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

[Just answer the question]

Okay, so people online keep complaining about how the invasion lead to the deaths of millions there, how it destroyed a nation, how it has created ISIS and lead to the mass migration that Europe is suffering from etc. etc. etc. but this is something I never understood, why didn't the world save Iraq? Why didn't the world stop America from invading it? And I don't mean stop it by protesting but actually stop it, like blockading America, cutting ties with it, sending troops to Iraq, isolating the US and threaten it with invasion?

[Sar1n]

Because ultimately, people care more about their bread and circuses than lives of people thousands of kilometers away, politicians want to keep their seats, hindsight is always 20/20, and ultimately, you do not want to get into a shoving match with country with both most effective army and (I think, correct me if it changed) largest single country economy in the world.

[mongrel]

Okay, so people online keep complaining about how the invasion lead to the deaths of millions there, how it destroyed a nation, how it has created ISIS and lead to the mass migration that Europe is suffering from etc. etc. etc. but this is something I never understood, why didn't the world save Iraq? Why didn't the world stop America from invading it? And I don't mean stop it by protesting but actually stop it, like blockading America, cutting ties with it, sending troops to Iraq, isolating the US and threaten it with invasion?

If I were cynical, it could be because Russia and China could see an advantage to the Coalition being tied down to a near endless and pointless war. Everything that has happened since has been to their advantage, at zero cost.

[Prodromos]

Okay, so people online keep complaining about how the invasion lead to the deaths of millions there, how it destroyed a nation, how it has created ISIS and lead to the mass migration that Europe is suffering from etc. etc. etc. but this is something I never understood, why didn't the world save Iraq? Why didn't the world stop America from invading it? And I don't mean stop it by protesting but actually stop it, like blockading America, cutting ties with it, sending troops to Iraq, isolating the US and threaten it with invasion?

Because governments usually aren't as dumb as their people. Most governments supported the Iraq war. Countries like Germany, France, and Canada condemned the war in public to pander to their America-hating electorates, but assisted with the war in secret.

[hellheaven1987]

Okay, so people online keep complaining about how the invasion lead to the deaths of millions there, how it destroyed a nation, how it has created ISIS and lead to the mass migration that Europe is suffering from etc. etc. etc. but this is something I never understood, why didn't the world save Iraq? Why didn't the world stop America from invading it? And I don't mean stop it by protesting but actually stop it, like blockading America, cutting ties with it, sending troops to Iraq, isolating the US and threaten it with invasion?

Because Saddam is evil.

[Prodromos]

Nah, dude, Saddam's regime was the best. Very "stable." He kept terrorists at bay and Iraqis safe. Then that darn ChimpBush ruined everything just so Cheney could have more oil. Unlike when Saddam was in power, Iraq is a total craphole now. Things were much better when Saddam was running the show.

The fact that there are millions of public-schooled morons who believe this crap is frightening. These imbeciles vote. Thank God their governments aren't quite as dumb and just ignore them.

https://www.ranker.com/list/insane-u...s/lyra-radford

If Uday Hussein laid eyes on a woman he desired, he’d order his henchmen to kidnap her right off the streets and take her to his private sex/torture chamber. He and his guards would literally cruise the streets and scope out colleges looking for women to have sex with. It didn’t matter if the woman consented or if she was even of the age of consent, he’d brutally rape her in his lair with its stash of millions of dollars' worth of liquor, Cuban cigars, heroin, and HIV testing kits.

Uday crashed a wedding being held at Baghdad's Hunting Club back in the late 1990s. Apparently, right after Uday left the hall, the bride vanished. The groom knew exactly what had happened to his wife and he pulled out his pistol and shot himself.

Uday abducted another bride back in 2003. He had the 18-year-old dragged off and brought to a guardhouse on one of his properties. She was kicking and screaming the whole way and still in her wedding dress. A maid witnessed a guard rip the woman's dress off and lock her up.

After Uday arrived, the woman’s cries became screams and after it was over the maid was summoned to clean up the mess. The mattress was stained with blood and there were clumps of flesh and hair scattered around. The maid saw acid burns on the woman’s body as guards carried it out. One of them said to her, "Don't say anything about what you see, or you and your family will be finished."

[Muizer]

why didn't the world save Iraq? Why didn't the world stop America from invading it? And I don't mean stop it by protesting but actually stop it, like blockading America, cutting ties with it, sending troops to Iraq, isolating the US and threaten it with invasion?

The answer to this is really very simple: During the cold war, the threat of nuclear escalation (i.e. the Soviet Union) might have stopped the US from mounting outright invasions halfway across the globe, but in 2003 there was no power in the world willing and capable of making a stand.

