If the Iraq War was wrong, why didn't the world unite to stop the USA?

Please treat other members in a constructive manner and abide by our Forum Rules at all times.
  • Especially if majority of the world was against it!? And no, I'm not talking about stopping it by protesting but actually stopping the USA by forming a coalition of nations, sending military forces to Iraq to defend it, blockading the USA and threaten invasion if it pursues war with Iraq. This could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and prevented terrorist groups from rising and save Europe and Canada from this mass migration that they are complaining about.


    So why didn't the world stop the USA and save the Iraqi people?

  • I protested it loudly at the time if that is any help. The thing is no one wants war but politicians still manage to get us all into them. They are often on account of resources. You have to consider the ominous prospect of the so-called friends you might collect for the same reasons. They also want your stuff and they often use your situation to get in and position themselves not so much so they can take it but also so they can stop their own rivals from doing so. That is what the military installations are for. Not for you, for their own ambitions against their rivals. You end up in the middle, the hapless prostitutes whose pimps are fighting each other over what they can get from you.


    This is not new. It's been happening throughout history. Humans haven't found a way to elect leaders who can trade instead of grab and who believe in Independent nations instead of masses of ideological slaves.


    If, and not when, a substitute energy source that is viable is found, your country will suddenly become useless to them and so you really need to think about what you might do then, rather than how many false friends you can get to fight historical enemies now. Oil rich countries will suddenly drop off the radar of big business. The reason why no one intervened in the horror that befell Zimbabwe after the Whites left is because Zimbabwe has no oil. All that pretense at humanism and left luvviness is just a foil for getting stuff and for damaging existing cultures so others can find inroads.


    Almost nothing at that level has any integrity. The people can protest against it but big business will crush them. Big business and religion. That is your problem today. Our problems are the far left and the new neo-fascist liberals who have decided that they are some sort of uber moralists and that they need to "change the world". World changers of this fervent disposition are as dangerous as imperialists and should be dealt with in the same manner you might chase a venomous snake out of your house.

    The vagabond who's rapping at your door

    Is standing in the clothes that you once wore

    • Official Post

    @please_answer Do you have any plans to create any other threads other than ones bashing America and talking of which, why couldn't this subject be put in your existing thread?


    Edit: Your topics are valid, just curious why you're interested in the "evil" of America above all the other evils of the world??

  • Do you have any plans to create any other threads other than ones bashing America and talking of which, why couldn't this subject be put in your existing thread?


    That thread is dead so here I am. And is there anything wrong with my threads?


    When people bash me, you know what I do? Ignore them. Perhaps these pro yankee group should do the same?


    Quote

    why you're interested in the "evil" of America above all the other evils of the world??


    Because everyone else does. Deep down, people want to experience a US free world.


    Also because the US is able to get away with it because??? They've got the money? They've got the economy? They've got what everyone wants? They've got their military?


    When other countries do bad things, well. Doesn't seem fair does it?

    • Official Post

    That thread is dead so here I am. And is there anything wrong with my threads?

    There is nothing with discussing the evils or otherwise of America, but we tend to keep similar topics within the same thread. Starting a new thread on essentially the same topic is generally frowned upon here as it could be viewed as trolling by other members and staff.


    I will likely merge your two threads, as we were already discussing Iraq in another thread, except we don't have a thread on the Iraqi invasion and it is a valid topic, but a historical one. So, your topic will be moved into the history forum.


    Because everyone else does. Deep down, people want to experience a US free world.

    No they don't. Why do you think that? Are you a Chinese troll?

  • I protested it loudly at the time if that is any help.


    No, it didn't. That is why I said on my description.


    And about that Zimbabwe event, I guess nobody cared. People obviously cared about Iraq with the huge number of protests that erupted all over the world.

    • Official Post

    Although this topic has already been mentioned in the OP's other thread here:


    If the US is evil, why hasn't the UK and the rest of the world united to destroy them?.


    This is my view on the subject.


