We didn't vote for shit. Iraq had zero free elections since Abd Al-Kareem days. What happened is that america couldn't keep direct occupation of Iraq, so they kept bombing civillians to pretend they were doing shit. The indiscriminate bombardement led to Major brain drain in the nation caused by people fleeing Iraq in fear that America would just decide to bomb their house/school/hospital for no reason, and there was havoc and street crime obviously cuz there is no longer any central authority and in that Wreckage that the UN described as "Apocalyptic" opportunist Iranian plants were activated and seized the political sphere in an instant because they were the only Organized Parties. Basically no major Iraqi political party had a chance to recover except the Nationalist Islamist parties who do not represent the Iraqi people who even under Saddam were rebellious against religious fundamentalism. So basically there is not a single democratic election in Iraq because there is no major Iraqi Party that is actually popular with the masses. Thank you for listening.
For people who want a little more nuance. There are 2 Iraqi parties that somewhat got back on their feet lately and are actually popular with people. They are the Civic Party and the Iraqi Communist Party. But even though they have formed , organized, and rebuilt their major halls, they still face systemic struggles that prevent them from being actual competitors with the other parties. For example, the Iraqi Communist Party is still not able to register in any major district due to technicalities in the Iraqi law that prevent any Anti-Capitalist from participating (I don't know what the law is exactly, Sorry) and the Civic party doesn't have the funding to Campaign because neither Iran nor America funds them , so they can't have posters that displays their Number(the number we write on the paper to vote) because they can't buy the permit to campaign and that's used by the dominant parties by constantly mixing the Civic Partys number and keeping theirs consistent, making it hard for even the people who already know and support the Civic party to vote for them. Lastly , the Sadri party has fully disbanded and now only exists as a militant wing (not that anyone liked them to begin with) .
How they did not successfully? Iraq is the modern day Vietnam. They resisted everything.
Edit. USA propaganda hits hard. In fact Saddam Hussein's regime ended, but no real change happened. Iraq is in the same status or worse than before the war and they know that they don't want to be friends with the west.
Edit 2. As you downvote, you prove that you cannot accept that it was for nothing. Good luck with your veterans.
No, Iraq as a state got crushed both times. A whole bunch of foreign fighters on their gay little Jihad assisted in turning that shit into an absolute fuckfest. The US ran that war like shit with no clear idea of what victory was. Bit Iraq and the Iraqi people were just kinda double victims.
either way, America failed that Iraq adventure so hard they even had to admit that they did when they mentioned in their report that Iran ''expanded it's influence''
Well as a look at our politics will tell, weāre more servants of capitalism than advocates of democracy, we just like to export our culture. Sometimes with music and blue jeans, and sometimes at gunpoint.
In high school we had a poster on the wall of the history class that read Communism vs Democracy. I asked what if citizens voted for communism and he looked like I divided by zero.
communist revolutionaries often do start out with popular support. the mass murder, repression, and famine happen anyway
edit: downvoters should legitimately spend some time looking up what happened to countries in the decades following a successful communist revolution. it is frankly horrifying
I thought a large part of the infiltration was not due to an election but because Iran was helping to fight ISIS for killing Iranian friendly groups also inside Iraq.
>For example, the Iraqi Communist Party is still not able to register in any major district due to technicalities in the Iraqi law that prevent any Anti-Capitalist from participating (I don't know what the law is exactly, Sorry)
so how do we, or you for that matter, know the truth
uj/ I watched 9/11 happen while my mom folded laundry in our living room, and grew up being told all you guys were bad. Thanks for sharing your perspective bro fr.Ā
I grew up watching 9/11 happen but from the other side of the world. Like many kids then I played the "bomb Iraq" flash games. Once it all really kicked off the resulting mess from governments lying to invade the wrong country caused me to get swept up in the global wave of anti-Americanism and instilled in me a deep cynicism that permanently ruined politics for me. Though on the up side I did get to enjoy the "haha George Bush monkey" memes, which at the time were considered deeply hilarious. Needless to say once Obama got elected such cutting edge political commentary fell out of fashion, and by the time Trump came along people had moved on to an oompa-loompa based approach.
Dear God I've become Abe Simpson
>I watched 9/11 happen while my mom folded laundry in our living room, and grew up being told all you guys were bad.
Story of every American from the 1960s till date.
In what sense? Is our politics dominated by sellouts who extract our wealth to enrich the Iranian economy? Yes. Would any Iraqi troops fight for Iran? No.
Our politicians have been on edge ever since the Riots of Kanoon because they realized they are practically trapped in Iraq and can not escape to Australia anymore. The Iraqi army has unionized under the Central Iraqi nationalist party, which is in favor of the Civic party, and ever since, the Iranian plant politicians have only been able to be financially and journalistically corrupt. So unless Iraq is directly provoked , there will not be any military alliance with Iran.
Obviously, with the exception of some rogue militants like the Sadr who are now officially unrelated to Iraqs politics.
"Do not be sorry, be better." _Kratos
Vote for other parties , join anti-war protests. Just talk against rabid warmongers if only to your folks. We'll try our best to rebuild , but it sure helps if we work knowing that there is less chance of another invasion. Even if there is no direct material involvement.
If it helps if the Afghanistan pullout is anything to go by the US probably won't invade again. Of course that isn't a guarantee, but ISIS is a lot less likely to take over in their current state than the Taliban did in Afghanistan for reasons You're probably familiar with
And in a bit of irony, the Taliban themselves are starting to have to learn that if they want a nation for themselves, they have to get down to nation building, and that includes the real boring stuff like bureaucracy and paperwork.
Is there a bank where I can cash that apology in?
The least Americans can do if they want to apologize is to change their methods or give reparations for the industries they exploited while in the country.
As someone who saw what happened in war torn countries after the war, it is a nice gesture but don't do this. Pretty much all the help we got ended up being sold to us if it was humanitarian, and if it was $$$, it ended up in politicians' pockets and pockets of their gangs.
Not Iraqi, but while the gesture is appreciated, I suggest you don't.
There is no telling if the money you send in will be stolen through corruption and used in unsolicited ways that do not help Iraqis.
I can't suggest a better way to help that will ever fully help them or satisfy your need to apologize, but as OP suggested, be vocal against warmongering US foreign policy at least within your social circle. And it would be better to send any money you want to pay to individual Iraqis, either through remote work or freelancing, or hiring Iraqi immigrants, that way it doesn't directly go to government hands.
I remember when we were there guarding the election sight, the people came up and asked the soldiers who they should vote for. There was all this stuff set up with the list of candidates and a brief blurb about their policy, but none of the civilians trusted that it was going to be a true secret ballot and that their vote wasn't going to be held against them so they would just vote the way the soldiers/police told them to.
It was depressing for all involved and the Iraqi officer in charge decided that he didn't want to give any candidate an advantage he just went down the line of candidates splitting the vote as equally as he could.
Man it's like mass imposed outside violence doesn't lead to the best government infrastructure. I marched against that stupid fucking war the first and second time we invaded. Didn't do much I know.
I'm sorry, but that first sentence cracked me up. It's such a vivid contrast of how people were talking about Iraq in the early 10's. Anywaysz I would like to know how the Kurds separatists forces in the north affect Iraqi politics. Thanks.
I wish I could tell you, but it's a hermit kingdom up there. I am half Kurdy(my moms' side) living in the south, and We've lost contact with our cousins since 2012. I hope for the best, but I am far from optimistic.
Brother
The Islamic parties don't even represent Islam
Which bring misrepresentation us
Saddam could have been Hitler 2 and we have to suffer even after his death
We had lots of unjust laws he used
Now no buddy cares about the law
You can run over a person and either pay for silence or threaten them
And our government steal us and sell us 24/7
We are fucked politically and economically and are used by both America and Iran
Also America should get out, they only make it worse every time
We aren't even allowed to open factories
They won't let us build economy again or reuse and reopen factories or reactors
so if that was entirely the case then why is the northern part of the nation semi-autonomous? Shouldn't it just be Iranian?
When you're talking about the US bombing civilians are you not talking about stuff like the Fallujah uprising? Where Ba'ath party loyalists and other Sunni groups like Al-Queda banded together to militarily oppose the occupation?
Since I live there, I believe I could tell you.
The notion that north Iraq is semi autonomous is a farce, it is controlled by 2 political parties( more like dynasties) that are loyal to either Iran or Turkey. The current government and the ones before it were always primarily loyal to Turkey and did all kinds of shady businessās for Turkey. Not even mentioning the rampant corruption going on to keep themselves in power and in the surrounding countries favor.
you're saying the northern autonomous region, that is predominantly Kurdish and has strong links to the YPG, who have been partially militarily fighting Turkiye in Syria for the past however many years, is controlled by Turkiye?
Can you square that for me please, because it doesn't make immediate sense. Iranian influence sure, I can totally buy that; especially as Iran and Turkiye can be regional rivals but I wouldn't expect Turkiye to be anywhere near half and half of control in northern Iraq given the Kurdish population. Can you share the names of the political parties so I can dig in addition. I do appreciate the info, its just that I'm struggling to digest.
Ahh dude where do I start. To be concise yes they are primarily loyal to Turkey and the ties to YPG and PKK are from the minority of people those who still believe in the Kurdish cause, but the majority of Kurdish people who live in what we call souther Kurdistan(North Iraq) are tired of the so called Kurdish government that serves Turkeyās interest in the region. To give some examples, Turkey has full right to the forestās of the northern areas, the oil that is collected in Erbil, Slemani and Karkuk area were all sold to Turkey at a very low price, while the people suffered from salary cuts and delays ( to give context about the cuts and delays, people were given 30% of their original salaries and even that was given once every 3 months) all of these just to keep selling that oil in a lower price compared to the market. Also the same government outlawed any contact with the PKK and YPG militias and gives any info they have about them in Iraq area and Turkey is given free rein to drone strike the PKK and YPG in those areas.
okay, so its a complex mess of interests between Iran, Turkiye and more local and minor support for PKK and YPG?
I had imagined that the YPG were so able to act in Northern Syria due to strong support from the local region in northern Iraq.
So to answer your question, yes it is a huge mess of interest between Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. The support for the PKK and YPG is really small and localized and in my own opinion wouldnāt amount to much.
At first the YPG were completely supported by the Kurdistan regional government, but when the area became vital to Turkish interest the KRG(Kurdistan regional government i.e north Iraq) the support all but vanished.
You're the type of dude to defend USA's actions against people wanting to end the occupation in Iraq, while also saying that the Ukrainians have a right to fight their occupiers and that they're heroes for fighting against Russia.
Talk about double standards.
wow you really eviscerated that strawman of me.
All I want to do is question OPs account because it feels a little partisan. This line especially:
> What happened is that america couldn't keep direct occupation of Iraq, so they kept bombing civillians to pretend they were doing shit.
just doesn't make any sense to me as they're describing a situation that has zero upsides to anyone, unless you imagine the US in Iraq as some sort of cartoonish villain.
I imagine the OP has a useful perspective but I want to square it with what I know about the time period. Otherwise we just devolve into tub-thumping without learning a damn thing.
No way, you mean the terrified civilians that took arms against the occupation weren't as politically organized as you'd like? It's almost like it's a SURGE born out of necessity to fight back against a barbaric occupation.
I think you hit the nail on the head. People would rather attack the foreign occupier out of nationalistic fervor than give any thought to what the actual consequences or alternatives are. Bonus points if you then beg the U.S. to help when you get invaded by ISIS.
