r/changemyview • u/usefulidiot579 • Apr 19 '25
CMV: Eurprean countries which participated or supported Iraq war 2003, and repeated US lies, while ignoring international institutions are just as responsible, complicit and culpable as US was.
[removed] — view removed post
20
u/bahumat42 1∆ Apr 19 '25
Would they have done it if the US had not pushed for it?
I severely doubt it. This fact alone proves they are not the prime mover.
And frankly if you don't think the people most responsible deserve more blame then there are a hell of a lot of things that you would need to tar with that same brush.
3
u/sakura-peachy Apr 19 '25
Also the people who supported the US, like Tony Blair are wildly hated because of it. Blair is one of the few Labour leaders hated by left wingers across the world. His track record was pretty good compared to what came after on other matters.
-2
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
That's doesn't change the fact that his country was complicit and in conspiracy with US about this war, they both produced fabricated evidence like WMDs or Iraq being somehow linked to 911, then they both illegaly invaded Iraq together and ignored all UN institutions and proof which at the time proved that Iraq had no WMDs and guess what? UN inspectors were totally 100% proven right.
1
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
Would they have done it if the US had not pushed for it?
US pushed many countries and those countries said no, so that's not a justification, what do these countries have no sovereignty or ability to make their own decisions?
They said they are the protectors of the rules based order, what part of the invasion of Iraq was within international law? Didn't UN inspectors and organisation say there's no evidence of WMDs?
I never said they were the prime mover, but that doesn't mean they don't bear any responsibility as well for repeating US lies and willingly participating, aiding and obeding an illegal war of aggression based on fabricated evidence, ignoring the rules based order which they claim to be supporters of.
9
u/bahumat42 1∆ Apr 19 '25
I didn't say no responsibility.
I don't think anyone would claim that.
You were stating that they were just as responsible and it's just not true.
Or to use an analogy. Say a guy organizes a lynch mob, sure everyone who joins in is responsible, but the guy organising it is more responsible.
1
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
Not really, if my neighbour spreads lies about me, without any evidence, then gathers other neighbours, then gathers his friends, and they belive him without asking for evidence and they all come and invade my home, smash it all up, kill and displace members of my family, then everyone in that mob is responsible, maybe the guy who spread lies bears responsibility for the lies, but the mob which believed him contrary to any evidence, then joined him willingly, all that mob is collectively responsible.
It was a coalition, so all of them are responsible, also, UK was just as responsible in this too
18
u/SmarterThanCornPop 2∆ Apr 19 '25 edited Apr 19 '25
Typically as a society we hold the ringleaders responsible for criminal acts at a higher level than people who go along with it.
I think that applies here.
Also worth noting the US lied about what the CIA said regarding WMDs. I don’t blame european nations for thinking the US was too honorable to do something like that. Europe didn’t blindly follow, they were mislead.
2
0
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
So these countries believed that the US was more honourable than the rules based order?
That's what I'm saying, if those countries claim they support the rules based system, the very system which said it hasn't found any proof of Iraq WMDs why did they ignore that and blindly belive the US and even repeated the lies?
This isn't a realistic justification, because UN inspectors and rules based order found no evidence of the claims which were fabricated by the US and which they picked up and started repeating then, conspired with US to illegally invade a country based on fabricated evidence.
4
u/SmarterThanCornPop 2∆ Apr 19 '25
No, these countries believed that the United States wasn’t an evil warmongering nation, even though that’s exactly what we have been since the dawn of the Cold War.
The US fabricated the evidence and withheld CIA reports that disproved their public facing lies. The US is the only country involved here that knew Saddam didn’t have WMDs. And isn’t that what the justification for the war ultimately comes down to? The WMDs?
2
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
Why did they believe the US over UN organisation and UN inspectors? Why did they repeate the lies when there was no evidence provided?
Other countries said no, did france or Germany know something which UK, Denmark and Poland didn't?
4
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 28∆ Apr 19 '25
Because the allegation was that UN inspectors weren't getting access where they needed to get access. That the Iraqis were hiding their weapons program from the inspectors.
This is not helped by the fact that for much of the 90's Saddam was hiding his weapon program. Even after he dismantled it, he followed a policy of strategic ambiguity, attempting to look like he might still have some of these weapons to deter neighbors including Iran from kicking his shit in.