    Firstly, no ally of America including Britain, would send a military force to protect a enemy country from America. That is just bizarre, but onto the main point raised by the OP.


    The majority of the world was against the invasion of Iraq, but what could the world do? America is the pre-eminent power on the planet, nobody else even comes close to them, including the Chinese, who seem to believe these days they are up to challenging American power.


    Lets not forget that from America's point of view, the invasion was legal. It was not Bush Jnr, but Clinton who created a law seeking regime change in Iraq and after 9/11, Bush took the opportunity to do it. Note the regime change bit... That's not what Tony Blair said to the British parliament as the reason for the UK going to war against Iraq, but that was Bush's reason. He made that explicitly clear, at least to begin with.


    I think the OP's question is wrong. It's not why didn't the world stop America, it should've been why did other countries join America in the war? And that is harder to answer.


    Remember the dodgy dossier and weapons of mass destruction that could hit British troops within 15 minutes. All a lie by Blair, dreamed up by his spin doctor Alastair Campbell. But before all that, Blair had been spouting about getting rid of Saddam years before the actual invasion and it was in America he was doing it.


    It is not so much America's actions that should be the question here so much as to why other countries joined America in the invasion in the first place?


    As far as Britain goes, was it that Blair that wanted to ingratiate himself with Bush, or was it that he simply believed in regime change, but then why lie to parliament about fictional WMD?

  • There is nothing with discussing the evils or otherwise of America, but we tend to keep similar topics within the same thread.


    Okay. Sorry. I thought that Iraq was an entirely different topic.


    So, your topic will be moved into the history forum.


    That's fine.


    No they don't. Why do you think that? Are you a Chinese troll?


    I have never thought off anyone who was against me as a troll nor have I insulted them. You don't agree with what I'm saying? Fine. You don't have to agree, in fact, you don't even need to read or listen to it. But let's not insult one another.


    And sir, I am neither Chinese nor Russian nor Cuban nor North Korean nor a Muslim nor a communist nor a lefties or whatever that is nor any country that is not allied or having great relations with your precious US. Not all US enemies come from enemy territories.


    As I have already pointed out before, I have come across worst anti-US remarks from your people, Canadians, Europeans and just these so called allies of the US. Have you lived long in Britain or did you just recently move there?


    Sir, come on now.

  • The majority of the world was against the invasion of Iraq, but what could the world do? America is the pre-eminent power on the planet,


    Yes, I've heard this "the world is afraid" argument a million times before. So, the world is not afraid to protest but the world is afraid to take action? This is how they get emboldened. Recently I came across an interesting argument: the world didn't stop Hitler sooner and look at what happened.


    But this one Canadian did say there is a silver lining to this: the more trouble they get themselves into, the quicker they dig their grave.


    Since you are moving this thread to history, I wonder, if you were as powerful as you were before and they did something similar, would you have stopped them? Didn't you burn their capital city once?

    • Official Post

    Yes, I've heard this "the world is afraid" argument a million times before. So, the world is not afraid to protest but the world is afraid to take action? This is how they get emboldened. Recently I came across an interesting argument: the world didn't stop Hitler sooner and look at what happened.

    There already is a thread within the History forum abut Hitler, you're very welcome to post your opinions on that topic there.


    As for the "world is afraid" argument, I never said those words, or inferred them.

    I have never thought off anyone who was against me as a troll nor have I insulted them. You don't agree with what I'm saying? Fine. You don't have to agree, in fact, you don't even need to read or listen to it. But let's not insult one another.


    And sir, I am neither Chinese nor Russian nor Cuban nor North Korean nor a Muslim nor lefties or whatever that is nor any country that is not allied or having great relations with your precious US. Not all US enemies come from enemy territories.


    As I have already pointed out before, I have come across worst anti-US remarks from your people, Canadians, Europeans and just these so called allies of the US. Have you lived long in Britain or did you just recently move there?


    do I a troll but I have come across worst anti.


    Sir, come on now.