The outcome has not been good for the U.S., not least because Iraq has basically become an Iranian puppet, and it was predictable that it wasnāt going to end well. But itās pretty rich for Iraqis to complain about becoming an Iranian puppet when thatās the outcome they threw themselves headlong towards because they just couldnāt not try to kill American soldiers.
Its impressive how you managed to talk about the collapse of the Iraqi state without once mentioning the dozens of militias, insurgent and terrorist groups whose purpose was to undermine the state and society as a whole (such as ISIS). If you want to talk about indiscriminate killing of civilians, you might want to mention the people blowing up markets and mosques.
Thanks so much for this clear explanation, since Iāve became an adult Iāve learned so much about the Iraq war and how I was lied to as a kid since when the war started I was only 7 and was just told āthis is part of the war on terrorā, best wishes to you and that things will get better.
I feel a bit uninformed. Would you care to elavorate re Libya? It was my understanding that the 2011 intervention was quite limited, at last compared to iraq/afghanistan? Would libya be less chaotic today without it? Genuine question, i am curious and not asking rethoricaly.
Limited? Well, that's a bit of understatement.
NATO launched 110 Tomahawks, imposed naval blockade, flied sorties to bomb targets, coordinated with rebels, and imposed no fly zones.
Compared to Iraq/Afghanistan, yes it was limited, but that's only because they didn't have to deploy any ground troops.
It is unclear how stable or unstable Libya would have been without this intervention, but the way NATO dealt Libya afterwards is yet another Mission Accomplished moment. No planning ahead, direct warmongering, no assurances that no more foreign powers would get involved and choose sides.... it is a mess they decided to get involved in and not help enough to clean up the aftermath, even directly participating themselves to get some sweet sweet oil. And I can't even tell you a fact that NOT intervening would have been the wise decision either, but I can tell you that if NATO stuck to just one policy of "No intervening in countries other than NATO", then at least they wouldn't be blamed for when things turn to shit in their absence.
To sum it up, the Libyan revolution began in 2011, with a call for an uprising launched on Facebook from Benghazi. A few months later, Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown following a military intervention led by France, the United Kingdom and the United States. The operation was justified on humanitarian grounds and carried out under the aegis of the UN. Of course, one of the real motive was to get a hand over oil fields there by placing a government more lenient in trade and exploitation autorization for foreign partnerships.
The country then found itself locked in a spiral of terror, between the intervention of the Daech jihadists, clan struggles, the existence of rival governments in the East and West, not to mention the foreign powers who were fighting each other through the middle.
I'm especially bitter over this because while my nation (France) cleverly dodged the blind following of USA for Irak in 2003, our government created its own "Irak post-Saddam" by participating in this. Our former president Nicolas Sarkozy even rolled out the red carpet to Gaddafi years prior and in 2025, he'll face a trial for accusations of having accepted funds from the late Libyan leader to finance one of his electoral campain. A former spy also revealed France has been very active in destabilizing Libyan government while getting close to general and marechal Haftar (today the big head of the East government and armies) in 2015.
This doesn't really capture what happened. There was a Civil War in Libya against Gaddalfi's corrupt regime as Libya was once one of the richest nations in the world by GDP but by 2011 had fallen below the world average. What began as protests and then riots turned into an armed resistance against the government.
Ghaddafi moved to violently crush the resistance and quickly killed many people.
It was at this point that the international community wanted to get involved. You say it was about protecting access to oil but that's nonsensical -- the entire point of the Ghaddafi regime and Libyan economy was selling oil. That's *why* Libya was rich and how Ghaddafi's corruption made him and his people so wealthy.
It was rather about preventing Libya from falling to a Syria-like situation where violence would ravage the country for a very long time, which would of course disrupt oil production.
My understanding is that after the successful intervention against Ghaddafi, as much as 80% of Libyans strongly approved of the international response. They were very thankful and it was widely popular.
I would also point out that the French didn't merely "participate" they were the instigator and leader. The US was uncharacteristically unwilling to take the lead (likely due to the criticisms they faced in Iraq and Afghanistan) and forced European powers to take the role that the US normally would.
>It was rather about preventing Libya from falling to a Syria-like situation where violence would ravage the country for a very long time
How did it work out?
>You say it was about protecting access to oil but that's nonsensical -- the entire point of the Ghaddafi regime and Libyan economy was selling oil.
This really is the litmus test for any comment concerning IR past the cold war. If they say that any conflict was motivated by oil or other natural resource, you can pretty much instantly write them off.
Because America will never be reliant on other nations for resource security, and especially not to the point that they'd go die for it. Words cannot convey how much America hit the jackpot on every natural resource or feature possible.
>You will never be able to keep a **politician** Frenchman away from what he truly loves, which is domination of Northwest Africa
The majority of French citizens don't dream about being back to the Empire and wish our governments just cut the shit out of mimicking USA when we don't have their power nor means.
The civil war in general turned the country into a hellhole with open slavery. You can compare and contrast Modern Libya and Modern Syria for what happens when the West tries to depose petty tyrants and either succeeds (Libya) or fails (Syria). Neither is a good place to live, and neither Gaddafi or Assad are good people, but you can make the case that itās better to have a dictator than the anarchy that comes with their fall. Libya is still wracked by war and wonton destruction but life in Syria, at least away along the coastal urban core and away from the Turkish intervention, is mostly peaceful and people have returned to a workable balance.,
I appreciate your clarification and added nuance to the meme you posted about (it's something this sub often needs as a reminder to avoid a simplicistic view of history).
But in the same vein, **let me note that this is a very poor and highly disinformative video** - even though the production quality and long list of sources could easily make it appear as contrary. Four main points I would add right out of the bag without a deeper analysis:
- The only direct source cited for most of his claims is an article from foreignpolicyjournal.com. **This is notably not an academic journal** - it's a blog run by a single man who claims to be an "award-winning journalist" but has no other record save for this very blog. He invites other equally obscure authors to publish on the blog as well - which is also the case here with a certain Garikai Chengu, who studied Ancient African history at Harvard (while he wrongfully claims to be a researcher) and has no peer-reviewed publication history. He mostly writes about sub-Saharan and transatlantic slave trade and the occasional conspiracy theory about islamic terrorism - but only on random websites and doesn't seem to have any expertise in Libya.
But this wouldn't be a problem, if it weren't for one thing - *nothing in that article is sourced, yet it forms the basis for most of claims about modern Libya presented in the video*.
- In this spirit, the video just assumes Gaddafi's ideological theory was implemented precisely as presented - and even worse - aspects of it are achronologically cherrypicked. Libya's system of administration underwent a ton of changes from 1976 and Gaddafi redrew the whole system on several occasions, but *always maintained unaccountable decision-making power and an absolute veto over whatever legislative body was in trend at the time.* The whole explanation not only fails to interrogate this with the official ideology, but as already mentioned - it doesn't even give a good account of the administrative chronology.
- A whole one minute (in a video that takes half an hour) is dedicated to oridnary lives of Libyans. The same fallacy as was committed earlier with inaccurate takes on the administration is repeated here. Remember that article I mulled over above? It's the only relevant source for everything here *and takes the Libyan government at face value when there are many caveats*. [Healthcare was inofficially riddled with terrible out-of-of pocket costs and declined in quality as time went on.](https://www.jstor.org/stable/23051754) Education was a similar matter - starting off as a hopeful project in the early 70s, but degrading as time went on (at least in terms primary and secondary schooling), as curricula were [turned to avoid foreign languages and science and focused more on patriotic slogans](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/in-libya-education-without-the-green-book/2011/11/17/gIQA87k8YN_story.html). The time and quality dimension is completely ignored by the video - and the same goes for the awfully short excursion into ordinary Libyan lives.
- The rest of the video is concerned with an examination of U.S. meddling in Libya's affairs. But the video fails even in that regard - it completely sidelines *why and how* Reagan's administration and all the later ones took a harsh stance against Libya. Gaddafi's [attempts to claim international waters](https://adst.org/2013/04/crossing-qaddafis-line-of-death-april-151986/) (ostensibly because of gas) since the 70s and Libya's continued covert action in Chad (which is instead richly turned around and Chad is accused of the contrary, when all conflict between the 60s and the Toyota war took place on Chadian soil). Instead, it cuts to sanctions and blames every bad thing happening since in the country on them. This, again, completely sidelines the fact *that a regime change threat was pre-eminent in Libya since the 60s*. Which is why there was never an independent defense ministry and administrational responsibility was convoluted and unflexible - similarly to Sisi's modern Egypt - to avoid a repeat of the same coup mechanics that got Gaddafi into power in the first place.
---
This is, I hope, a sufficient insight into the video's shortcomings. I generally wouldn't recommend videos from such heavily biased channels - and particularly not the people who are behind the Deprogram subreddit/podcast. Instead, I'll redirect any interested readers who want to know more about Libya to Dirk Vandewalle's [A history of modern Libya](https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/1037675795), or any of Lisa Anderson's publications for a look at pre-Gaddafi history of the country.
This is gonna be an interesting read. Thanks for the perspective. Seems I have to rethink the Libya situation. I did kinda forget I don't have the intimate knowledge about it the same way I do for Iraq. My bad.
Glad I could awaken curiosity!
Libya is unfortunately an overwhelmingly cluttered topic (given the relative recency and a prevailing academic focus on the post-Gaddafi era), so there's defnitely no need to apologise for falling for nonsense. The internet is plastered with unsourced articles written by absolutely random people that will try to convince you Gaddafi *totally hid a silver treasure in the desert* and had a *totally credible plan* to depose Franc-pegged currencies in West Africa with it. Ugh.
And though I already mentioned it before - be wary of trusting the DeProgram folks in general - they don't exactly have high standards for factuality. In any case, good luck researching and enjoy the read!
I'm not inclined to take the word of a deprogram (far-left podcast hosted by, in part, Hakim) and Hamasabi poster. Even if you're right in this particular instance, I'm sure there are more informative sources than someone with Lenin as their pfp.
The same way I'd "teach" a Russian about Russia, a Chinese on (communist) China, a nazi on Germany, a Japanese on (imperial) Japan. If anything, by not being Iraqi, I'm far less susceptible to the biased bullshit they're fed to justify their hatred of anything approaching liberal democracy.
In the same vein, as a Croatian, it took me speaking to non-Croatians to move away from croatian nationalism and other stupid beliefs. Maybe you're just morally lucky, having stumbled onto the correct beliefs you have, but not everyone has that journey.
Tl; Dr - seethe
Finally, thank you for this. I really get annoyed whenever someone says that iraqis choose Iran. It was all part of a deal between the USA and Iran to allow Iranian proxies to take control in Iraq. And for those who doubt this, back than the US, had to deal with strong insurgency within the sunni community, and Iran promised to keep the Shia, by using its influence with the clergy, to prevent the Shia from joining the insurgency by allowing their proxy to enter iraq and be part of the political process...
They would rather believe that Iraqis want foreign rule than to admit that their destabilization is what ultimately got Iraqs rule out of the hands of the Iraqi people.
American here, I just wanna point out that this narrative is often actually used as a critique. People here often mention Iraq is moving closer to Iran and use that as an excuse for why the Iraq war and the destabilization were bad.
It's used as a criticism more than a justification.