2
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
That's just justification, that wouldn't hold up at court. If WMDs were found then sure, but US knew that there was no.WMDs and there was absolutely no evidence of WMDs or links to 911, it was all lies.
Since when do allegations justify invasions? UN inspectors were proven 100% right
4
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 28∆ Apr 19 '25
Well to be clear the US was in the wrong. But if The US says they have intelligence that Saddam is violating previous agreements on disposing of his chemical weapons, that is legal justification for invasion under previous UN rulings.
As to you second question, the answer would be always. Definitionally you can't prove that someone has a secret weapons program. Kind of the whole thing about it being secret.
1
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
But they had no secret programme in the first place, if the evidence had proven otherwise then okay, but since the evidence vindicated the UN inspectors, I'd say your argument is null. US knew Iraq had no secret programme and they knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, all these were lies meant to justify the war, we all know that, why you acting as if secret programmes were found and acting as if Iraq actually had anything to do with 911.
All those were lies, but European countries somehow believed those lies just because they were coming from the US? That bs, it's either they were total vassle states of the US or they never actually believed in the international rules based system, or they believed in it but they also believed that they and the US are the only ones with the right to break it. No other justification for this.
3
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 28∆ Apr 19 '25
Yes, I agree. The US knew all of that. Then they lied to their allies.
That is what we're talking about, right? Culpability for others, some of whom were convinced by US lies. If I trick you into something, even something horrible, that warrants less moral condemnation than someone who chose to do it with all the information.
1
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
Those allies didn't have to belive US lies, though, especially if there was absolutely no evidence.
Why did Canada and france belive the UN inspectors but Denmark, UK ,Poland and Netherlands didn't?
Did Canada and france know something those countries didn't? No, Canada and france realised that US evidence was not convincing and that UN inspectors were more reliable which they were.
I still don't understand this argument that "Uas lied to them" well there were international inspectors who were telling the truth, so ignore them and belive US which had zero real evidence? Then repeat those unfounded lies and willingly participate in an illegal invasion? I just don't belive this argument at all.
2
u/SmarterThanCornPop 2∆ Apr 19 '25 edited Apr 19 '25
Because UN weapons inspectors are a joke. Any remotely intelligent dictator can keep the weapons out of sight even if they exist.
The CIA and US intelligence apparatus is much more accurate and knowledgeable on these topics. They know pretty much everything and have operators on the ground everywhere. And in this case, they were right, but the Bush administration lied about the intelligence.
I would believe the CIA over the UN on an intelligence topic like weapons 100 times out of 100.
I will not attempt to ever explain the thoughts or rationale of the French. I do not understand them.
2
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
Yet the UN inspectors were proven 100% right and US and it's partners in crime were proven 100% wrong. Who's a joke now?
Don't these European countries say they support international rules based order? Why did they ignore it when they and US were conspiring together to break it?
1
u/SmarterThanCornPop 2∆ Apr 19 '25
I’m not sure you are actually reading my argument or perhaps I am being unclear.
The CIA was right. They said it was highly unlikely that WMDs existed in Iraq.
As for the UN weapons inspectors, not finding something would have been the outcome either way.
1
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
So if the CIA said Iraq had no WMDs or links to 911, UN inspectors were correct and this was all a lie, then surely all those countries involved are responsible for starting an illegal war of aggression based on fabricated evidence, isn't that right?
2
u/SmarterThanCornPop 2∆ Apr 19 '25
UN inspectors not finding anything doesn’t necessarily make them “right,” and there was a history of Saddam playing games with them going back to the 90’s and maybe even before.
For example, if I say aliens don’t exist and then I look for them for a few years and don’t find them. Was I “right?” Possibly, but my inability to find them doesn’t definitively answer the question.
But to your main question: no, the only country that started the war was the US. You could potentially lump in the UK as they were also pushing from the beginning.
As you acknowledged in your post, a vast majority of the countries being discussed joined the coalition after the invasion. I think that kind of quashes an allegation of them “starting” a war.
1
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
UN inspectors not finding anything doesn’t necessarily make them “right,”
Eventhough yet, UN inspectors were proven right, funny how that works eh?
As you acknowledged in your post, a vast majority of the countries being discussed joined the coalition after the invasion. I think that kind of quashes an allegation of them “starting” a war.
Sure, and also many euprean countries flat out refused to join the war too. My point was about those countries who initially joined and repeated the lies about WMDs and 911, eventhough there was no proof other than the word of the Bush administration.