Don't forget that in the wake of 9/11 the US was going to make some grand gesture. Evidently incapable (at the time) of 'tracking down and bring to justice' the people actually responsible for the attacks, the Bush administration chose to redefine its enemy. So, they went after "nations that harbour terrorism", mumbled something about WMD's and regime change and rounded it all off with a flourish of "if you're not with us, you're against us".

The issue suitably simplified, 'the rest of the world' basically had a choice between different shades of complicity when the US chose Iraq as the punching bag to take out its anger and frustration on. Why Iraq? Well that's probably just as medieval as the Bush' having "unfinished business" and their friends seeing an opportunity to make money. Was Saddam a saint? Of course not, but if that factored anywhere in the decision making it was just as another handy pretext.

[Just answer the question]

no power in the world willing and capable of making a stand.

There maybe no power but if it was many, I believe that no country, not even the most powerful one can take on multiple targets.

And if the world still doesn't want to do it, well, no wonder countries keep getting bullied.

[fkizz]

Okay, so people online keep complaining about how the invasion lead to the deaths of millions there, how it destroyed a nation, how it has created ISIS and lead to the mass migration that Europe is suffering from etc. etc. etc. but this is something I never understood, why didn't the world save Iraq? Why didn't the world stop America from invading it? And I don't mean stop it by protesting but actually stop it, like blockading America, cutting ties with it, sending troops to Iraq, isolating the US and threaten it with invasion?

Certain lobbies benefited a lot from Iraq War. Not the average american, but lobbies linked to middle eastern profiteering surely won big league with Iraq war, becoming rich at the expense of killing hundreds of thousands.

Those kinds of lobbies are too strong and have a good ability in influencing public opinion.

The rest of NATO is too militarily weak to stand up to USA. Only another organization inside USA, can stand up to such middle eastern profiteering lobbies.

[NorseThing]

Okay, so people online keep complaining about how the invasion lead to the deaths of millions there, how it destroyed a nation, how it has created ISIS and lead to the mass migration that Europe is suffering from etc. etc. etc. but this is something I never understood, why didn't the world save Iraq? Why didn't the world stop America from invading it? And I don't mean stop it by protesting but actually stop it, like blockading America, cutting ties with it, sending troops to Iraq, isolating the US and threaten it with invasion?

More than one question!

The USA invasion of Iraq was supported by resolutions at the UN. The 1991 invasion was the result of these UN resolutions. The USA then stopped short of taking out Saddam and an awkward ceasefire then kept the USA present to be poked at by the remains of Saddam's army. This was all by the USA attempting to follow the UN general assembly and the security council wishes. If at that point the USA had simply left and pulled out completely, perhaps the final invasion a few years later would not have happened. But then the very people you say are complaining that the USA was not stopped would be yapping that the USA left a destroyed Iraq without fixing what was broken.

The 2003 invasion that followed was clearly the result of the UN demanding the 1991 invasion stop short of taking out Saddam. In the furor after 911 and the NATO response to the attack on NYC Trade towers, what followed was a logical response to a mess not cleaned up by the UN.

Perhaps it would help if you cited some sources on whom you think complained about the invasion before the invasion. The after the fact complaining is truly 'Monday morning' quarterbacking.

[Muizer]

There maybe no power but if it was many, I believe that no country, not even the most powerful one can take on multiple targets.

What makes you think it is even worth counting as a possibility that NATO members would suddenly turn on a long time and overwhelmingly powerful ally to throw in their lot with their long term enemy Russia and self-absorbed China over a dictator like Saddam Hussein? Surely it's easy to understand that could never have happened?

Still there actually was sort of an attempt to stop the invasion. The main pretext (not to be confused with motivation) for the invasion was Saddam alledgedly not having destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction as promised after the previous war. Some countries (France probably being the most vocal one) tried to defuse the US' 'casus belli', by argueing it was up to UN weapon inspectors sent to Iraq, lead by A Swedish diplomat, Hans Blix, to determine if there actually was a casus belli: If he demonstrated there were no WMD in Iraq, it was hoped, the US would have no option but to stand down. Problem was that while Saddam actually didn't have them, he nonetheless did not fully cooperate for a long time. Nevertheless, Blix concluded he found no evidence there were still WMD. Of course in the end the US government and its satellite state of Great Britain just forged the evidence and went ahead anyway. If your conclusion from all this is that apparently 'might makes right', then I cannot but agree.

[95thrifleman]

Nah, dude, Saddam's regime was the best. Very "stable." He kept terrorists at bay and Iraqis safe. Then that darn ChimpBush ruined everything just so Cheney could have more oil. Unlike when Saddam was in power, Iraq is a total craphole now. Things were much better when Saddam was running the show.