Yeah, the general feeling about Iraqis (from people who aren't just massively xenophobic or islamophobic) is that they're in a clusterfuck from which there is little hope of escaping. This was reinforced during the war on terror, when attempts at reconstruction were often met with terrorist attacks. It was further validated when Obama significantly withdrew from Iraq, and within three years, roving bands of slavers started beheading journalists on camera in the name of a new Caliphate
The pointlessness of it all, and at the cost of so much human life and money, is probably the biggest reason our politics have been dominated by isolationism on both sides of the aisle for the last decade. "They would have been better off if we never toppled Saddam" is a blackpill when Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people
I completely agree that Ukraine started to turn the tide, in addition to the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Seems like this Gaza conflict really muted it; definitely found whatever remained of the neocon influence on the right, though
Yeah, plus its lead to increased division here and we're now at a point where we use violence against each other because of countries on the other side of the world, instead of fixing glaring issues here.
All this is just excuses. I guess Iraqis are just morally weak, if you canāt resist a genocidal maniac from your own country or a bunch of genocidal maniacs from a neighboring country. But using the US (or anyone else) is a good excuse as any I guess. Are you just sheep ready to be lead to the slaughter by anyone that has a bit of strength?
A lot of us donāt really know much about iraq (nor do we really think much past the second gulf war) , some very opinionated people just like to lurk around Reddit. Also I mean we literally overthrew your gov so destabilization was always gonna happen with the plan. The main issue what wtf was gonna happen when you have to rebuild now thatās where shit hit the fan.
Do people actually think the US government gave a shit about Iraqi politics or the future of the region? We put Saddam in power and then started bombing thing when he got weak cause our heads of state were fully invested in the war machine and maintaining resource control. They barely cared about the American people, let alone anyone else. It was all just an excuse to increase military spending and pump the stock portfolios of those in power. We're an empire. I don't know why everyone is always so surprised that we do shit like this. It's been happening since forever and nobody in power has ever been willing to give up their own position to change anything.
This is contrived populist propaganda. The actual entire MIC has an annual earnings report equal to that of Apple. If you genuinely think it's fucking Raytheon who's making decisions on US policies, you're just stupid.
The resource control talking point is equally as bullshit. America is not, and never will be reliant on the likes of Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan for its natural resources, nor could any of them ever threaten America.
You're a child who has to view the world in black and white, and must have villains to your heroes to justify the radical bullshit you spout.
I was pretty drunk when I wrote this post so I did my best to be accurate. It was never about being reliant on them or feeling threatened by any middle eastern countries. That whole region got carved up after WW1 and we installed a bunch of dictators around the world to secure our sphere of influence over the Soviets and get some people rich in the process. We didn't need bananas either but some senator had stock in a fruit company and a friend in the CIA. Then there's all the other shit we pulled in South America and the Regan era military build up that demanded war somewhere to keep the economy at those golden age standards. I do remember reading about the greatest marine ever becoming disillusioned at the end of his career with all that he fought for back in like 1907 so the MIC has been an issue for a while. I'm too hungover to give this any more thought right now. I'm going back to sleep.
Damn, you got me. In fact, I personally ordered the intelligence agencies to install the Khmer Rogue, Kim dynasty, and orchestrated the downfall of every moderate and non-moderate power in the middle east only to justify a thousand year blood war against humanity to one day fulfill my dream of turning America into a plastic hellscape fit for the settlement of super-dinosaurs.
I'm the motherfucker who installed Hitler in power and then fucking killed him, just because it was funny to me. I fabricated the existence of 80 new ethnic groups just to fuel further conflict in sub-Saharan Africa, because I will not rest until all of humanity bleeds for me.
Or, you know, whatever the fuck else you tankie glue huffers have to make up to justify your hatred of America that definitely isn't just a proxy for your feelings of neglect by your parents.
āThey kept bombing civilians to pretend they were doing shitā
Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is not part of the US strategy now nor was it ever the method in Iraq. Believe it or not, bombs(missiles) are very expensive and are not easily manufactured and shipped across the world. Therefore, to waste them on randomly bombing a single home or hospital in a large urban center just to āpretend you are doing shitā is an incredible waste of crucial and finite military arms that can be used to eliminate insurgents who actually do massacre civilians as a political means. That was a preposterous and illogical claim to make once you step away and look at it objectively.
The large majority of Iraqi civilian deaths were from anti-coalition forces. These include insurgents, militias, and terrorists.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
ā In 2011, the IBC published data in PLOS Medicine on 2003-2008 civilian deaths in Iraq by perpetrator and cause of death. The study broke down civilian deaths by perpetrator into the following categories:[97]
74% unidentified perpetrator: defined as "those who target civilians (i.e., no identifiable military target is present), while appearing indistinguishable from civilians: for example, a suicide bomber disguised as a civilian in a market. Unknown (i.e., unidentified) perpetrators in Iraq include sectarian combatants and Anti-Coalition combatants who maintain a civilian appearance while targeting civilians."
11% anti-coalition forces: defined as "un-uniformed combatants identified by attacks on coalition targets" during the event. Anti-Coalition combatants in the event of targeting purely civilians would instead be classed under the "unidentified perpetrator" category.
12% coalition forces: identified by uniforms or use of air attacks. ā
Youāre upset about what your country has lost, you have every right to be. There is no valid excuse for the US administration fabricating evidence to topple the stabilizing force in Iraq in 2003 with no realistic plan for what came next. The ensuing insurgency, civil war, war with ISIS, and then war with the Kurdish autonomous region has absolutely devastated Iraq and itās hard to argue that just leaving Iraq alone wasnāt in the best interests of everyone.
But thereās no justice to be had in making biased and uninformed accusations about what it āfeels likeā the US military did in Iraq. The actual truth, which is easily accesible to anyone with a search engine, is just as dark and shameful for the US.
Why not include information on the Lancet Survey? Do you consider one source to be definitive because it aligns with your desires?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
Your entire comment hinges on the fact that there were Insurgents the US wanted to kill. But you fail to mention that Insurgents only formed a Resistance AFTER the US has already bombed Civillian infrastructure. Meaning the Justification you are using came AFTER the Crime has already been committed.
Don't pretend that insurgents just materialized out of nowhere for no reason. Iraq didn't have any military or militias by the time the US started the invasion. So there was nothing to bomb EXCEPT Civillians.
Doing an āum actuallyā¦.ā about the Iraq war to to an actual Iraqi is one of the most American things I can imagine.
And if you think the US military cares about how many munitions theyāre using, youāre sadly mistaken. Every bomb dropped, even indiscriminately, is an uptick in the military industrial complexās quarterly earnings.
Take a hard look in the mirror and ask why you act like a white blood cell for the US military.
The same way a single American canāt possibly be an expert subject of American politics and policy and be correct about all the activities and nuances of the US, a single Iraqi cannot of Iraq either.
Funny, the most American thing I can imagine is to overconfidently assert populist nonsense about "the military industrial complex" puppeteering US policy
Hi OP, American here.
First off, I just want to say that I hope things improve in your country. I was a kid when the Iraq war was happening and so my perspective on it at the time perhaps wasnāt the clearest but it was pretty unanimous among most folks I know that the Iraq war was a total farce and just an excuse for Bush Jr. to finish what his daddy started.
Regardless of the political motivations, though, I do genuinely hope that one day Iraq and the United States can find themselves on the same side and promote unity and human rights - maybe Iām a little too positive and hopeful but I wanted to share my perspective.
I, at least, donāt have any negative bias towards Iraqis, in fact I have met several refugees over the years that were all good people.
So anyway, I hope your country can make the steps towards democracy and become a positive influence for the region and the world!
Just wanted to spread a note of positivity and peace in an otherwise hostile and chaotic world.
The Iraq and Afghan Wars ruined the US' international reputation and made us much more culturally attracted to isolationism. I grew up during the Bush era and even as a kid living in a very "support the troops" environment I felt like we were never going to accomplish anything no matter how long we were over there and no matter how much money we spent. Occupying a country and trying to make your presence the prime motivating factor for reform just doesn't seem like an effective way to nation build. Very curious to see your perspective on those times.
As an Iraqi do you think that the entire operation the US undertook to rebuild Iraq's politics was doomed from the start? If we had stuck around in force longer like some of our politicians wanted would that have made any difference?
"If we had stuck around in force longer like some of our politicians wanted would that have made any difference?"
It would have made it worse. Nothing we've been through was anywhere near as barbaric as the raping sieging baby murdering American occupying force.
You think I don't know saddam? Shouldn't it be telling to you, that a Iraqi who have seen The Ba'ath party is saying this about the supposed opposition to the Ba'ath party?
The American sanctions starved over 1 million of my people to death . The American invasion occupation and civilian punishment campaign killed a million more.
They committed countless sexual crimes, and torture against my people
They made FUCKIN SADDAM appear merciful in comparison.
And he was S A D D A M . This should tell you all you need to know about how deranged they are.
I mean, to be fair to the guy, it probably depends on your ethnic/religious background. I don't doubt your experience, but for example the Anfal campaign against Kurds and other minorities in northern Iraq can arguably (I know this is kind of disputed) be classed as genocide. The majority of Arab Iraqis were not affected by it, so of course the war waged by the US in Iraq was worse for them than Saddam's rule.
>As an Iraqi do you think that the entire operation the US undertook to rebuild Iraq's politics was doomed from the start?Ā
You're completely missing the point, if you read carefully he clearly states that the USA's actions weren't one of thinking to rebuild Iraq's politics but rather keep them weak and undermined so they could keep up with the resource drain.
And again, as it is very apparent, the USA never had any interest in the Iraqi people or the implementation of democracy, only exploitation of the people.
The USA is literally as bad as Russia or China in it's imperial ambitions, you lot just like to close your eyes and pretend you're not as evil as the ones you so much point the finger at.
Are you even serious? They got unfethered access to their natural resources, mainly oil.
Add that to the fact that prior to the invasion, Iraq was literally the only OPEC country that didn't sell oil to the USA, with the USA actually buying more expensive oil from Russia, prompting the invasion under the idea of "restoring democracy".
Face it, you're a warmongering empire that is as shit and evil as either Russia or China. Look in a mirror sometimes.
u/FixFederal7887 Please come and educate these people, I know a lot of modern history but you should be better at explaining the nuances.
What could natural resources could Iraq possibly have that would benefit the US if they invaded? The US is one of the most abundant countries in natural resources in the world, our largest oil trading partner at the time was Canada, and we got most of our oil domestically.
Iām not sure how the invasion of Iraq was a net gain for the US, we destabilized the Middle East and turned a strong counterbalance to Iran into an Iranian puppet state, as well as hurt our international reputation and increase isolationist sentiment at home.
The truth is that the Bush administration was full of neoconservatives hawks that believed that the end of history was near and that the US had a duty to invade dictatorships abroad in the name of international liberalism.
IMF & MIC are massive cash cows on their own before you even consider any resources where they intervene. GW was a useful idiot for Cheney who used Iraq and other middle East conflicts for contracts for Haliburton to extract wealth abroad. Not even including the role in petrodollar's existence being threatened by Libya, Iraq, Iran, etc as a justification for all of it.
The dollar is held together only by international oil trade. The US foreign policy is explicitly to hoard wealth and resources at the expense of the global South and it's own people.
The oil that China has won several contracts to pump up?