    I'm not insulting you.


    You post two very troll-like threads, one of them incendiary, literally, wanting to destroy America.


    You've made your case, let's leave it there, but no more threads on the ills, or otherwise, of America please.

  • I don't know if it's hilarious or pathetic or just downright stupid to indulge these Middle-East Islam-hegemonistic mischief-makers (and that's flattering them). Their question is obviously rhetorical, or at least it would be if it wasn't so dumb and pig-ignorant.


    The first time around, weren't the Americans rescuing Kuwait who had been attacked by Iraq? For Iraq it was some bullshit about Kuwait's territory really belonging to Iraq. Of course, nothing to do with oil, ho ho! Nothing to do with Kuwait being up to their ears in the stuff. And of course, why would America care about a few billion gallons of oil? Such a crude (!) accusation when we all know that America are moralists first and foremost, where money is just an afterthought .... and the moon is made of cheese.


    Iraq's megalomaniac leader Saddam Hussein, plus his evil sons that make James Bond villains seem like pussy cats, plus his boast or threat of WMD, plus his financing, harbouring and encouraging of global terrorism ...... these factors may have had something to do with the 2nd attack, dontcha think?.


    And for George Bush's son, who sadly missed out on being a soldier in WW2 or Vietnam or any place else, but cut a fine figure exiting Air Force One in a Gucci combat flying jacket, plus having an intuitive instinct for knowing that there is more of chance of winning if one kicks a man who is already down; all of that that seemed to offer an easy green light for another invasion of Iraq. There was also the matter of taking care of daddy's unfinished business, so that America could get some boots on the ground, not least to look for those WMD - and secure the oil fields in case Iraq becomes self-destructive or bad losers - and help Iraq to recover after disposing of wicked Saddam and his cohorts - and of course, oil is just an afterthought for America (ho ho!) . Oh yes, says George Junior, there's also the 9/11 thing with those evil folk called Al Qaeda. Whaddayamean they're not from Iraq? Let's not get pedantic. Look, we're already in Afghanistan, where there's no goddamn oil and, the thing is, in that part of the world they're all mad, bad and hate America - all part of what we call the axis of evil, so let's put Iraq on our list . VP Cheyney strongly advises us to finish off what dad started, for the safety of mankind. Cheyney was CEO of Halliburton Oil Services before becoming VP (he resigned being CEO to avoid a conflict of interest - his shareholding in Halliburton is just a trivial detail!). The money that Halliburton made in Iraq's so-called reparations is grotesquely enormous.


    Morality plays a small part in decisions to go to war. The public's disapproval or concern over attacking Iraq was more about pedantry and posturing than moral principles, more about the uncertainty, fear and anxiety over the consequences of attacking Iraq. Unlikely to be fear of losing the invasion, more about the aftermath from a region overpopulated with mad buggers whose biggest dilemma is trying to decide who to kill next but who all agree that outside of tribal internecine wars, America is top of the list of infidels to destroy, with bleeding heart liberal Western Europe an easier first stage option.


    The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announced that the Bush Junior's war on Iraq was illegal. So what? That's the pointlessness of the UN; it gets in the way of uniting nations. So the UN gets ignored or coerced by the sheer heft of America, where its Western allies either fight alongside, in small numbers, sometimes just token support, or they just argue among themselves to justify their virtue-signalling, pseudo-principled non-participation. Besides which, Kofi Annan was hardly the UN's pillar of moral rectitude. His son Kojo was cashing in Kofi's UN connections, on a venture-scam known as the Iraqi Oil-for-Food Scandal. It became embarrassingly obvious that Kofi was trying to cover up his son's involvement in this fraudulent activity. Kofi was getting close to retirement so the UN avoided blowing up the scandal by letting him drift into oblivion at his own speed.