The fact that there are millions of public-schooled morons who believe this crap is frightening. These imbeciles vote. Thank God their governments aren't quite as dumb and just ignore them.

https://www.ranker.com/list/insane-u...s/lyra-radford

The problem with your hyperbole is that Iraq WAS stable. The government was corrupt, as corrupt as any middle eastern nation and as corrupt as many of the nations propped up by American support. However Iraq was secular, an avowed enemy of Al Quaida and a good foil against Iran.

America was more than happy to support Saddam until he got cocky and decided to expand into Kuwait at time when Iran was less of a threat and the gulf states where more valuable to America than Iraq.

You have to be a complete, blind moron to think that Iraqis are better off post war than they where under Saddam. Without that regime the lid has blown off the pressure cooker and sectarian conflict has turned the whole bloody mess into a failed state and it IS America's fault.

There was no plan, no real intention of rebuilding other than to sell Iraq boomsticks. If yo compare the Marshall plan in post-war Germany or the reconstruction of Japan to the incompetence of Iraq you see how much America truly failed.

Russia and China rubbed their hands in glee and let the Americans it up.

I find it truly amusing when these muppets take the moral high ground and say "Saddam bad, America good" then ignore the regimes America props up, regimes with worse human rights records than Saddam's.

[Prodromos]

Stable at what, exactly? Maintaining a North Korea-style police state with everyone informing on everyone else? Raping random girls until their internal organs fell out? Genociding entire ethnicities? Invading a neighboring country every few years? Why do America-haters obsessively parrot this word? A stable evil regime isn't a good thing. Evil regimes should be gotten rid of, not kept in power. It's a bad thing for America's enemies to be stable. And you're embarrassing yourself spouting that clueless b.s. about secularism and al Qaeda.

Iraq today is an infinitely better ally than it was under Saddam, even with Iran's goons roaming the streets, but hopefully Iran will be bombed to smithereens soon. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis today are infinitely better off than they were before the war. The only whiners are Saddam's former supporters. But sure, some random European surely is the best judge of what life under Saddam was like.

Jesus Christ, these people.

[95thrifleman]

Stable at what, exactly? Maintaining a North Korea-style police state with everyone informing on everyone else? Raping random girls until their internal organs fell out? Genociding entire ethnicities? Invading a neighboring country every few years? Why do America-haters obsessively parrot this word? A stable evil regime isn't a good thing. Evil regimes should be gotten rid of, not kept in power. It's a bad thing for America's enemies to be stable. And you're embarrassing yourself spouting that clueless b.s. about secularism and al Qaeda.

Iraq today is an infinitely better ally than it was under Saddam, even with Iran's goons roaming the streets, but hopefully Iran will be bombed to smithereens soon. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis today are infinitely better off than they were before the war. The only whiners are Saddam's former supporters. But sure, some random European surely is the best judge of what life under Saddam was like.

Jesus Christ, these people.

Your hyperbole is, as always, amusing.

Iraq under Saddam invaded TWO nations in the 24 years of his rule. The first, Iran-Iraq war, was supported by America and Saddam got the kit to make his wmd's FROM America.

For most of Saddam's reign he was America's ALLY not an enemy. The problem with the USA is they are bloody stupid and short sighted in supporting regimes, factions and taken action in the short term while ignoring long term issues.

Iraq today barely exists as a nation! Your "ally" is a collection of factions blowing each other up with a weak central authority only in power from American support. More Iraqis have died since the fall of Saddam than died under his regime due to this sectarian conflict.

Some random American is a better judge?

[conon394]

Stable at what, exactly? Maintaining a North Korea-style police state with everyone informing on everyone else? Raping random girls until their internal organs fell out? Genociding entire ethnicities? Invading a neighboring country every few years?

The US is and has quiet happy with lots of Police states.

Raping random girls until their internal organs fell out?

We were content to ignore comparable atrocities in Rwanda for ever, In Burma now, For a long time in ex-Yugoslavia. How about that Guatemala or El Salvador hey as long as you are nominally not red you can rape and torture and kill American Nuns and aid workers with impunity. Wow I miss the Cold war. Hey fighting the Reds in Angola hey Jonas Savimbi use all the child soldiers you want. Hey Pinochet what to commit an assassination US soil go for it buddy - how are the death squads going anyway the CIA has been working on them Central America I sure we can send some advisors - just remember every opponent is a red paid by Moscow no matter how incentive that union activist student looks.

Why do America-haters obsessively parrot this word? A stable evil regime isn't a good thing.

It is when it is the House of Saud so say all are presidents since WW2

It's a bad thing for America's enemies to be stable.