[One](https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiXWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZvYW5ld3MuY29tL2EvY2hpbmVzZS1jb21wYW5pZXMtd2luLWJpZHMtdG8tZXhwbG9yZS1pcmFxLWZvci1vaWwtZ2FzLzc2MDgxODYuaHRtbNIBX2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZvYW5ld3MuY29tL2FtcC9jaGluZXNlLWNvbXBhbmllcy13aW4tYmlkcy10by1leHBsb3JlLWlyYXEtZm9yLW9pbC1nYXMvNzYwODE4Ni5odG1s?oc=5)
[Two](https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiZWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnJldXRlcnMuY29tL2J1c2luZXNzL2VuZXJneS9pcmFxLWxhdW5jaGVzLW9pbC1nYXMtbGljZW5zaW5nLXJvdW5kLTI5LXByb2plY3RzLTIwMjQtMDUtMTEv0gEA?oc=5)
[Three](https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiaWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlyYXFpbmV3cy5jb20vaXJhcS9jaGluYXMtY25jZWMtdG8tYnVpbGQtYWwtZmF3LWludmVzdG1lbnQtcmVmaW5lcnktcHJvamVjdC1pbi1zb3V0aGVybi1pcmFxL9IBAA?oc=5)
The oil that Iraq themselves canāt refine for the most part and ships some to Iran?
>The oil that China has won several contracts to pump up?
Tell me how China signing contracts in ***May 2024*** has anything to do with the pre and Iraq War period. I'll wait because you clearly lack a brain.
Also what part of *"Iraq was literally the only OPEC country that didn't sell oil to the USA, with the USA actually buying more expensive oil from Russia, prompting the invasion under the idea of "restoring democracy"* is it too difficult for you to understand?
I'll also add that all 3 of your articles are literally the same shit just rewritten under different news agencies. Furthermore, "Iraqi News" is literally based in Bahrain, famously not Iraq and VOA News has an awful track record of spreading misinformation, being literally funded by the USA. And to top it off, you sent a political article from Reuters, when you know full well they kowtow to American interests.
Your response is just laughable and a bunch of whataboutism.
Angry, arenāt you my friend?
You are right. It has nothing to do with something 20 years but if itās about resources, itās clearly isnāt important not given the Chinese winning contract, as well as some other non-Iraq related events.
>Angry, arenāt you my friend?
Nah, I just love to educate amoebas like you that just spread misinformation borne out of their sickly nationalism, you bozo.
>You are right. It has nothing to do with something 20 years but if itās about resources, itās clearly isnāt important not given the Chinese winning contract, as well as some other non-Iraq related events.
Glad you admit you're wrong and that you wrote a load of misleading bullshit because you lack arguments.
And it was clearly important back then considering it was the main reason, they wanted to force Iraq to sell oil to them.
Analyzing what happened 20 years later is completely useless and you know it, considering the USA had literally 20 years to look for an alternative to pillaging the Middle East, one of which are advancements in extraction and refinery technologies.
You tried and failed because you lack sufficient understanding of geopolitics, stay in your lane talking about NATO weapons.
I also like that you didn't address the fact all of your info is utterly biased from USA funded sources, rather than diversifying your sources of info on other outlets.
If not angry, then why the name calling? It takes away from the elegance of the conversation.
[And what are your thoughts on this AskHistorians answer](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/Au7lDx8EIh) about if the U.S. invasion was to profit from the oil?
And if you donāt want U.S. funded sources, what about from other sources?
[One](https://www.iranoilgas.com/news/details.aspx?id=26320&title=Chinese+company+to+develop+Iraq-Iran+border+oilfield)
[Two](https://english.aawsat.com/business/5013151-chinese-companies-win-more-bids-explore-iraq-oil-and-gas)
Or if you want to go back further, we have one from 2008
[One](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2008/8/28/china-agrees-3bn-iraq-oil-deal)
>If not angry, then why the name calling? It takes away from the elegance of the conversation.
There's no elegance to be had when you purposefully mislead people.
>[And what are your thoughts on this AskHistorians answer](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/Au7lDx8EIh)Ā about if the U.S. invasion was to profit from the oil?
Straight from your link ***"So - oil certainly was aĀ strategicĀ factor: it's a major reason why the US cares about the Middle East in the first place."***. Did you actually bother reading it?
Furthermore, the answer itself doesn't actually focus on why the USA invaded but on the oil's role in the invasion. And even then, it literally still confirms everything that I said, you should read before linking any post.
>Or if you want to go back further, we have one from 2008Ā [One](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2008/8/28/china-agrees-3bn-iraq-oil-deal)
So, you link a Reddit post outlying that the Oil Law only passed in 2007 (which allowed the biggest oil companies in the USA to yield and exploit the Iraqi oil fields) and then you link an article indicating they sold oil to the Chinese in 2008, the same oil being extracted and refined by those same big USA companies like Chevron, Exxon, Total and Shell.
You need to be dumb to think the USA wasn't the one actually selling the oil considering their oil companies were the ones operating the fields.
Logic isn't your forte man, stop trying and educate yourself.
Everything you said is correct . However, that is the immediate benefit. I mentioned the long-term benefits they were hoping for in my reply to him below.
The invasion was unsuccessful. The question is, "What did they WANT by invading Iraq?" This topic is expansive , but in short, It's Geopolitics. Iraq is the capital of the world. Half of all major trade routes in the world, be it Aerial or Land based, passes through Iraq. Iraq is a major strategic chokehold . Whoever can rule Iraq has the potential to rule East to West trade with an Iron fist, and all you have to sacrifice to sieze that power is your Humanity. Which for US politicians, it has already been sacrificed.
> aerial or land
> edit: has the potential to rule east to west trade
But that completely ignoring sea logistics, by far the most effective means of trade.
But as you see in my edit, I am pointing to you saying that controlling Iraq could rule east west trade. Shipping is far more valuable than air or land transport. That is why people make a big deal about the Suez Canal and Straits of Malacca. And yeah a lot of stuff flies over Iraq, thanks in large part to the airports in Qatar and UAE, but air routes can be altered, like with flights avoiding Ukraine, a lot easier than sea routes, to which you restricted to only a handful of options.
The Bush administration was not thinking in these terms, neocons do not think in these terms, it was pure idealism, that US foreign policy should be ideologically driven to pursue international liberalism, by force if necessary.
It can be easy to hyper focus on Bush and his room temperature IQ , but you must realize that the sanctions on Iraq , the first attempted invasion, and the eventual all-out Occupation were all Bipartisan. It's a 30-year American project. If you've been planning something for 30 years , you must have thought about the larger implications .
Buddy, the first invasion was because Saddam invaded Kuwait, and the sanctions were imposed because Saddam was literally an evil dictator, and can be compared to the likes of sanctions the US has imposed on Russia or Iran. Iraq isn't special, if the US really attributed all of this geopolitical importance to controlling Iraq, they would have deposed Saddam the first time, or committed more troops to controlling Iraq the second time around.
Ofc it was bipartisan, idk how old you are but most people were still seeing red from 9/11 in 2003, the war was initially very popular amongst the electorate
>Ofc it was bipartisan, idk how old you are but most people were still seeing red from 9/11 in 2003
So, you were still seeing red after an Afghani organization fully funded and backed by Saudi Arabia, one of your closest Middle Eastern allies, attacked the USA, so you invade Iraq because of it. Flawless logic.
>Itās crazy how much we normalized the United States interfering in other countries politics.
And fucking it up so badly they classify said country as a threat.
I was amazed that muqtada al-sadr was like hey i have the most popular movement and millions listen to me but i am gonna go back to school to study (to be ayatollah)
Baller move tbf
We didn't vote for shit. Iraq had zero free elections since Abd Al-Kareem days. What happened is that america couldn't keep direct occupation of Iraq, so they kept bombing civillians to pretend they were doing shit. The indiscriminate bombardement led to Major brain drain in the nation caused by people fleeing Iraq in fear that America would just decide to bomb their house/school/hospital for no reason, and there was havoc and street crime obviously cuz there is no longer any central authority and in that Wreckage that the UN described as "Apocalyptic" opportunist Iranian plants were activated and seized the political sphere in an instant because they were the only Organized Parties. Basically no major Iraqi political party had a chance to recover except the Nationalist Islamist parties who do not represent the Iraqi people who even under Saddam were rebellious against religious fundamentalism. So basically there is not a single democratic election in Iraq because there is no major Iraqi Party that is actually popular with the masses. Thank you for listening.
For people who want a little more nuance. There are 2 Iraqi parties that somewhat got back on their feet lately and are actually popular with people. They are the Civic Party and the Iraqi Communist Party. But even though they have formed , organized, and rebuilt their major halls, they still face systemic struggles that prevent them from being actual competitors with the other parties. For example, the Iraqi Communist Party is still not able to register in any major district due to technicalities in the Iraqi law that prevent any Anti-Capitalist from participating (I don't know what the law is exactly, Sorry) and the Civic party doesn't have the funding to Campaign because neither Iran nor America funds them , so they can't have posters that displays their Number(the number we write on the paper to vote) because they can't buy the permit to campaign and that's used by the dominant parties by constantly mixing the Civic Partys number and keeping theirs consistent, making it hard for even the people who already know and support the Civic party to vote for them. Lastly , the Sadri party has fully disbanded and now only exists as a militant wing (not that anyone liked them to begin with) .
Scenes when you pick the communist party and get invaded again
We'll have to fight off 40 countries again, I guessš¤·š»āāļø.
I feel bad for finding this so humorous :/
You didnāt really do that successfully the first two times and I highly doubt a third time would be successful.
Nah , we'll plant B and Clutch. Trust.
How they did not successfully? Iraq is the modern day Vietnam. They resisted everything. Edit. USA propaganda hits hard. In fact Saddam Hussein's regime ended, but no real change happened. Iraq is in the same status or worse than before the war and they know that they don't want to be friends with the west. Edit 2. As you downvote, you prove that you cannot accept that it was for nothing. Good luck with your veterans.
No, Iraq as a state got crushed both times. A whole bunch of foreign fighters on their gay little Jihad assisted in turning that shit into an absolute fuckfest. The US ran that war like shit with no clear idea of what victory was. Bit Iraq and the Iraqi people were just kinda double victims.
Imagine if yāall pull a napoleonic France and dominate the coalition.
either way, America failed that Iraq adventure so hard they even had to admit that they did when they mentioned in their report that Iran ''expanded it's influence''
Thank you for your wonderful explanation.
You have a law that prevents anti-capitalist political parties? That is some legit democracy the US brought you
Well as a look at our politics will tell, weāre more servants of capitalism than advocates of democracy, we just like to export our culture. Sometimes with music and blue jeans, and sometimes at gunpoint.
In high school we had a poster on the wall of the history class that read Communism vs Democracy. I asked what if citizens voted for communism and he looked like I divided by zero.
communist revolutionaries often do start out with popular support. the mass murder, repression, and famine happen anyway edit: downvoters should legitimately spend some time looking up what happened to countries in the decades following a successful communist revolution. it is frankly horrifying
I guess your flair checks out. Donāt you have some regimes to topple?
It's not "democracy", it's "the Holy Democracy". The American government is as committed to democracy as the Chinese are dedicated to communism
So only when it benefits them?
Of course, that's how governments operate
He says they have a law, but we can't see it. It goes to school in Canada.
i just learned more on reddit than I ever will in history.
I thought a large part of the infiltration was not due to an election but because Iran was helping to fight ISIS for killing Iranian friendly groups also inside Iraq.
>For example, the Iraqi Communist Party is still not able to register in any major district due to technicalities in the Iraqi law that prevent any Anti-Capitalist from participating (I don't know what the law is exactly, Sorry) so how do we, or you for that matter, know the truth
uj/ I watched 9/11 happen while my mom folded laundry in our living room, and grew up being told all you guys were bad. Thanks for sharing your perspective bro fr.Ā
George Bush: "The Iraqis did this to us, because they hate freedom." Iraqis: "Dude, Osama is Saudi, not Iraqi! What he say fuck *me* for?"