    The bigger question these Middle Eastern half-witted trollers need to ask is whether any part of their region - or Muslims as a force for Islamic values - would be any better off if there had never been any oil under their feet. Because once the oil has gone or the world has found better alternative sources or method of energy, what will they be doing and how will afford to do it? I'm not suggesting for one moment that Western values are ideal but compared with Islamic values they are the only game on this planet

    • Official Post

    The first time around, weren't the American's rescuing Kuwait who had been attached by Iraq?

    Indeed. But this is about the 2nd Iraq war, I assume. Every American hater forgets all about the first one. Good point!:thumbup:


    Iraq's megalomaniac leader Saddam Hussein, plus his evil sons that make James Bond villains seem like pussy cats, plus his boast or threat of WMD, plus his financing, harbouring and encouraging of global terrorism ...... these factors may have had something to do with the 2nd attack.

    Again, valid points.


    Each time Israel bulldozed the house of a Palestinian suicide bomber, Saddam gave the families of the attacker $10k as but one example of his destabilising influence on the region, which is why Clinton enacted the Iraq regime change law in America.


    The money that Halliburton made in Iraq's so-called reperations is grotesquely enormous.

    Everyone says it was the oil that was the reason for the invasion, but again I come back to the fact that it was Clinton who made it American law to change the Iraqi regime. After 9/11,George W simply took the opportunity to take Saddam out. Who was going to argue against America considering the circumstances of the time? No one.


    The UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announced that the Bush Junior's war on Iraq was illegal. So what? That's the pointlessness of the UN. It gets in the way of a united world. So the UN gets ignored or coerced by the sheer heft of America, where its Western allies either fight alongside in small numbers/token support or just argue among themselves to justify their virtue-signalling pseudo-principled non-participation. Besides which, Kofi Annan was hardly UN's pillar of moral rectitude. His son Kojo was cashing in Kofi's UN connections, on a venture-scam known as the Iraqi Oil-for-Food scandal. It became embarrassingly obvious that Kofi was trying to cover up his son's involvement in this fraudulent activity. Kofi was getting close to retirement so the UN avoided blowing up the scandal by letting him drift into oblivion at his own speed.

    Leaving aside Annan's side ventures, I do think the UN is relevant, or at least should be. But with Russia and China wielding their veto at any attempt to curb their blood thirsty ambitions, the organisation is largely an irrelevance now, unfortunately.


    Either we have some form of international rules that all countries live by, or we don't. Unfortunately, Putin and Winnie the Poo (the Chinese leader) aren't interested in any international based rules, but America and the West should be, otherwise we simply have chaos.

  • thanks for reading it. It's better with the typing corrections.


    Read an interesting article confirming my view that without oil under their feet they would be eating sand rissoles and stoning their women and (as Jon Snow used to keep saying until someone mentioned it to him) "... and all the rest of it"

    .

  • The first time around, weren't the Americans rescuing Kuwait who had been attacked by Iraq?


    I find it oddly strange that when I post such question, hardly any anti-yankee shows up but when asked to write down what they hate about the US, they claim they could write a book about it......

  • As for the "world is afraid" argument, I never said those words, or inferred them.

    I'm not insulting you.


    Little wing did and you don't have to say it or infer it, it is obvious; otherwise, they would have been stopped.

  • I find it oddly strange that when I post such question, hardly any anti-yankee shows up but when asked to write down what they hate about the US, they claim they could write a book about it......

    Probably because the world supported the Iraqi action, first to rescue Kuwait and then to finish off Saddam Hussein the second time

    Doesn't mean that the world gives carte blanch to everything the Yanks do

  • Several answers to that question


    1 Your premise is wrong, in that at the time it may not have seemed wrong to attack Iraq


    2 Hindsight - we weren't sure it was wrong until after the event and couldn't find WMD


    3 With or without WMD, attacking the menace of Iraq under Hussein was still a good idea


    4 How to do you "stop" America?


    5 It was America had the strongest reason to attack a mad bugger country in the Middle East


    6 The world seldom or never unites, unless against a common enemy, and even then only maybe


    6 QE Bones might have the answer if only I could figure out what he or she is saying

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!