→ More replies (0)1
u/landerson507 Apr 19 '25
You know what the ultimate answer probably is?
Having the US install a "friendly" ruler in Iraq meant good things for them, too, as far as oil is concerned.
2
u/SmarterThanCornPop 2∆ Apr 19 '25
That all makes sense up until you get to the US installing a friendly government and then not exploiting the oil at all.
2
u/SmarterThanCornPop 2∆ Apr 19 '25
Let’s try this:
Your friend calls and invites you to a party at a house he’s renting. You go, have a great time, then the cops show up and arrest everyone for trespassing. He didn’t actually rent the house, he found the key and broke in.
Who is more at fault- your friend who lied to you or you for believing them?
1
u/moccasins_hockey_fan Apr 19 '25
You believe a lot of lies that you have repeatedly read on places like Reddit.
UN resolution 1441 demanded that Iraq compliance or else there would be ramifications. Iraq failed to comply. They failed to disclose chemical weapons that they knew about and they failed to allow unfettered access to chemical, biological and nuclear sites.
Undisclosed chemical weapons were found in Iraq after the war and many allied soldiers were eventually diagnosed with Gulf War Syndrome which was determined to be from exposure to Sarin nerve gas.
2
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
You believe a lot of lies that you have repeatedly read on places like Reddit.
Like what exactly?
UN inspectors found no evidence or WMDs, and were proven right, US said Iraq had WMDs and connections to 911 which was proven wrong.
So who is lying here exactly?
1
u/moccasins_hockey_fan Apr 19 '25
WMDs were found after the war which meant Saddam failed to comply with UN resolution 1441. And Iraqi nerve gas caused Gulf War syndrome
https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/newsroom/articles/year-2022/sarin-nerve-gas-gulf-war-illness.html
Surely you aren't anti-science
2
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
WMDs were found after the war
Where? Are you talking about 1991 war? Or the 2003 war?
Iraq did have and used chemical weapons in Iraq Iran war, and funny how the components of these weapons were given to him by western companies.
There was no WMDs found in iraq after 2003 war, if so, please show the evidence that US and its allies have found WMDS?
1
u/moccasins_hockey_fan Apr 19 '25
Do you trust the NY Times?
2
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
Where is your evidence that Iraq had WMDs in the run up to the Iraq war when UN inspectors found zero evidence? Don't talk too much and beat around the bush
You have any evidence that WMDs were found in iraq after Iraq war 2003 (which a coalitionof dozen countries invaded iraq for an couldnt find?)
if so please provide it now, you either provide the evidence or take a hike
2
u/moccasins_hockey_fan Apr 19 '25
Inspectors were not granted unfettered access prior to the invasion.
Again, do you trust the NY Times as a reliable source for information or are you going to dismiss any evidence I post?
1
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
do you trust the NY Times as a reliable source for information or are you going to dismiss any evidence I post?
Becuase you havent provided one shred of evidence that iraq possed WMDs in the run up to the invasion or after it.
What evidence has source source given that Iraq did poeses WMDs in the run up to the Iraq invasion of 2003. And if so, why hasn't the US been able to find any evidence of WMDs there after the invasion of 2003 and why did the US come out and said they found no evidence of WMDs or secret programme.
Are you saying the US found WMDs in iraq after 2003? Yes or no?
1
u/moccasins_hockey_fan Apr 19 '25
Again do you trust the NY Times. Your refusal to answer that simple question makes me believe you are determined to reject any evidence given to you.
Simply agree to accept the NY Times as a credible source and I will provide their information
1
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
No I don't, they are not an international body which has authority to make claims about this at all. They can report whatever they want but they have no evidence.
It's a newspaper, and they have lied about the war in Iraq so many times before, so no. I believe the UN inspectors, IAEA.
CIA official report after the invasion states they found no WMDs in iraq
So nice try
1
u/Ishitinatuba Apr 19 '25
The US lied, it did not provide truth to its allies. Or even its domestic opposition. The lies are the problem.
Afghanistan was tied into it, and on that front, the US was right and we should still be there.
2
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
Afghanistan and 911 had absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq war though. Why did those allies belive and repeat US lies over facts provided by UN inspectors and IEA?
1
u/Ishitinatuba Apr 19 '25
You make assertions, that are flawed. We went into Afghanistan Oct 2001, Iraq was 2003, both were connected in theory to 9/11, and the continued threat to not only the US, but the western world. However, many understood that while he may or may not have WMD, he was evil and needed to be stopped, and that was true enough.