Except for thew bit where Iraq was not our enemy and run by the same tyrant???

Invading a neighboring country every few years?

Well only the one we sorta cared about and frankly if Saddam had done it with US approval - and offered a deal like say leaving OPEC I suspect he would be in power today.

but hopefully Iran will be bombed to smithereens soon.

You really typed that. You can actually think that is a good thing. Clearly Libya and Iraq have demonstrated nothing to you.
What exactly do you feel Iran has done to justify a (I assume US) bombing attack?

[Papay]

Stable at what, exactly? Maintaining a North Korea-style police state with everyone informing on everyone else? Raping random girls until their internal organs fell out? Genociding entire ethnicities? Invading a neighboring country every few years? Why do America-haters obsessively parrot this word? A stable evil regime isn't a good thing. Evil regimes should be gotten rid of, not kept in power. It's a bad thing for America's enemies to be stable. And you're embarrassing yourself spouting that clueless b.s. about secularism and al Qaeda.

Iraq today is an infinitely better ally than it was under Saddam, even with Iran's goons roaming the streets, but hopefully Iran will be bombed to smithereens soon. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis today are infinitely better off than they were before the war. The only whiners are Saddam's former supporters. But sure, some random European surely is the best judge of what life under Saddam was like.

Jesus Christ, these people.

US invasion killed one million people. But i dont expect any neutral opinion from you. The overwhelming majority of the dead "were muslims" so who cares right? What angers me is that if in the chaos the western christian nations created, Iraqi christians are killed people like you start shouting "OMG SEE CHRISTIANS ARE KILLED". So much for the hypocricy of people like you. Bty Saddam had a christian foreign minister. Tell me one nation in the west that dares to have a muslim foreign minister. So much for the "tolerant west"

[conon394]

US invasion killed one million people. But i dont expect any neutral opinion from you. The overwhelming majority of the dead "were muslims" so who cares right? What angers me is that if in the chaos the western christian nations created, Iraqi christians are killed people like you start shouting "OMG SEE CHRISTIANS ARE KILLED". So much for the hypocricy of people like you. Bty Saddam had a christian foreign minister. Tell me one nation in the west that dares to have a muslim foreign minister. So much for the "tolerant west"

To sound distant and academic and ignore the human cost. It was a mistaken war of choice (Iraq). That was predicated on telling yourself how easy it would be. One that required ignoring your own military that argued if you do this you will need vastly more man/women on the ground and it will take a generation to be effective because the locals need to think you are staying. Somebody in the GBjr admin should have read Thucydides to bad he wasted his time.

[Common Soldier]

Okay, so people online keep complaining about how the invasion lead to the deaths of millions there, how it destroyed a nation, how it has created ISIS and lead to the mass migration that Europe is suffering from etc. etc. etc. but this is something I never understood, why didn't the world save Iraq? Why didn't the world stop America from invading it? And I don't mean stop it by protesting but actually stop it, like blockading America, cutting ties with it, sending troops to Iraq, isolating the US and threaten it with invasion?

Same.reason the world didn't stop Turkey from genocide against the Armenians, or stop Turkey from invading Cyprus, or China from invading and colonizing Tibet. It would have taken too much effort to stop those countries, and anything more than a slap on the wrist would have just irritated them, and jeopardize an important market.

[Papay]

Majority of the nations were against the war but obviously noone was dumb enough to go into war with USA to stop the invasion. Besides that Saddam was isolated and had bad relations with all its neighbors.




Here is Friedman(a zionist journalist who was writing in NYtimes) explaining the reasons for Iraq war. Back then he wrote an article with the title "because we could" in which he claimed that the purpose was to show muslims that US can ignore UN and go kill as many muslims as it could without concequences. Other zionist writers who spread hatred and misinformation back then like Judith Miller were ultimately removed from their positions. He continues writing there which is a disgrace

[Prodromos]

Your hyperbole is, as always, amusing.

Iraq under Saddam invaded TWO nations in the 24 years of his rule. The first, Iran-Iraq war, was supported by America and Saddam got the kit to make his wmd's FROM America.

For most of Saddam's reign he was America's ALLY not an enemy. The problem with the USA is they are bloody stupid and short sighted in supporting regimes, factions and taken action in the short term while ignoring long term issues.

Iraq today barely exists as a nation! Your "ally" is a collection of factions blowing each other up with a weak central authority only in power from American support. More Iraqis have died since the fall of Saddam than died under his regime due to this sectarian conflict.

Some random American is a better judge?

Do you really think I'll spend hours rebutting a dozen moronic claims you spent minutes making? Really? Jesus.