Why no sanctions against the U.S. when they invaded Iraq ?

[rascal]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-no-economic-sanctions-against-the-us/31802

[boutons_deux]

and why weren't the Repugs calling their useful idiot dubya feckless and dickless when Russia and Georgia were going at it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Georgia%E2%80%93Russia_crisis

[pgardn]

We were actually the ones using sanctions against Iraq. And trying get them to agree to weapon inspections. Neither worked and we were very frightened they had WMD's. We relied heavily on faulty British intelligence.( The fact that Saddam would not let weapons inspectors in was a huge turning point) Remember that this was not that far removed from 9/11. Practically the entire world allowed us to go in and crush the Taliban in Afghanistan as they refused to help with Bin Laden. Iraq got linked as a grave threat.

People totally forget the context of the times.

Well of course we now see how faulty the reasoning and facts were now. So we used the democracy card with both countries as it was clear Iraq was not loaded with Nukes or much else, and Afghanistan was of course a training ground for more 9/11's so let's set up a democracy there also.

We have not yet invaded Cuba and taken over because Guantanamo is under threat. We have not invaded Puerto Rico because we know many people there are being threatened because they voted FOR becoming a US state.

[ElNono]

We were actually the ones using sanctions against Iraq. And trying get them to agree to weapon inspections. Neither worked and we were very frightened they had WMD's. We relied heavily on faulty British intelligence.( The fact that Saddam would not let weapons inspectors in was a huge turning point) Remember that this was not that far removed from 9/11. Practically the entire world allowed us to go in and crush the Taliban in Afghanistan as they refused to help with Bin Laden. Iraq got linked as a grave threat.

People totally forget the context of the times.

Well of course we now see how faulty the reasoning and facts were now. So we used the democracy card with both countries as it was clear Iraq was not loaded with Nukes or much else, and Afghanistan was of course a training ground for more 9/11's so let's set up a democracy there also.

We have not yet invaded Cuba and taken over because Guantanamo is under threat. We have not invaded Puerto Rico because we know many people there are being threatened because they voted FOR becoming a US state.

I remember I thought it was BS back then too, not sure how the context was much different... the UN resolutions we attributed to the unilateral invasion were those issued in the Desert Storm invasion from Dubya Sr.

As a matter of fact, we went to the UN seeking a military resolution with Powell running that dog & pony show and we did not get it. Not that anybody was going to stop dubya.

[Wild Cobra]

Why does the UN not worry about what Iraq was doing, but decided to blow the holy hell out of Libya?

[pgardn]

I remember I thought it was BS back then too, not sure how the context was much different... the UN resolutions we attributed to the unilateral invasion were those issued in the Desert Storm invasion from Dubya Sr.

As a matter of fact, we went to the UN seeking a military resolution with Powell running that dog & pony show and we did not get it. Not that anybody was going to stop dubya.

Do you live in New York?

It was not at all clear to me why Iraq would not let weapon inspectors in at the time. And we find out later that Powell got lied to.

The Democrats as a whole were also scared to death. They did not want to be blamed for a security lapse. 9/11 was still firmly imbedded.

[ElNono]

Do you live in New York?

It was not at all clear to me why Iraq would not let weapon inspectors in at the time.

I'm in NJ, 40 mins away from NY. Iraq eventually did let weapons inspectors in before the invasion, and they cleared them. Which made the unilateral invasion even more BS. IMO, it was clear to me the whole UN thing was a show to see if they could convince other countries to join in, and the reality is that it didn't work (the original invasion coalition was just 5 countries: US, UK, Australia, Denmark and Poland).

[pgardn]

I'm in NJ, 40 mins away from NY. Iraq eventually did let weapons inspectors in before the invasion, and they cleared them. Which made the unilateral invasion even more BS. IMO, it was clear to me the whole UN thing was a show to see if they could convince other countries to join in, and the reality is that it didn't work (the original invasion coalition was just 5 countries: US, UK, Australia, Denmark and Poland).

They did not let them into close to all the sites. And we went in with a huge amount of equipment to find WMDs. That's a major reason we know we were lied to.

Count yourself one of the few that saw it all so clearly.