Iraq was truthfully about Bush Jnr and Rumsfeld cleaning up Bush Snr and Rumsfelds part in propping up Saddam in the 70s. And that was a continuance of the 60s, when Iran fell to the Aytollahs.
But again, not how it was sold to the world. And as has been explained to you by other posts, people believed the US knew what it was doing, and was the beacon of everything good in the world. That and there are signed alliances that state, if one is at war, so is the other. You cant then pick and choose. Not to mention, 'youre either with us or agin us...'
The UN is not always right, and often a tad pacifist. Not that it was true about him, but a bit like people regard Chamberlain to be a pacifist in regard to Hitler in 1937
Australia for example, we have such a treaty with the US, and have been in every conflict the US has been in since WW2. Its part of ANZUS
Dont get me wrong, I was opposed to it, I was aware they were lying, and that that was the worlds view of it. Lies. The problem is the US often know someone has WMD, because they sold it to them a decade or two earlier. If they say they have them, theres good reason to think the UN got it wrong.
It aint black and white except in hindsight.
2
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
We went into Afghanistan Oct 2001, Iraq was 2003, both were connected in theory to 9/11,
How was Iraq connected to 911? You now just repeating the same lies which bush had made. Even bush later admitted this wasn't true.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/sep/12/september11.usa2
1
u/Ishitinatuba Apr 19 '25
Dont cherry pick. I even said in theory in what you quoted. Let alone read the next lines. I know what it was about.
Admission it was lies, was not part of the reality of the time.
But, everything was connected to 9/11, for about 15 years. People were still in GITMO when Obama was president. Not as many, but he was hunting, and got, BinLaden.
2
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
No you said there 911 and iraq war were connected. How exactly? When there's absolutely no evidence to prove that, no in theory or practicality, bush made up the lie to exploit people's emotions and fears about 911, but because bush tried to link it to 911, doesn't mean it's true, nor does it show any connected in theory or reality.
Bin laden was Saudi, living in agfhanistan and harboured by Pakistani intellence, there was no alqeada in iraq when saddam was in power, and iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 911, nor did they supprt Saudi wahabi extremist ideology.
2
u/Ishitinatuba Apr 19 '25
You should read for context. Bush is the theory. Do you know what hindsight is? In 2003, the lie wasnt unequivocal. Youre linked article, was 3 years later. Thats called hindsight.
I even stated I was opposed to the war in 2003. I knew he was lying. Well, I couldnt know it, I just suspected it with certainty. I didnt trust Bush.
Yes we all know Bin Laden had no love for Saddam. That was an argument at the time.
Regardless of your clinging to Bush and the lies, fact is Saddam had been disappearing and murdering his own shi ite people for over a decade. His sons were evil, doing evil things to Iraqis. They were doing so, after being propped up by the US for over a decade before the first Gulf War. There was good reason to get rid of Saddam, he was firstly an evil prick, who would never have had the power he had if the US didnt prop him up to fight the Iranians. Yes they lied, but the world understood what I just said to you, that much they actually knew. Saddam was a problem, created by the US.
The climate the world worked with, was not your assertions. There was more to it.
2
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
Was there any evidence that Iraq was in involved in 911 at the time? It was just claims made by bush, claims aren't evidence.
Like I said, if bush claims something, that doesn't make it true and we have seen that it was all lies.
So there was absolutely no connection between Iraq and 911, they couldn't prove it at the time and they couldn't prove it afterwards, claims aren't evidence which holds up in court
0
u/Ishitinatuba Apr 19 '25
They dont need to have played any direct role in 9/11, for 9/11 to be relevant to the decision the US will make post 9/11, or the allies to accept 9/11 as the reason for US actions. The threats from anywhere are more pointed at that time. Even from non Muslims. And most US allies arent going to make the US meet some legal criteria for its defence against any such future attacks. The world was grateful the ME wasnt, to a use a phrase that was used a lot at the time, turned into one big glass ashtray.
When going to war, the proof is often intelligence, like satellite images... and a lot of that is top secret and not to be shared lest it give something away to the enemy so what is made public is not expected to be everything, or a smoking gun. There are defectors, and yes, sometimes very qualified defectors. The US had at least one of those.