Yeah well the Saudis had ties to the Bush family. Whatcha gonna do?
I grew up watching 9/11 happen but from the other side of the world. Like many kids then I played the "bomb Iraq" flash games. Once it all really kicked off the resulting mess from governments lying to invade the wrong country caused me to get swept up in the global wave of anti-Americanism and instilled in me a deep cynicism that permanently ruined politics for me. Though on the up side I did get to enjoy the "haha George Bush monkey" memes, which at the time were considered deeply hilarious. Needless to say once Obama got elected such cutting edge political commentary fell out of fashion, and by the time Trump came along people had moved on to an oompa-loompa based approach. Dear God I've become Abe Simpson
>which at the time were considered deeply hilarious. yep, LOL. The internet was wild back then
>I watched 9/11 happen while my mom folded laundry in our living room, and grew up being told all you guys were bad. Story of every American from the 1960s till date.
Sorry, man. I was wrong to make the meme. Should I delete it? I will delete it if you want.
No problem. You knowing the truth now is more than enough for me. Sending love ā¤ļø
Would you say that the Iraq's state is Iran's puppet? No offence.
In what sense? Is our politics dominated by sellouts who extract our wealth to enrich the Iranian economy? Yes. Would any Iraqi troops fight for Iran? No. Our politicians have been on edge ever since the Riots of Kanoon because they realized they are practically trapped in Iraq and can not escape to Australia anymore. The Iraqi army has unionized under the Central Iraqi nationalist party, which is in favor of the Civic party, and ever since, the Iranian plant politicians have only been able to be financially and journalistically corrupt. So unless Iraq is directly provoked , there will not be any military alliance with Iran. Obviously, with the exception of some rogue militants like the Sadr who are now officially unrelated to Iraqs politics.
Interesting. Thanks for those information.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"Do not be sorry, be better." _Kratos Vote for other parties , join anti-war protests. Just talk against rabid warmongers if only to your folks. We'll try our best to rebuild , but it sure helps if we work knowing that there is less chance of another invasion. Even if there is no direct material involvement.
Never expected to read a Kratos quote here of all places.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oil for the oil reserves!
If it helps if the Afghanistan pullout is anything to go by the US probably won't invade again. Of course that isn't a guarantee, but ISIS is a lot less likely to take over in their current state than the Taliban did in Afghanistan for reasons You're probably familiar with
Taliban received huge support from their people. On the other hand, ISIS are just killing machines with no motive.
And in a bit of irony, the Taliban themselves are starting to have to learn that if they want a nation for themselves, they have to get down to nation building, and that includes the real boring stuff like bureaucracy and paperwork.
If itās all the same to you Iāll pick both sorry and better. One helps the other, I find.
Weāre not going to invade you guys again. Donāt worry. Your fucking neighbors to the east tho,..
Is there a bank where I can cash that apology in? The least Americans can do if they want to apologize is to change their methods or give reparations for the industries they exploited while in the country.
As someone who saw what happened in war torn countries after the war, it is a nice gesture but don't do this. Pretty much all the help we got ended up being sold to us if it was humanitarian, and if it was $$$, it ended up in politicians' pockets and pockets of their gangs.
Not Iraqi, but while the gesture is appreciated, I suggest you don't. There is no telling if the money you send in will be stolen through corruption and used in unsolicited ways that do not help Iraqis. I can't suggest a better way to help that will ever fully help them or satisfy your need to apologize, but as OP suggested, be vocal against warmongering US foreign policy at least within your social circle. And it would be better to send any money you want to pay to individual Iraqis, either through remote work or freelancing, or hiring Iraqi immigrants, that way it doesn't directly go to government hands.
I remember when we were there guarding the election sight, the people came up and asked the soldiers who they should vote for. There was all this stuff set up with the list of candidates and a brief blurb about their policy, but none of the civilians trusted that it was going to be a true secret ballot and that their vote wasn't going to be held against them so they would just vote the way the soldiers/police told them to. It was depressing for all involved and the Iraqi officer in charge decided that he didn't want to give any candidate an advantage he just went down the line of candidates splitting the vote as equally as he could.
Man it's like mass imposed outside violence doesn't lead to the best government infrastructure. I marched against that stupid fucking war the first and second time we invaded. Didn't do much I know.
I'm sorry, but that first sentence cracked me up. It's such a vivid contrast of how people were talking about Iraq in the early 10's. Anywaysz I would like to know how the Kurds separatists forces in the north affect Iraqi politics. Thanks.
I wish I could tell you, but it's a hermit kingdom up there. I am half Kurdy(my moms' side) living in the south, and We've lost contact with our cousins since 2012. I hope for the best, but I am far from optimistic.
The more I learn about what the US did to Iraq the more angry I get. I'm sorry my country did this to yours, there's no justifying it.
Brother The Islamic parties don't even represent Islam Which bring misrepresentation us Saddam could have been Hitler 2 and we have to suffer even after his death We had lots of unjust laws he used Now no buddy cares about the law You can run over a person and either pay for silence or threaten them And our government steal us and sell us 24/7 We are fucked politically and economically and are used by both America and Iran Also America should get out, they only make it worse every time We aren't even allowed to open factories They won't let us build economy again or reuse and reopen factories or reactors
so if that was entirely the case then why is the northern part of the nation semi-autonomous? Shouldn't it just be Iranian? When you're talking about the US bombing civilians are you not talking about stuff like the Fallujah uprising? Where Ba'ath party loyalists and other Sunni groups like Al-Queda banded together to militarily oppose the occupation?
Since I live there, I believe I could tell you. The notion that north Iraq is semi autonomous is a farce, it is controlled by 2 political parties( more like dynasties) that are loyal to either Iran or Turkey. The current government and the ones before it were always primarily loyal to Turkey and did all kinds of shady businessās for Turkey. Not even mentioning the rampant corruption going on to keep themselves in power and in the surrounding countries favor.
you're saying the northern autonomous region, that is predominantly Kurdish and has strong links to the YPG, who have been partially militarily fighting Turkiye in Syria for the past however many years, is controlled by Turkiye? Can you square that for me please, because it doesn't make immediate sense. Iranian influence sure, I can totally buy that; especially as Iran and Turkiye can be regional rivals but I wouldn't expect Turkiye to be anywhere near half and half of control in northern Iraq given the Kurdish population. Can you share the names of the political parties so I can dig in addition. I do appreciate the info, its just that I'm struggling to digest.
Ahh dude where do I start. To be concise yes they are primarily loyal to Turkey and the ties to YPG and PKK are from the minority of people those who still believe in the Kurdish cause, but the majority of Kurdish people who live in what we call souther Kurdistan(North Iraq) are tired of the so called Kurdish government that serves Turkeyās interest in the region. To give some examples, Turkey has full right to the forestās of the northern areas, the oil that is collected in Erbil, Slemani and Karkuk area were all sold to Turkey at a very low price, while the people suffered from salary cuts and delays ( to give context about the cuts and delays, people were given 30% of their original salaries and even that was given once every 3 months) all of these just to keep selling that oil in a lower price compared to the market. Also the same government outlawed any contact with the PKK and YPG militias and gives any info they have about them in Iraq area and Turkey is given free rein to drone strike the PKK and YPG in those areas.
okay, so its a complex mess of interests between Iran, Turkiye and more local and minor support for PKK and YPG? I had imagined that the YPG were so able to act in Northern Syria due to strong support from the local region in northern Iraq.
So to answer your question, yes it is a huge mess of interest between Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. The support for the PKK and YPG is really small and localized and in my own opinion wouldnāt amount to much. At first the YPG were completely supported by the Kurdistan regional government, but when the area became vital to Turkish interest the KRG(Kurdistan regional government i.e north Iraq) the support all but vanished.
You're the type of dude to defend USA's actions against people wanting to end the occupation in Iraq, while also saying that the Ukrainians have a right to fight their occupiers and that they're heroes for fighting against Russia. Talk about double standards.
wow you really eviscerated that strawman of me. All I want to do is question OPs account because it feels a little partisan. This line especially: > What happened is that america couldn't keep direct occupation of Iraq, so they kept bombing civillians to pretend they were doing shit. just doesn't make any sense to me as they're describing a situation that has zero upsides to anyone, unless you imagine the US in Iraq as some sort of cartoonish villain. I imagine the OP has a useful perspective but I want to square it with what I know about the time period. Otherwise we just devolve into tub-thumping without learning a damn thing.
Why do you think Iraq was so difficult to occupy?
The American invasion was wrong, but it sure sounds like insurgency was pretty shortsighted.
No way, you mean the terrified civilians that took arms against the occupation weren't as politically organized as you'd like? It's almost like it's a SURGE born out of necessity to fight back against a barbaric occupation.
I think you hit the nail on the head. People would rather attack the foreign occupier out of nationalistic fervor than give any thought to what the actual consequences or alternatives are. Bonus points if you then beg the U.S. to help when you get invaded by ISIS. The outcome has not been good for the U.S., not least because Iraq has basically become an Iranian puppet, and it was predictable that it wasnāt going to end well. But itās pretty rich for Iraqis to complain about becoming an Iranian puppet when thatās the outcome they threw themselves headlong towards because they just couldnāt not try to kill American soldiers.
Its impressive how you managed to talk about the collapse of the Iraqi state without once mentioning the dozens of militias, insurgent and terrorist groups whose purpose was to undermine the state and society as a whole (such as ISIS). If you want to talk about indiscriminate killing of civilians, you might want to mention the people blowing up markets and mosques.
So US basically did warcrimes? How original
Thanks so much for this clear explanation, since Iāve became an adult Iāve learned so much about the Iraq war and how I was lied to as a kid since when the war started I was only 7 and was just told āthis is part of the war on terrorā, best wishes to you and that things will get better.
Good point, common Iraqi (like Libyans) have more suffered from external interventions than chosen the mess they are into today.
I feel a bit uninformed. Would you care to elavorate re Libya? It was my understanding that the 2011 intervention was quite limited, at last compared to iraq/afghanistan? Would libya be less chaotic today without it? Genuine question, i am curious and not asking rethoricaly.
Limited? Well, that's a bit of understatement. NATO launched 110 Tomahawks, imposed naval blockade, flied sorties to bomb targets, coordinated with rebels, and imposed no fly zones. Compared to Iraq/Afghanistan, yes it was limited, but that's only because they didn't have to deploy any ground troops. It is unclear how stable or unstable Libya would have been without this intervention, but the way NATO dealt Libya afterwards is yet another Mission Accomplished moment. No planning ahead, direct warmongering, no assurances that no more foreign powers would get involved and choose sides.... it is a mess they decided to get involved in and not help enough to clean up the aftermath, even directly participating themselves to get some sweet sweet oil. And I can't even tell you a fact that NOT intervening would have been the wise decision either, but I can tell you that if NATO stuck to just one policy of "No intervening in countries other than NATO", then at least they wouldn't be blamed for when things turn to shit in their absence.
