment combined with a past willingness to form an alliance with the Iraqi communists.

What happens when Iraq becomes dominated by an anti-American, pro-Iran Shia faction? This is the reality of Al-sadr's growing popularity. Will America indulge in regime change again?

America has, in effect, replaced an anti-Iran foil with a pro-Iran, anti-American faction which will become a thorn in America in the years to come.

I thought Sadr was against Iran and took a more nationalist line. Anyway, do you think Iran would lose influence if Iraq was left to fend for itself? One benefit of regime change is it would end Iranian interference in neighboring countries' affairs, which is a key step toward achieving regional peace, not only in Iraq but also the Gulf countries, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Israel. There's always unknown unknowns, but as far as I can see, long-term, Iranian regime change would solve more problems than it would create.

As for whether Iraqis are better off with Saddam gone, I think the Iraqi population's opinion carries more weight here. One thing you'll notice, people who believe Iraq was better under Saddam usually aren't Iraqi (no skin in the game). It's easy to defend a brutal tyrant when you don't have to live under him. Surveys show that only a small minority of Iraqis prefer life under Saddam. The most satisfied are the Kurds, who almost universally prefer life without Saddam, followed by the Shiites. Sunnis seem to be less pleased, but around half believe life hasn't changed much either way.

2004 survey:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A large majority of Iraqis believe life is better now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to an opinion poll released today.

A total of 2,500 Iraqis were questioned for a group of international broadcasting organisations, including the BBC, in a poll to mark the first anniversary of the outbreak of war.

Some 57 per cent said that life was better now than under Saddam, against 19 per cent who said it was worse and 23 per cent who said it was about the same.

Overall, 70 per cent said that life was good now, compared with 29 per cent who said it was bad.

2007 surveys:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Asked to compare their lives today with conditions before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, the proportion of Iraqis who say things are better now has slipped below half for the first time. Forty-two percent say their lives have improved, down from 51 percent in 2005 and 56 percent in 2004. Thirty-six percent now say things in their lives are worse today, up from 29 percent in the 2005 poll, which was taken during a period of relative optimism ahead of parliamentary elections. Twenty-two percent say their lives are about the same.

The survey elicited sharply different responses along sectarian and ethnic lines. For example, most Shiites and Kurds said things have improved in their lives and for the country overall; less than 10 percent of Sunnis agreed. When he was president, Saddam Hussein repressed the country's Shiite majority and its Kurdish minority while granting favored status to members of his own Sunni sect.

Another poll of Iraqis released this past weekend by the British research firm Opinion Research Business found that 49 percent of more than 5,000 Iraqis interviewed said "things are better for us under the current system," compared with 26 percent who favored life "under the previous regime of Saddam Hussein." Sixteen percent favored neither.

Judging by this report, it seems the doom and gloom isn't warranted just yet. Remember Europe was a craphole for hundreds of years before adopting democracy, I highly doubt a decade of conflict justifies calling Iraq a failure.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Remarkably, given its belligerent past and the region’s many conflicts, Iraq enjoys cordial relations with all its neighbours. America and Iran may be bitter rivals, but both give Iraq military and political backing. Gulf states, overcoming decades-long sectarian and security fears, have restored diplomatic relations and want to invest. To cap it all, Iraq remains a rarity—the only Arab state, other than Tunisia, to get rid of its dictator and remain a democracy. Its fourth multiparty election since 2003 will take place on May 12th. In a region of despots, Iraqis talk freely. Media and civic groups are vibrant.

Some think the war was needed to bring Iraqis to their senses. If so, it was a terrible form of therapy. In the 15 years since America’s invasion of Iraq, some 300,000 Iraqis and 4,400 American soldiers have been killed (see chart). Of the many rounds of strife, none matched the viciousness of the fight against IS. At least 7,000 civilians, 20,000 security personnel and over 23,000 IS fighters were killed, according to a think-tank in Baghdad. Priceless heritage, like Mosul’s old city, was reduced to rubble. About 6m people, most of them Sunnis, lost their homes.

In quick succession, three ideologies tearing the country apart have been tamed. Revanchism by the Sunni Arab minority, who are about 15-20% of the population but have dominated Iraq since Ottoman times, was a cocktail of Saddam Hussein’s brutal Baathist nationalism and even more brutal jihadism. It spawned al-Qaeda in Iraq and IS. But today it seems weaker than ever. “Sunnis finally felt what it meant to be Kurdish or Shia,” says an influential government adviser. “They know they are no longer top dogs.”

Triumphalism by the long-repressed Shia Arab majority, making up about 60% of the population, also turned violently sectarian. But this seems to have lost much of its appeal after 14 years of misrule by Shia religious parties. The Shia south may have most of Iraq’s oil, but it looks as wrecked and neglected as the Sunni north.

And Kurdish nationalism lies in tatters, too. Denied independence in the 1920s, the Kurds are scattered across four countries. In Iraq they have long enjoyed quasi-independence in an enclave in the north-east. But last September Masoud Barzani, the Kurdish president, overreached by calling a referendum for a fully fledged state, defying Baghdad as well as protests from America and Iran. When he refused to back down, Iraqi forces snatched back the disputed territories that Kurds held beyond their official autonomous region (about 40% of their realm); the Iraqi government also imposed an embargo on foreign flights (now lifted). Kurdish leaders are negotiating a way out of their isolation. But many Kurds seem none too upset, given how autocratic and dirty Mr Barzani’s regime is. “It would have been a Barzanistan, not a Kurdistan,” says a teacher.