[ElNono]

Noticed you edited the post after I answered. Dems at the time didn't want to be labeled "soft on terror", so they signed off anything. That doesn't mean the invasion wasn't BS though. The fact that allies like Italy, Spain, France and Germany would remain on the sidelines during the invasion really tells you they didn't buy into the smoke and mirrors. A good portion of America at the time didn't buy it either, IMO.

[ElNono]

They did not let them into close to all the sites. And we went in with a huge amount of equipment to find WMDs. That's a major reason we know we were lied to.

Count yourself one of the few that saw it all so clearly.

Like I said in my post above, it wasn't few. Our most important allies didn't buy it either. The whole "mobile chemical weapons" photoshops were poorly done.

[pgardn]

Noticed you edited the post after I answered. Dems at the time didn't want to be labeled "soft on terror", so they signed off anything. That doesn't mean the invasion wasn't BS though. The fact that allies like Italy, Spain, France and Germany would remain on the sidelines during the invasion really tells you they didn't buy into the smoke and mirrors. A good portion of America at the time didn't buy it either, IMO.

That's because some like France were already displeased with Afghanistan. Germany... Uhhh they have very good reasons.

[ElNono]

That's because some like France were already displeased with Afghanistan. Germany... Uhhh they have very good reasons.

Yet, some of those countries joined later on to stabilize the country post-invasion...

[pgardn]

Like I said in my post above, it wasn't few. Our most important allies didn't buy it either. The whole "mobile chemical weapons" photoshops were poorly done.

No it's not that they did not buy it, they did not buy Force. Europe has always been reluctant. They have been through too much.

[pgardn]

Yet, some of those countries joined later on to stabilize the country post-invasion...

Which is why they were so reluctant about Iraq along with their huge economic interests in Iraq.

[ElNono]

No it's not that they did not buy it, they did not buy Force. Europe has always been reluctant. They have been through too much.

You mean like France and Syria? No, the invasion was poorly sold. Afghanistan made sense up to a point because you could point to the Taliban. Iraq made no sense. Plus it's not like all these other countries don't have intelligence services too, they know what's up.

[pgardn]

You mean like France and Syria? No, the invasion was poorly sold. Afghanistan made sense up to a point because you could point to the Taliban. Iraq made no sense. Plus it's not like all these other countries don't have intelligence services too, they know what's up.

Their intelligence is not even comparable to the US and Britain.

[ElNono]

Which is why they were so reluctant about Iraq along with their huge economic interests in Iraq.

No they joined because after the war you have a huge humanitarian clusterfuck, and these countries provide troops for UN humanitarian missions. As a matter of fact, Spain was so disgusted with the ethnic cleansing going on post-invasion, that they eventually withdrew their troops again. The whole thing was a major power trip, and left a lasting poor image of America overseas. Not unlike the lasting image dubya left on the country after going away.

[pgardn]

You mean like France and Syria? No, the invasion was poorly sold. Afghanistan made sense up to a point because you could point to the Taliban. Iraq made no sense. Plus it's not like all these other countries don't have intelligence services too, they know what's up.

No troops in Syria. You should have said like France and Africa. Where France has economic interests.

[pgardn]

No they joined because after the war you have a huge humanitarian clusterfuck, and these countries provide troops for UN humanitarian missions. As a matter of fact, Spain was so disgusted with the ethnic cleansing going on post-invasion, that they eventually withdrew their troops again. The whole thing was a major power trip, and left a lasting poor image of America overseas. Not unlike the lasting image dubya left on the country after going away.

UN troops are a totally different beast. Most of the time they have to call in to defend themselves. And they are not going to carry out any offensive missions.

[ElNono]

Their intelligence is not even comparable to the US and Britain.

I would agree with that, but they're also not amateurs. Some of these countries did have interests in Iraq, and would know if chemical trucks were roaming in the country.

Also, so much for being reluctant to use the military. France wake up one day looking for allies to invade Syria. Imagine that.

[ElNono]

No troops in Syria. You should have said like France and Africa. Where France has economic interests.

France was putting together a coalition to invade Syria. Including troops. France actually provided troops post-invasion in Iraq.

Europe isn't reluctant to use their troops, seeing they do provide troops all the time. Except when we alleged some bullshit to start an invasion. That time they decided against it.