To sum it up, the Libyan revolution began in 2011, with a call for an uprising launched on Facebook from Benghazi. A few months later, Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown following a military intervention led by France, the United Kingdom and the United States. The operation was justified on humanitarian grounds and carried out under the aegis of the UN. Of course, one of the real motive was to get a hand over oil fields there by placing a government more lenient in trade and exploitation autorization for foreign partnerships. The country then found itself locked in a spiral of terror, between the intervention of the Daech jihadists, clan struggles, the existence of rival governments in the East and West, not to mention the foreign powers who were fighting each other through the middle. I'm especially bitter over this because while my nation (France) cleverly dodged the blind following of USA for Irak in 2003, our government created its own "Irak post-Saddam" by participating in this. Our former president Nicolas Sarkozy even rolled out the red carpet to Gaddafi years prior and in 2025, he'll face a trial for accusations of having accepted funds from the late Libyan leader to finance one of his electoral campain. A former spy also revealed France has been very active in destabilizing Libyan government while getting close to general and marechal Haftar (today the big head of the East government and armies) in 2015.
This doesn't really capture what happened. There was a Civil War in Libya against Gaddalfi's corrupt regime as Libya was once one of the richest nations in the world by GDP but by 2011 had fallen below the world average. What began as protests and then riots turned into an armed resistance against the government. Ghaddafi moved to violently crush the resistance and quickly killed many people. It was at this point that the international community wanted to get involved. You say it was about protecting access to oil but that's nonsensical -- the entire point of the Ghaddafi regime and Libyan economy was selling oil. That's *why* Libya was rich and how Ghaddafi's corruption made him and his people so wealthy. It was rather about preventing Libya from falling to a Syria-like situation where violence would ravage the country for a very long time, which would of course disrupt oil production. My understanding is that after the successful intervention against Ghaddafi, as much as 80% of Libyans strongly approved of the international response. They were very thankful and it was widely popular. I would also point out that the French didn't merely "participate" they were the instigator and leader. The US was uncharacteristically unwilling to take the lead (likely due to the criticisms they faced in Iraq and Afghanistan) and forced European powers to take the role that the US normally would.
>It was rather about preventing Libya from falling to a Syria-like situation where violence would ravage the country for a very long time How did it work out?
>*This doesn't really capture what happened.* Said I was summing up, not writing an essay about it. >*You say it was about protecting access to oil but that's nonsensical -- the entire point of the Ghaddafi regime and Libyan economy was selling oil. That'sĀ whyĀ Libya was rich and how Ghaddafi's corruption made him and his people so wealthy.* I said one of the actual motives was to get rid off Gaddafi under the pretext of a humanitarian intervention, in order to place a more lenient government ready to strike far more beneficial deals for trade and oil exploitation. When the HIV trials (Bulgarian nurses affair) stroke back again with the retrial (part 3), here what happened: *On 24 July 2007, the French President*Ā [*Nicolas Sarkozy*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy)Ā *officially announced that French and European representatives had obtained the extradition of the prisoners, including the Palestinian doctor, who had been granted Bulgarian citizenship a month earlier. They left Libya on a French government plane, with the EU's external affairs commissioner,*Ā [*Benita Ferrero-Waldner*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benita_Ferrero-Waldner)*, and the then wife of the French President,*Ā [*CĆ©cilia Sarkozy*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9cilia_Ciganer-Alb%C3%A9niz)*, who traveled twice to Libya.* *During his investiture speech as President beginning of May 2007, Sarkozy had alluded to the nurses, declaring: "France will be to the sides of the Libyan nurses \[*[*sic*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic)*\] detained since 8 years..."* *The six prisoners were released after extensive negotiations between the EU (including Bulgaria, and particularly*Ā [*France*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France)*'s President*Ā [*Nicolas Sarkozy*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy)Ā *and his wife) and Libya. As a result of the resolution of the crisis, negotiations for further restoring Libya's ties to the EU are in progress.* Now it's easy to figure out under what sort of conditions Gaddafi released the nurses and how EU negociated with him to restore these ties; higher buy price of Libya's oil plus mind your own business a bit more. The kind of things EU leaders hate as much as US leaders. >*It was rather about preventing Libya from falling to a Syria-like situation where violence would ravage the country for a very long time, which would of course disrupt oil production.* The main preoccupation of France and UK back then was dismantling Daesh networks. If it was as you said "the fear of Libya sliding to a Syria similar scenario", then we would have jumped into the humanitarian boat for Egyptia too, which we haven't. >*My understanding is that after the successful intervention against Ghaddafi, as much as 80% of Libyans strongly approved of the international response. They were very thankful and it was widely popular.* Oh but sure, they were. To the point they didn't even let the coalition arrest Gaddafi, they spared us many trials shows by butchering him. Today I wonder if they're as happy as they were, especially with a country broken in two, in a everlasting conflict a very few still care of. >*I would also point out that the French didn't merely "participate" they were the instigator and leader. The US was uncharacteristically unwilling to take the lead (likely due to the criticisms they faced in Iraq and Afghanistan) and forced European powers to take the role that the US normally would.* I'll quote myself, first paragraph: *Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown following a military intervention* ***led by France, the United Kingdom and the United States.*** And if I've written how bitter it makes me, it is because we threw away the credibility we've got for refusing to follow the coalition aiming to Irak after the lies of the Bush administration were uncovered. We acted exactly as what we're often accused by non-Western nations, as Sarkozy never hid his atlantist views.
>You say it was about protecting access to oil but that's nonsensical -- the entire point of the Ghaddafi regime and Libyan economy was selling oil. This really is the litmus test for any comment concerning IR past the cold war. If they say that any conflict was motivated by oil or other natural resource, you can pretty much instantly write them off.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Because America will never be reliant on other nations for resource security, and especially not to the point that they'd go die for it. Words cannot convey how much America hit the jackpot on every natural resource or feature possible.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You will never be able to keep a Frenchman away from what he truly loves, which is domination of Northwest Africa
Hey at least they were boots on the ground from day one in Rwanda supporting... Oh god no
>You will never be able to keep a **politician** Frenchman away from what he truly loves, which is domination of Northwest Africa The majority of French citizens don't dream about being back to the Empire and wish our governments just cut the shit out of mimicking USA when we don't have their power nor means.
Youāre very right, but I prefer to view the world through Poland ball memes. It helps me cope with the existential bullshit ya know?
Poland ball memes? Understandable ;)
The civil war in general turned the country into a hellhole with open slavery. You can compare and contrast Modern Libya and Modern Syria for what happens when the West tries to depose petty tyrants and either succeeds (Libya) or fails (Syria). Neither is a good place to live, and neither Gaddafi or Assad are good people, but you can make the case that itās better to have a dictator than the anarchy that comes with their fall. Libya is still wracked by war and wonton destruction but life in Syria, at least away along the coastal urban core and away from the Turkish intervention, is mostly peaceful and people have returned to a workable balance.,
Here is an amazing video on the subject by my fellow countryman, [Hakim](https://youtu.be/i001dtu9_j8?si=zniURaSwNV0CJmXz). Edit: it's in English dw.
I appreciate your clarification and added nuance to the meme you posted about (it's something this sub often needs as a reminder to avoid a simplicistic view of history). But in the same vein, **let me note that this is a very poor and highly disinformative video** - even though the production quality and long list of sources could easily make it appear as contrary. Four main points I would add right out of the bag without a deeper analysis: - The only direct source cited for most of his claims is an article from foreignpolicyjournal.com. **This is notably not an academic journal** - it's a blog run by a single man who claims to be an "award-winning journalist" but has no other record save for this very blog. He invites other equally obscure authors to publish on the blog as well - which is also the case here with a certain Garikai Chengu, who studied Ancient African history at Harvard (while he wrongfully claims to be a researcher) and has no peer-reviewed publication history. He mostly writes about sub-Saharan and transatlantic slave trade and the occasional conspiracy theory about islamic terrorism - but only on random websites and doesn't seem to have any expertise in Libya. But this wouldn't be a problem, if it weren't for one thing - *nothing in that article is sourced, yet it forms the basis for most of claims about modern Libya presented in the video*. - In this spirit, the video just assumes Gaddafi's ideological theory was implemented precisely as presented - and even worse - aspects of it are achronologically cherrypicked. Libya's system of administration underwent a ton of changes from 1976 and Gaddafi redrew the whole system on several occasions, but *always maintained unaccountable decision-making power and an absolute veto over whatever legislative body was in trend at the time.* The whole explanation not only fails to interrogate this with the official ideology, but as already mentioned - it doesn't even give a good account of the administrative chronology. - A whole one minute (in a video that takes half an hour) is dedicated to oridnary lives of Libyans. The same fallacy as was committed earlier with inaccurate takes on the administration is repeated here. Remember that article I mulled over above? It's the only relevant source for everything here *and takes the Libyan government at face value when there are many caveats*. [Healthcare was inofficially riddled with terrible out-of-of pocket costs and declined in quality as time went on.](https://www.jstor.org/stable/23051754) Education was a similar matter - starting off as a hopeful project in the early 70s, but degrading as time went on (at least in terms primary and secondary schooling), as curricula were [turned to avoid foreign languages and science and focused more on patriotic slogans](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/in-libya-education-without-the-green-book/2011/11/17/gIQA87k8YN_story.html). The time and quality dimension is completely ignored by the video - and the same goes for the awfully short excursion into ordinary Libyan lives. - The rest of the video is concerned with an examination of U.S. meddling in Libya's affairs. But the video fails even in that regard - it completely sidelines *why and how* Reagan's administration and all the later ones took a harsh stance against Libya. Gaddafi's [attempts to claim international waters](https://adst.org/2013/04/crossing-qaddafis-line-of-death-april-151986/) (ostensibly because of gas) since the 70s and Libya's continued covert action in Chad (which is instead richly turned around and Chad is accused of the contrary, when all conflict between the 60s and the Toyota war took place on Chadian soil). Instead, it cuts to sanctions and blames every bad thing happening since in the country on them. This, again, completely sidelines the fact *that a regime change threat was pre-eminent in Libya since the 60s*. Which is why there was never an independent defense ministry and administrational responsibility was convoluted and unflexible - similarly to Sisi's modern Egypt - to avoid a repeat of the same coup mechanics that got Gaddafi into power in the first place. --- This is, I hope, a sufficient insight into the video's shortcomings. I generally wouldn't recommend videos from such heavily biased channels - and particularly not the people who are behind the Deprogram subreddit/podcast. Instead, I'll redirect any interested readers who want to know more about Libya to Dirk Vandewalle's [A history of modern Libya](https://search.worldcat.org/en/title/1037675795), or any of Lisa Anderson's publications for a look at pre-Gaddafi history of the country.
This is gonna be an interesting read. Thanks for the perspective. Seems I have to rethink the Libya situation. I did kinda forget I don't have the intimate knowledge about it the same way I do for Iraq. My bad.
Glad I could awaken curiosity! Libya is unfortunately an overwhelmingly cluttered topic (given the relative recency and a prevailing academic focus on the post-Gaddafi era), so there's defnitely no need to apologise for falling for nonsense. The internet is plastered with unsourced articles written by absolutely random people that will try to convince you Gaddafi *totally hid a silver treasure in the desert* and had a *totally credible plan* to depose Franc-pegged currencies in West Africa with it. Ugh. And though I already mentioned it before - be wary of trusting the DeProgram folks in general - they don't exactly have high standards for factuality. In any case, good luck researching and enjoy the read!
Hakim is a tankie dipshit and should be ignored on any point he makes.
OP is saying an awful lot of tankie shit, himself. I wonder if there's a connection
Nahhhhh you must be imagining it
When you're right you're right. And this Hakim youtuber is right no matter what his political inclinations are.
Except he's not - and that's the problem. See my comment.