Iraq has not looked so united since 1991, when Kurds and Shias rose up against Saddam after his occupying forces were pushed out of Kuwait by an American-led coalition. Many Shia volunteers died delivering Sunnis from the barbarous rule of IS. About 45,000 Sunnis mustered alongside the Shia-led Hashd al-Shaabi, or “popular mobilisation units”. And millions of Sunnis fled the would-be caliphate to seek refuge in Kurdish and Shia cities.

Revenge killings by Shia militias have been rarer than many had feared. “We expected much worse,” says a local councillor in Falluja, a Sunni city recaptured in 2016. The Hashd still display their religious insignia at checkpoints on the highways (softened with plastic flowers), but in Sunni cities the policing is largely local. Hashd barracks are low-key and often mixed. “Half of them are Sunni,” says a Hashd commander in Tikrit, Saddam’s home town, pointing at the dozen men in his mess. A Kurdish politician who supported the referendum expresses relief. “No one threatened me or my job,” says Dara Rashid, a deputy housing minister.

As security improves, barriers within the country are coming down. Many of the checkpoints snarling traffic in central Baghdad have gone. The curfew was lifted in 2015. The Suqur checkpoint separating Baghdad from Anbar province, notorious for delays and maltreatment, still shuts at sundown. But Anbar’s Sunnis no longer need a sponsor to enter Baghdad. For the first time since 2003, your correspondent drove the length of Iraq, from the border with Kuwait to the one with Turkey, without a security escort or special permits.

The calm is drawing Iraqis home. Worldwide it takes five years on average for half of those displaced by conflict to return home after a war, says the UN. In Iraq it has taken three months. “We’ve seen nothing like it in the history of modern warfare,” says Lise Grande, who headed UN operations during the war on IS. Millions returned without compensation, electricity or water. Rather than wait for the government to provide homes, they are repairing the wreckage themselves.

Lecturers at Tikrit University have raised funds from private evening classes, rebuilt their war-battered campus and redesigned the curriculum “to promote peaceful coexistence”, says the dean of Sharia Studies, Anwar Faris Abd. In this staunchly Sunni city, trainee clerics now study Shia as well as Sunni schools of law. In the spirit of reconciliation, half of the university’s 30,000 students are Shia.

There has been a striking backlash against organised Islam. Mosque attendance is down. Although Sunnis are rebuilding their homes in Falluja, the minarets and domes in the city once known as “the mother of mosques” lie abandoned and ruined. “Only old men go to pray,” explains a 22-year-old worker mixing cement. Designer haircuts and tracksuit tops are the latest male fashion, because IS banned them. “Our imams radicalised us with IS and terror but refuse to admit it,” says a Sunni final-year student at Tikrit University with a bouffant hairdo.

Mistrust of clerics is as keenly felt in the Shia south. The turbaned Iranians gracing Basra’s billboards invite scorn. Cinemas banned since 1991 are reopening. Iraq’s first commercial film in a generation went on release this month. “The Journey” tells of a female suicide-bomber who, just as she is about to blow herself up, questions how she will rip apart the lives of people around her. It pours compassion on perpetrator and victim alike.

Secularism is making inroads even in the holy city of Najaf, the seat of Iraq’s ayatollahs, which has thrived on Shia pilgrimage since the American invasion. The new public library at the golden-domed shrine of Imam Ali includes sizeable collections of Marx’s tracts and non-Muslim scriptures. Shia clerics who until recently banned Christmas trees and smashed shop windows displaying love-hearts on Valentine’s Day now let them pass.

Iraq’s dominant religious parties used to flaunt their sectarian loyalties to get out the vote at elections. Now many hide them. An opinion poll last August showed that only 5% of Iraqis would vote for a politician with a sectarian or religious agenda. Yesteryear’s Shia supremacists these days promise to cherish the country’s diversity, and recruit other sects to their ranks.

All this produces strange bedfellows. Muqtada al-Sadr, a Shia cleric with a base in the shantytowns of Baghdad and Basra, has allied with communists, whom he once damned as heretics. Iraq’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist party, has joined forces with al-Wataniya, an anti-sectarian party led by a former Baathist, Iyad Allawi. As old alignments break apart, the Iraqi National Alliance, which grouped the main Shia parties, has split into its constituent parts. Kurdish and Sunni blocs are fragmenting too. Several religious factions have assumed secular names. “At least five masquerade behind the word ‘civil’,” complains the leader of the Civil Democratic Alliance, a genuinely secular party.

[95thrifleman]

I thought Sadr was against Iran and took a more nationalist line. Anyway, do you think Iran would lose influence if Iraq was left to fend for itself? One benefit of regime change is it would end Iranian interference in neighboring countries' affairs, which is a key step toward achieving regional peace, not only in Iraq but also the Gulf countries, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Israel. There's always unknown unknowns, but as far as I can see, long-term, Iranian regime change would solve more problems than it would create.

Long-term? Like it worked out so well for America, long-term, the last time they tried regime change in Iran?

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.....

[tgoodenow]

United States has naval superiority owing to the amount of Carriers they have so unless you're nearby you can't really attack.
The neighboring countries that had a vested interest in fighting in the Iraqi war knew that they could only contribute via guerilla warfare, so that's what they did.
If you're pointing to the UN doing anything, it is basically a US controlled entity as they provide the largest amount of funding and would likely be unable to exist without their support.