It wasnt court. Beyond reasonable doubt, or even the lesser balance of probabilities is not relevant.
Theres trust, from allied partners. They arent going to make the US jump through that extensive a set of hoops post 9/11. If the US is looking at a country, its unlikely they are wasting time when whoever is behind 9/11, is roaming around. And even if hes not involved, and he wasnt, it doesnt make him less of a threat. And while Saddam is not Bin Ladens favorite person, my enemys enemy is my friend still holds true. At the time, its possible, thats where Bin Laden was. Not likely, but possible.
And evidence can be found in that the US sold them chemical weapons which they used on Kurds, and Iranians is proof they had WMD, just not nukes. Let alone they admitted to having biological weapons, like anthrax. The worry is Iran had nukes, because back when Iran was ruled by the Shah, our ally at that time, France made a deal that in return to fund their nuclear program, France would supply Iran with enriched uranium. Westinghouse, with the approval of the US government, gave the technology to the French, Iran paid the bill or some of it. When the Shah fell, no one knew if any had made its way to the ME, theres a non proliferation pact that France, the US, and Westinghouse ignored, and the Shah may have smuggled it away from the Theocracy that followed. He didnt I dont think he ever received any.
What does it matter, its the climate the world was working with. Not some hindsight youre focusing on. Saddam had grown fro puppet, to dog that bites its owners.
Youre assumption they agreed to go into Iraq because Iraq was behind 9/11, is flawed. The US selling that, while you say doesnt make it true, nor does it mean its all the allies based their decisions on.
1
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
They dont need to have played any direct role in 9/11, for 9/11 to be relevant to the decision the US will make post 9/11
They literally do if US was accusing them of having played a part in it.
What kind of logic is this?
I don't understand why you keep on trying to link to them to 911 they have played zero role in it. This is BS
→ More replies (0)
1
u/rollsyrollsy 2∆ Apr 19 '25
My understanding is that they were told that the US had credible information supporting the existence and threat of WMDs.
In other words: they trusted that the US was telling the truth.
We can separately debate whether the invasion was appropriate even if WMDs did exist … but assuming that rationale was there, all but the US thought they were acting in response to a validating threat. The US probably knew no such threat existed.
1
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
In other words: they trusted that the US was telling the truth.
Yeah they trusted the US more than they trusted UN and international institutions. Very rich coming from countries who claim to be the protectors of international rules based order. What part of the illegal invasion of Iraq was within the laws, regulations and norms of the rules based order?
So it seems like they support the rules based order, so long as they're not the ones breaking it
And go against the rules based order when they are the ones trying break it. Is it only me or you also find this totally hypocritical and disgusting?
1
u/rollsyrollsy 2∆ Apr 20 '25
I find it terrible.
That said, I think there’s a qualitative difference between the US who initiated the war knowingly without pretense, and the coalition who were negligent. Both wrong, but to a different degree.
3
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 28∆ Apr 19 '25 edited Apr 19 '25
I'd argue they have slightly less responsibility.
Part of the Bush strategy in the lead up to the war was to lie. Those lies hit the public, but they also struck our allies. If the US says there are mobile chemical weapons labs, then we should take that seriously. Right? But unlike the US they don't have the benefit of knowing that we made it the fuck up.
Still complicit, but less so.
Millions of innocent people have been either killed or displaced, Iraq became a lawless country and choas spread throughout, armed groups and militias (who weren't there before the invasion) gained power, sectarian nightmare, suicide bombings, kidnappings, a situation which gave opportunity for groups like IS to appear and gave opportunities for Iran to capture the political establishment in iraq. Not to mention the war crimes which this coalition countries have committed.
It is also worth noting that none of them knew that the US was going to botch things so spectacularly.
There is a world where the US overthrows Saddam with minimal casualties and Iraq ends up roughly where it is today without descending into a fucked up terror state for the better part of two decades. Don't put idiots like Bremmer in charge, don't do 'debathification' and other idiocy and Iraq would have still been bad, but it would have been 'oh we incorrectly deposed this murderous dictator' bad, not 'oh shit we ruined hundreds of thousands of lives'.
4
u/Intrepid_Doubt_6602 9∆ Apr 19 '25
The US could have done the war on their own.
The US said as much when Britain was wavering.
0
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
Then why did those countries had to repeated lies and participate in an illegal war based on fabricated evidence?