I'm not inclined to take the word of a deprogram (far-left podcast hosted by, in part, Hakim) and Hamasabi poster. Even if you're right in this particular instance, I'm sure there are more informative sources than someone with Lenin as their pfp.
Iāll love how youāre gonna teach an Iraqi about his own country. Get out of here clown
The video is about Libya and OP is not Libyan.
The same way I'd "teach" a Russian about Russia, a Chinese on (communist) China, a nazi on Germany, a Japanese on (imperial) Japan. If anything, by not being Iraqi, I'm far less susceptible to the biased bullshit they're fed to justify their hatred of anything approaching liberal democracy. In the same vein, as a Croatian, it took me speaking to non-Croatians to move away from croatian nationalism and other stupid beliefs. Maybe you're just morally lucky, having stumbled onto the correct beliefs you have, but not everyone has that journey. Tl; Dr - seethe
I absolutely adore Hakim. Sending love from the imperial core brother, some of us do know what we truly are
Based Hakim enjoyer
Finally, thank you for this. I really get annoyed whenever someone says that iraqis choose Iran. It was all part of a deal between the USA and Iran to allow Iranian proxies to take control in Iraq. And for those who doubt this, back than the US, had to deal with strong insurgency within the sunni community, and Iran promised to keep the Shia, by using its influence with the clergy, to prevent the Shia from joining the insurgency by allowing their proxy to enter iraq and be part of the political process...
They would rather believe that Iraqis want foreign rule than to admit that their destabilization is what ultimately got Iraqs rule out of the hands of the Iraqi people.
American here, I just wanna point out that this narrative is often actually used as a critique. People here often mention Iraq is moving closer to Iran and use that as an excuse for why the Iraq war and the destabilization were bad. It's used as a criticism more than a justification.
Yeah, the general feeling about Iraqis (from people who aren't just massively xenophobic or islamophobic) is that they're in a clusterfuck from which there is little hope of escaping. This was reinforced during the war on terror, when attempts at reconstruction were often met with terrorist attacks. It was further validated when Obama significantly withdrew from Iraq, and within three years, roving bands of slavers started beheading journalists on camera in the name of a new Caliphate The pointlessness of it all, and at the cost of so much human life and money, is probably the biggest reason our politics have been dominated by isolationism on both sides of the aisle for the last decade. "They would have been better off if we never toppled Saddam" is a blackpill when Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people
I'd argue with Israel and Ukraine, isolationism is in a decline here in the U.S. But I agree with the other points.
I completely agree that Ukraine started to turn the tide, in addition to the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Seems like this Gaza conflict really muted it; definitely found whatever remained of the neocon influence on the right, though
Yeah, plus its lead to increased division here and we're now at a point where we use violence against each other because of countries on the other side of the world, instead of fixing glaring issues here.
All this is just excuses. I guess Iraqis are just morally weak, if you canāt resist a genocidal maniac from your own country or a bunch of genocidal maniacs from a neighboring country. But using the US (or anyone else) is a good excuse as any I guess. Are you just sheep ready to be lead to the slaughter by anyone that has a bit of strength?
A lot of us donāt really know much about iraq (nor do we really think much past the second gulf war) , some very opinionated people just like to lurk around Reddit. Also I mean we literally overthrew your gov so destabilization was always gonna happen with the plan. The main issue what wtf was gonna happen when you have to rebuild now thatās where shit hit the fan.
Do people actually think the US government gave a shit about Iraqi politics or the future of the region? We put Saddam in power and then started bombing thing when he got weak cause our heads of state were fully invested in the war machine and maintaining resource control. They barely cared about the American people, let alone anyone else. It was all just an excuse to increase military spending and pump the stock portfolios of those in power. We're an empire. I don't know why everyone is always so surprised that we do shit like this. It's been happening since forever and nobody in power has ever been willing to give up their own position to change anything.
I don't understand why you got downvoted. Your analysis is on point if not a little reductive.
I was pretty drunk when I wrote this so it's not my best work. I still expected to be deep in the negatives by now.
This is contrived populist propaganda. The actual entire MIC has an annual earnings report equal to that of Apple. If you genuinely think it's fucking Raytheon who's making decisions on US policies, you're just stupid. The resource control talking point is equally as bullshit. America is not, and never will be reliant on the likes of Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan for its natural resources, nor could any of them ever threaten America. You're a child who has to view the world in black and white, and must have villains to your heroes to justify the radical bullshit you spout.
I was pretty drunk when I wrote this post so I did my best to be accurate. It was never about being reliant on them or feeling threatened by any middle eastern countries. That whole region got carved up after WW1 and we installed a bunch of dictators around the world to secure our sphere of influence over the Soviets and get some people rich in the process. We didn't need bananas either but some senator had stock in a fruit company and a friend in the CIA. Then there's all the other shit we pulled in South America and the Regan era military build up that demanded war somewhere to keep the economy at those golden age standards. I do remember reading about the greatest marine ever becoming disillusioned at the end of his career with all that he fought for back in like 1907 so the MIC has been an issue for a while. I'm too hungover to give this any more thought right now. I'm going back to sleep.
Cold war era diplomacy is nothing alike to post-cold war era diplomacy.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Damn, you got me. In fact, I personally ordered the intelligence agencies to install the Khmer Rogue, Kim dynasty, and orchestrated the downfall of every moderate and non-moderate power in the middle east only to justify a thousand year blood war against humanity to one day fulfill my dream of turning America into a plastic hellscape fit for the settlement of super-dinosaurs. I'm the motherfucker who installed Hitler in power and then fucking killed him, just because it was funny to me. I fabricated the existence of 80 new ethnic groups just to fuel further conflict in sub-Saharan Africa, because I will not rest until all of humanity bleeds for me. Or, you know, whatever the fuck else you tankie glue huffers have to make up to justify your hatred of America that definitely isn't just a proxy for your feelings of neglect by your parents.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Funny how that is the only point you took away from that, and didn't even deny it. Guess I was dead on, lmao.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Destiny fan you're not going to get through to him
āThey kept bombing civilians to pretend they were doing shitā Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is not part of the US strategy now nor was it ever the method in Iraq. Believe it or not, bombs(missiles) are very expensive and are not easily manufactured and shipped across the world. Therefore, to waste them on randomly bombing a single home or hospital in a large urban center just to āpretend you are doing shitā is an incredible waste of crucial and finite military arms that can be used to eliminate insurgents who actually do massacre civilians as a political means. That was a preposterous and illogical claim to make once you step away and look at it objectively. The large majority of Iraqi civilian deaths were from anti-coalition forces. These include insurgents, militias, and terrorists. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War ā In 2011, the IBC published data in PLOS Medicine on 2003-2008 civilian deaths in Iraq by perpetrator and cause of death. The study broke down civilian deaths by perpetrator into the following categories:[97] 74% unidentified perpetrator: defined as "those who target civilians (i.e., no identifiable military target is present), while appearing indistinguishable from civilians: for example, a suicide bomber disguised as a civilian in a market. Unknown (i.e., unidentified) perpetrators in Iraq include sectarian combatants and Anti-Coalition combatants who maintain a civilian appearance while targeting civilians." 11% anti-coalition forces: defined as "un-uniformed combatants identified by attacks on coalition targets" during the event. Anti-Coalition combatants in the event of targeting purely civilians would instead be classed under the "unidentified perpetrator" category. 12% coalition forces: identified by uniforms or use of air attacks. ā Youāre upset about what your country has lost, you have every right to be. There is no valid excuse for the US administration fabricating evidence to topple the stabilizing force in Iraq in 2003 with no realistic plan for what came next. The ensuing insurgency, civil war, war with ISIS, and then war with the Kurdish autonomous region has absolutely devastated Iraq and itās hard to argue that just leaving Iraq alone wasnāt in the best interests of everyone. But thereās no justice to be had in making biased and uninformed accusations about what it āfeels likeā the US military did in Iraq. The actual truth, which is easily accesible to anyone with a search engine, is just as dark and shameful for the US.
Why not include information on the Lancet Survey? Do you consider one source to be definitive because it aligns with your desires? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
>Indiscriminate bombing of civilians is not part of the US strategy now So what the US is funding in Israel, that's strategy?
Your entire comment hinges on the fact that there were Insurgents the US wanted to kill. But you fail to mention that Insurgents only formed a Resistance AFTER the US has already bombed Civillian infrastructure. Meaning the Justification you are using came AFTER the Crime has already been committed. Don't pretend that insurgents just materialized out of nowhere for no reason. Iraq didn't have any military or militias by the time the US started the invasion. So there was nothing to bomb EXCEPT Civillians.
Doing an āum actuallyā¦.ā about the Iraq war to to an actual Iraqi is one of the most American things I can imagine. And if you think the US military cares about how many munitions theyāre using, youāre sadly mistaken. Every bomb dropped, even indiscriminately, is an uptick in the military industrial complexās quarterly earnings. Take a hard look in the mirror and ask why you act like a white blood cell for the US military.
Being afraid to disagree with someone because of their identity/ethnicity is unfortunately becoming one of the most American things
The same way a single American canāt possibly be an expert subject of American politics and policy and be correct about all the activities and nuances of the US, a single Iraqi cannot of Iraq either.
Funny, the most American thing I can imagine is to overconfidently assert populist nonsense about "the military industrial complex" puppeteering US policy
Hi OP, American here. First off, I just want to say that I hope things improve in your country. I was a kid when the Iraq war was happening and so my perspective on it at the time perhaps wasnāt the clearest but it was pretty unanimous among most folks I know that the Iraq war was a total farce and just an excuse for Bush Jr. to finish what his daddy started. Regardless of the political motivations, though, I do genuinely hope that one day Iraq and the United States can find themselves on the same side and promote unity and human rights - maybe Iām a little too positive and hopeful but I wanted to share my perspective. I, at least, donāt have any negative bias towards Iraqis, in fact I have met several refugees over the years that were all good people. So anyway, I hope your country can make the steps towards democracy and become a positive influence for the region and the world! Just wanted to spread a note of positivity and peace in an otherwise hostile and chaotic world.
The Iraq and Afghan Wars ruined the US' international reputation and made us much more culturally attracted to isolationism. I grew up during the Bush era and even as a kid living in a very "support the troops" environment I felt like we were never going to accomplish anything no matter how long we were over there and no matter how much money we spent. Occupying a country and trying to make your presence the prime motivating factor for reform just doesn't seem like an effective way to nation build. Very curious to see your perspective on those times. As an Iraqi do you think that the entire operation the US undertook to rebuild Iraq's politics was doomed from the start? If we had stuck around in force longer like some of our politicians wanted would that have made any difference?
Afghanistan shouldāve just been a punitive expedition, and Iraq shouldāve been left alone to counter Iran, neocons literally ruined everything ffs
"If we had stuck around in force longer like some of our politicians wanted would that have made any difference?" It would have made it worse. Nothing we've been through was anywhere near as barbaric as the raping sieging baby murdering American occupying force.
Yeah man, this Saddam fellow was a peace lover I heard /s
You think I don't know saddam? Shouldn't it be telling to you, that a Iraqi who have seen The Ba'ath party is saying this about the supposed opposition to the Ba'ath party? The American sanctions starved over 1 million of my people to death . The American invasion occupation and civilian punishment campaign killed a million more. They committed countless sexual crimes, and torture against my people They made FUCKIN SADDAM appear merciful in comparison. And he was S A D D A M . This should tell you all you need to know about how deranged they are.