[pgardn]

It may have been a power trip.
But these kind of trips are more likely to happen if buildings in Paris, Munich, or London get blown up by planned attacks.
I firmly believe 9/11 had us scared and of course very full of revenge.

[ElNono]

UN troops are a totally different beast. Most of the time they have to call in to defend themselves. And they are not going to carry out any offensive missions.

That's the whole point. A country that's reluctant to provide troops just don't sends any kind of troops. All those troops, UN or otherwise, still put their heads on the line.

[pgardn]

France was putting together a coalition to invade Syria. Including troops. France actually provided troops post-invasion in Iraq.

Europe isn't reluctant to use their troops, seeing they do provide troops all the time. Except when we alleged some bullshit to start an invasion. That time they decided against it.

They send in tiny troop amounts in the guise of the UN? Germany has very strict rules about the use of troops and is the biggest player in Europe. Europe is much more judicious with the use of violence imo.

[ElNono]

It may have been a power trip.
But these kind of trips are more likely to happen if buildings in Paris, Munich, or London get blown up by planned attacks.
I firmly believe 9/11 had us scared and of course very full of revenge.

Spain had trains bombed in Madrid too. Did they went in a range of anger and invaded Morocco? No. It's an excuse, IMO.

I'm only speaking for myself, BTW. Just my impression.

[ElNono]

They send in tiny troop amounts in the guise of the UN? Germany has very strict rules about the use of troops and is the biggest player in Europe. Europe is much more judicious with the use of violence imo.

IIRC, Germany didn't even provide troops post-invasion. Italy and France certainly did. We have a lot of infrastructure in those countries. Italy has a big base that's very important for operations. They also provided a bunch of troops once the Saddam statue was down and we didn't know what to do next.

[pgardn]

That's the whole point. A country that's reluctant to provide troops just don't sends any kind of troops. All those troops, UN or otherwise, still put their heads on the line.

Sure they do. But not as a part of a military operation to aid in the invasion of a country like Britain did in Iraq. They are UN peacekeepers. France supplied non UN troops in Afghanistan, ie French Military force.

[ElNono]

Sure they do. But not as a part of a military operation to aid in the invasion of a country like Britain did in Iraq. They are UN peacekeepers. France supplied non UN troops in Afghanistan, ie French Military force.

And France was all in going into Syria. So they're not actually reluctant when they buy into what you're selling, which is the point I'm trying to make. Italy also sent non-UN troops into Afghanistan AND Iraq. But post-invasion, because they wouldn't buy into the invasion to begin with.

[ElNono]

Going back to the OP, Iraq will likely get back into the mess it was before we were there. They're just going to have millions death/displaced thanks to the conflict, and a reinforced hate for America. The whole 'sanctions' thing is indeed hypocritical, but we knew that a long time ago.

[pgardn]

Spain had trains bombed in Madrid too. Did they went in a range of anger and invaded Morocco? No. It's an excuse, IMO.

I'm only speaking for myself, BTW. Just my impression.

Britain has had the IRA blow up all kinds of things and they did not invade Ireland.

It's not quite the same type of long historical bad blood.

And no problem, good discussion. We all have our impressions.

[ElNono]

Britain has had the IRA blow up all kinds of things and they did not invade Ireland.

It's not quite the same type of long historical bad blood.

And no problem, good discussion. We all have our impressions.

The UK had the buses blown by these same guys later on. But Britain and the US are military interchangeable. What we say, goes, and vice-versa. That's why I pointed to Spain (which also had an incident with these same dudes), but it's much more independent.

[pgardn]

And France was all in going into Syria. So they're not actually reluctant when they buy into what you're selling, which is the point I'm trying to make. Italy also sent non-UN troops into Afghanistan AND Iraq. But post-invasion, because they wouldn't buy into the invasion to begin with.

France was in on Afghanistan as well but soured quickly. Britain is really the only European country that can handle long conflicts in the name of NATO. We too have become much more reticent. Even without a long history of war after war. I expect our mentality to be a bit more passive will wane however. Time heals, even for the propensity to use violence.

[pgardn]

The UK had the buses blown by these same guys later on. But Britain and the US are military interchangeable. What we say, goes, and vice-versa. That's why I pointed to Spain (which also had an incident with these same dudes), but it's much more independent.