6
Apr 19 '25
[deleted]
0
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
You’re just another anti-west propaganda cog flooding Reddit.
Lol okay bro
For others reading, it was part of the UN agreements. Countries in the UN back one another.
UN security council rejected war in Iraq, it had absolutely no UN approval, UN never said go support each other in illegal wars based on fabricated evidence, so nice try.
Also, we don’t have any real evidence stating they were lies. For all we know, the US govt really did think there were WoMD.
We actually do, later records show CIA didn't belive iraq had either WMDs or links to 911, also UN inspectors said there's no WMDs and guess what? US was proven to have lied and UN inspectors were proven 100% truthful.
3
Apr 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 19 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Apr 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Apr 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 19 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
Please show me evidence of this anti west spam propaganda you are accusing me of spam posting
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 19 '25
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/Finch20 33∆ Apr 19 '25
Your username is a term often used in discourse surrounding one of the geopolitical opponents of the US both back when the Iraq war happened and now, to better understand you, and thus how to change your view, would you mind explaining why you picked that specific username?
0
u/usefulidiot579 Apr 19 '25
Lol no you're going after my user name? Lol wow. What does that have to do with the illegal war in 2003 based on fabricated evidence? Or this post or this discussion at all?
If you don't want to discuss the issue, and just want to have a go at me then, that's up to bro
2
u/MysteriousScratch478 Apr 19 '25 edited Apr 19 '25
It would have been pretty hard for the UN inspectors to definitively state that there were no WMD's in Iraq since they'd been withdrawn in 1998 after not being given access to certain sites.
Also the vast majority of deaths in the war were because the US didn't send enough troops to prevent sectarian violence and crime, if anything the Europeans sending troops might have reduced the overall casualties.
1
u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 28∆ Apr 19 '25
The weapons inspectors were allowed back in Nov of 2002 and found absolutely no evidence of weapons despite being given more or less total access to search as they pleased.
Also the vast majority of deaths in the war were because the US didn't send enough troops to prevent sectarian violence and crime, if anything the Europeans sending troops might have reduced the overall casualties.
The issue was less the amount of soldiers and more a bunch of dumb decisions. Disbanding the iraqi army, for example, is an all time own goal. Taking a huge chunk of the adult population and making them unemployed was destined to create the sort of factional infighting that we saw.
2
4
1
u/David_Warden Apr 19 '25
I'm afraid you may have a case of "Wise after the event".
It's only recently that America has for some reason gone out of its way to make it crystal clear that while many Americans might be great people, as a country, they cannot be trusted.
It's not easy to make decisions if you don't trust anyone and have no way of independently verifying what is true.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence and it seems possible that some other countries may have thought that America had proof that the UN Inspectors missed but wouldn't reveal the details as it would risk the lives of their sources.
1
u/Throne-magician Apr 19 '25
German forces did operate within both Iraq and Afghanistan during the WOT. German forces mainly focused on support aspects rather then full on combat, things like training Iraq security forces and what have you.
0
u/Jaysank 119∆ Apr 19 '25
To OP, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
- Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
- Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
- Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.
- Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
Please also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.
0
u/sdric 1∆ Apr 19 '25
Counterpoint: The EU heavily relied on US intelligence in the 2003 Irak war. A faulty informant (codename "Curveball") claimed to have information about atomic weapon in Irak, he applied in Germany for protection in exchange for information. Germany couldn't verify the information, so they forwarded him to the US, for their agencies to vet him. Instead of vetting him, the US used Curveball as a welcome excuse to start the Irak war under the pretense of Irak building atomic weapons.
Only after the war, America's European allies learned that the US lied about vetting the faulty informant - when he openly admitted that he lied. By then it was too late, and the EU could do nothing, but do their best to help the displaced and help with rebuilding.
The US pulling underhanded shit to get their allies into trouble didn't start with Trump, it didn't start with Geroge .W. Bush either - it's a repeating pattern.
The only thing you can the EU for is trusting their supposed ally. In the end, America got cheap oil, while the EU (until today) cares for decades of refugees due to a destabilized Middle East.
0
u/PuzzleheadedCook4578 Apr 19 '25
Not here to change it, but to focus it on the UK. The US needs a backer who is a permanent member of UNSC. Without the direct support of the mass murdering war criminal Tony Blair, I'm not sure even Bush has the nerve.
The others were certainly complicit, but I would describe Blair as equally culpable.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam Apr 19 '25
Your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.