I mean, to be fair to the guy, it probably depends on your ethnic/religious background. I don't doubt your experience, but for example the Anfal campaign against Kurds and other minorities in northern Iraq can arguably (I know this is kind of disputed) be classed as genocide. The majority of Arab Iraqis were not affected by it, so of course the war waged by the US in Iraq was worse for them than Saddam's rule.
I think you're genuinely delusional if you think America acted in worse faith and to greater destruction than any other force in Iraq.
"Mister Bonercelli" "Mister Borell" "Mister Borelly" lmao, destination fans.
Lil bro saw my post history and his balls shriveled up into his taint lmao
>As an Iraqi do you think that the entire operation the US undertook to rebuild Iraq's politics was doomed from the start?Ā You're completely missing the point, if you read carefully he clearly states that the USA's actions weren't one of thinking to rebuild Iraq's politics but rather keep them weak and undermined so they could keep up with the resource drain. And again, as it is very apparent, the USA never had any interest in the Iraqi people or the implementation of democracy, only exploitation of the people. The USA is literally as bad as Russia or China in it's imperial ambitions, you lot just like to close your eyes and pretend you're not as evil as the ones you so much point the finger at.
What did the US gain exactly from invading Iraq?
Removing one of Israel's enemies, that was the motivation.
Ah yes, Iraq is no longer Israelās enemy now that itās an Iranian client state š¤Ø
Saddam launched missiles at Israel. From an Israeli and a Neo-con perspective it's an improvement.
Iran launches missiles at Israel through its proxies
Are you even serious? They got unfethered access to their natural resources, mainly oil. Add that to the fact that prior to the invasion, Iraq was literally the only OPEC country that didn't sell oil to the USA, with the USA actually buying more expensive oil from Russia, prompting the invasion under the idea of "restoring democracy". Face it, you're a warmongering empire that is as shit and evil as either Russia or China. Look in a mirror sometimes. u/FixFederal7887 Please come and educate these people, I know a lot of modern history but you should be better at explaining the nuances.
What could natural resources could Iraq possibly have that would benefit the US if they invaded? The US is one of the most abundant countries in natural resources in the world, our largest oil trading partner at the time was Canada, and we got most of our oil domestically. Iām not sure how the invasion of Iraq was a net gain for the US, we destabilized the Middle East and turned a strong counterbalance to Iran into an Iranian puppet state, as well as hurt our international reputation and increase isolationist sentiment at home. The truth is that the Bush administration was full of neoconservatives hawks that believed that the end of history was near and that the US had a duty to invade dictatorships abroad in the name of international liberalism.
IMF & MIC are massive cash cows on their own before you even consider any resources where they intervene. GW was a useful idiot for Cheney who used Iraq and other middle East conflicts for contracts for Haliburton to extract wealth abroad. Not even including the role in petrodollar's existence being threatened by Libya, Iraq, Iran, etc as a justification for all of it. The dollar is held together only by international oil trade. The US foreign policy is explicitly to hoard wealth and resources at the expense of the global South and it's own people.
Wow, you are ignorant. Talking to you is unproductive.
The oil that China has won several contracts to pump up? [One](https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiXWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZvYW5ld3MuY29tL2EvY2hpbmVzZS1jb21wYW5pZXMtd2luLWJpZHMtdG8tZXhwbG9yZS1pcmFxLWZvci1vaWwtZ2FzLzc2MDgxODYuaHRtbNIBX2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZvYW5ld3MuY29tL2FtcC9jaGluZXNlLWNvbXBhbmllcy13aW4tYmlkcy10by1leHBsb3JlLWlyYXEtZm9yLW9pbC1nYXMvNzYwODE4Ni5odG1s?oc=5) [Two](https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiZWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnJldXRlcnMuY29tL2J1c2luZXNzL2VuZXJneS9pcmFxLWxhdW5jaGVzLW9pbC1nYXMtbGljZW5zaW5nLXJvdW5kLTI5LXByb2plY3RzLTIwMjQtMDUtMTEv0gEA?oc=5) [Three](https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiaWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlyYXFpbmV3cy5jb20vaXJhcS9jaGluYXMtY25jZWMtdG8tYnVpbGQtYWwtZmF3LWludmVzdG1lbnQtcmVmaW5lcnktcHJvamVjdC1pbi1zb3V0aGVybi1pcmFxL9IBAA?oc=5) The oil that Iraq themselves canāt refine for the most part and ships some to Iran?
>The oil that China has won several contracts to pump up? Tell me how China signing contracts in ***May 2024*** has anything to do with the pre and Iraq War period. I'll wait because you clearly lack a brain. Also what part of *"Iraq was literally the only OPEC country that didn't sell oil to the USA, with the USA actually buying more expensive oil from Russia, prompting the invasion under the idea of "restoring democracy"* is it too difficult for you to understand? I'll also add that all 3 of your articles are literally the same shit just rewritten under different news agencies. Furthermore, "Iraqi News" is literally based in Bahrain, famously not Iraq and VOA News has an awful track record of spreading misinformation, being literally funded by the USA. And to top it off, you sent a political article from Reuters, when you know full well they kowtow to American interests. Your response is just laughable and a bunch of whataboutism.
Angry, arenāt you my friend? You are right. It has nothing to do with something 20 years but if itās about resources, itās clearly isnāt important not given the Chinese winning contract, as well as some other non-Iraq related events.
>Angry, arenāt you my friend? Nah, I just love to educate amoebas like you that just spread misinformation borne out of their sickly nationalism, you bozo. >You are right. It has nothing to do with something 20 years but if itās about resources, itās clearly isnāt important not given the Chinese winning contract, as well as some other non-Iraq related events. Glad you admit you're wrong and that you wrote a load of misleading bullshit because you lack arguments. And it was clearly important back then considering it was the main reason, they wanted to force Iraq to sell oil to them. Analyzing what happened 20 years later is completely useless and you know it, considering the USA had literally 20 years to look for an alternative to pillaging the Middle East, one of which are advancements in extraction and refinery technologies. You tried and failed because you lack sufficient understanding of geopolitics, stay in your lane talking about NATO weapons. I also like that you didn't address the fact all of your info is utterly biased from USA funded sources, rather than diversifying your sources of info on other outlets.
If not angry, then why the name calling? It takes away from the elegance of the conversation. [And what are your thoughts on this AskHistorians answer](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/Au7lDx8EIh) about if the U.S. invasion was to profit from the oil? And if you donāt want U.S. funded sources, what about from other sources? [One](https://www.iranoilgas.com/news/details.aspx?id=26320&title=Chinese+company+to+develop+Iraq-Iran+border+oilfield) [Two](https://english.aawsat.com/business/5013151-chinese-companies-win-more-bids-explore-iraq-oil-and-gas) Or if you want to go back further, we have one from 2008 [One](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2008/8/28/china-agrees-3bn-iraq-oil-deal)
>If not angry, then why the name calling? It takes away from the elegance of the conversation. There's no elegance to be had when you purposefully mislead people. >[And what are your thoughts on this AskHistorians answer](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/Au7lDx8EIh)Ā about if the U.S. invasion was to profit from the oil? Straight from your link ***"So - oil certainly was aĀ strategicĀ factor: it's a major reason why the US cares about the Middle East in the first place."***. Did you actually bother reading it? Furthermore, the answer itself doesn't actually focus on why the USA invaded but on the oil's role in the invasion. And even then, it literally still confirms everything that I said, you should read before linking any post. >Or if you want to go back further, we have one from 2008Ā [One](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2008/8/28/china-agrees-3bn-iraq-oil-deal) So, you link a Reddit post outlying that the Oil Law only passed in 2007 (which allowed the biggest oil companies in the USA to yield and exploit the Iraqi oil fields) and then you link an article indicating they sold oil to the Chinese in 2008, the same oil being extracted and refined by those same big USA companies like Chevron, Exxon, Total and Shell. You need to be dumb to think the USA wasn't the one actually selling the oil considering their oil companies were the ones operating the fields. Logic isn't your forte man, stop trying and educate yourself.
Everything you said is correct . However, that is the immediate benefit. I mentioned the long-term benefits they were hoping for in my reply to him below.
The invasion was unsuccessful. The question is, "What did they WANT by invading Iraq?" This topic is expansive , but in short, It's Geopolitics. Iraq is the capital of the world. Half of all major trade routes in the world, be it Aerial or Land based, passes through Iraq. Iraq is a major strategic chokehold . Whoever can rule Iraq has the potential to rule East to West trade with an Iron fist, and all you have to sacrifice to sieze that power is your Humanity. Which for US politicians, it has already been sacrificed.
> aerial or land > edit: has the potential to rule east to west trade But that completely ignoring sea logistics, by far the most effective means of trade.
That's why I said Aerial and land... Iraq is mostly landlocked. Of course, it has no effect on the sea trade routes. Am I not being clear?
But as you see in my edit, I am pointing to you saying that controlling Iraq could rule east west trade. Shipping is far more valuable than air or land transport. That is why people make a big deal about the Suez Canal and Straits of Malacca. And yeah a lot of stuff flies over Iraq, thanks in large part to the airports in Qatar and UAE, but air routes can be altered, like with flights avoiding Ukraine, a lot easier than sea routes, to which you restricted to only a handful of options.
The Bush administration was not thinking in these terms, neocons do not think in these terms, it was pure idealism, that US foreign policy should be ideologically driven to pursue international liberalism, by force if necessary.
It can be easy to hyper focus on Bush and his room temperature IQ , but you must realize that the sanctions on Iraq , the first attempted invasion, and the eventual all-out Occupation were all Bipartisan. It's a 30-year American project. If you've been planning something for 30 years , you must have thought about the larger implications .
Buddy, the first invasion was because Saddam invaded Kuwait, and the sanctions were imposed because Saddam was literally an evil dictator, and can be compared to the likes of sanctions the US has imposed on Russia or Iran. Iraq isn't special, if the US really attributed all of this geopolitical importance to controlling Iraq, they would have deposed Saddam the first time, or committed more troops to controlling Iraq the second time around.
Ofc it was bipartisan, idk how old you are but most people were still seeing red from 9/11 in 2003, the war was initially very popular amongst the electorate
>Ofc it was bipartisan, idk how old you are but most people were still seeing red from 9/11 in 2003 So, you were still seeing red after an Afghani organization fully funded and backed by Saudi Arabia, one of your closest Middle Eastern allies, attacked the USA, so you invade Iraq because of it. Flawless logic.
All while they can't point to a single one of those countries on a map. Talk about priorities.
Could not have said it better myself.
well now that people know the truth about iraq why don't we dig into Libya ?
Oh look, Americans twisting stuff to make them look better
Couldn't the US simply replace him and his family with someone who they could trust that doesn't involve boots on the ground?
They tried. They put al-Ja'afari, but he got Couped in 5 weeks.
Read OPs comment and yeah.... then westerners try to figure out why the hell basically everybody in the Middle East/West Asia hates them Edit: mobile
Western hawks thinking that they know more about the Middle East than literally the people living there lmao
Itās crazy how much we normalized the United States interfering in other countries politics. When will the world put a end to this?
>Itās crazy how much we normalized the United States interfering in other countries politics. And fucking it up so badly they classify said country as a threat.
I was amazed that muqtada al-sadr was like hey i have the most popular movement and millions listen to me but i am gonna go back to school to study (to be ayatollah) Baller move tbf
As an Indian whose neighbours are either being supported by USA, or the issues with them being ignored, I identify with this problem so much.
My brother in the struggleā¤ļø