Spain is a very shaky country still, the Basque separatists weigh heavily upon them.

[pgardn]

The UK had the buses blown by these same guys later on. But Britain and the US are military interchangeable. What we say, goes, and vice-versa. That's why I pointed to Spain (which also had an incident with these same dudes), but it's much more independent.

Sort of I guess. We did not want to have much to do with the Falkland Islands. Not that there was much to be done.

[ElNono]

France was in on Afghanistan as well but soured quickly. Britain is really the only European country that can handle long conflicts in the name of NATO. We too have become much more reticent. Even without a long history of war after war. I expect our mentality to be a bit more passive will wane however. Time heals, even for the propensity to use violence.

The problem with Iraq is that it wasn't really a NATO operation. And the fact that we went to the UN with a shitty lie didn't help. We already knew China and Russia were going to go thumbs down, that's always a given, but out of that meeting, only the UK (obviously) was the only country outwardly expressing support. You might not agree, but that invasion was amateur hour, IMO (not in the execution, but on the long term planning and selling).

As far as America, I think people in general got tired of the neocons/warhawks. Don't know how long it's going to last, but like I said earlier, I think people underestimate how lasting is the damage dubya did, both to his party and on foreign relations.


Spain is a very shaky country still, the Basque separatists weigh heavily upon them.

They actually pretty much dismantled ETA. They have other problems now, mostly economic and there's still some non-violent secession talk which is pretty common from them.


Sort of I guess. We did not want to have much to do with the Falkland Islands. Not that there was much to be done.

The US was fairly involved in intelligence gathering, through Pinochet in Chile. Militarily, the UK didn't need much help, tbh.

[boutons_deux]

They actually pretty much dismantled ETA. They have other problems now, mostly economic and there's still some non-violent secession talk which is pretty common from them.

The US was fairly involved in intelligence gathering, through Pinochet in Chile. Militarily, the UK didn't need much help, tbh.

Iraq was a pure, 100% US operation. Any other countries were window dressing.

UK couldn't have done the Falklands without US fueling its ships. US won the Falklands "war" as much as UK did.

Spain, like USA, Iceland, Ireland, has a Banksters crisis. After Geman $Bs pumped into the Spanish property bubble, made their $Bs, it crashed, then the Germans demanded brutal austerity in Spain.

Most Americans don't know what "neo-cons" are, and certainly don't know what their policies are, but they certainly are tired of wasting 1000s of (US) lives (foreign lives don't count) and losing $Ts while losing bullshit Repug wars.

[pgardn]

Probably should not even mention Spain as far as the ability to project a military force is concerned. It was a colonial power so the tendency is put them on the list.

[pgardn]

Iraq was a pure, 100% US operation. Any other countries were window dressing.

UK couldn't have done the Falklands without US fueling its ships. US won the Falklands "war" as much as UK did.



Of course it was. So was Afghanistan from an inception point of view. Do you think France was going to go after the Taliban to give up Bin Laden on its own?

Some have stated the British needed help and of course they got it. But they could have eventually got the job done alone. And they would have. It would have taken longer and been tougher but Argentina??? What the hell was Argentina going to do in the long run? It was a silly token invasion to begin with over so little. That's why the British got help, everyone wanted the silly thing to end as quickly as possible.

[DMX7]

BAMF ... that's why.

[boutons_deux]

btw, Rachel Maddow has a new show tonight on the war-criminal Repugs lying USA into Iraq

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-we-did-it

[EVAY]

I think that the OP is a good one. I never did understand why we got away with the invasion of Iraq. We were lied to as a nation. France kept saying "Let the weapons inspectors do their work". Cheney and W didn't want to wait. They used the nation's fear of 9/11 to do something that they wanted to do before 9/11 ever happened. It was a bad move on our part. And our treasury and our young people paid a terrible price for it.

[boutons_deux]

"I never did understand why we got away with the invasion of Iraq."

US was scared shitless after 9/11, and the Repugs exploited the confidence NAIVE confidence, trust in the Repugs , and the solidarity of the world with USA after 9/11, in a time of crisis to invade Iraq while switching resources from Afghanistan.