You don't need to ask us, you can just read about it.

I should say upfront that while everyone today considers the US-led intervention a huge blunder for many reasons including humanitarian, Iraq gov at the time was not at all something people sympathized with, and was widely considered to be corrupt, bullying, aggressive to neighbors, etc. Iraq invading Kuwait in the 90s is a closer parallel to Russia invading Ukraine than anything involving the US. (Iraq literally claimed that Kuwait had always been an integral part of Iraq and only became an independent nation due to the interference of the British gov)

At the time there were sanctions on Iraq, that had been there since the 1990s because of that invasion, and for perceived human rights violations. The US at the time considered these sanctions no longer particularly effective.

The US (well, coalition led by the US) invasion was based on faulty/fraudulent premises, but the goals were still ostensibly humanitarian, and the nature of the WMD talk was not proved to be faulty until years later. At the time by failing to disarm and submit to weapons inspections, Iraq was in violation of U.N. Resolutions 660 and 678, and the U.S. could legally (whatever that means) compel Iraq's compliance through military means.

If you are actually interested, you should probably read at least:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing

> and the nature of the WMD talk was not proved to be faulty until years later.

The international experts on the ground would probably not agree with that, as they were clearly stating there were no WMDs from the very beginning.

> The international experts on the ground would probably not agree with that, as they were clearly stating there were no WMDs from the very beginning.

They didn't state that there no WMD, but they did refute many of the US/UK claims of specific evidence of WMD. (Some of which the Western press had actually published the receipts on, like the supposed mobile WMD labs that weren't WMD labs, and that the US and UK especially knew weren't WMD labs because the UK has sold them to Iraq.)

They also reported not finding evidence of current WMD or WMD work, but that the Iraqis were not in all aspects fully cooperative.

And the internal UK memos about how the intelligence was being fixed around the policy were also published by the press in the runup to war, among other internal leaks about the way support for the war was being manufactured by propaganda.

> They also reported not finding evidence of current WMD or WMD work, but that the Iraqis were not in all aspects fully cooperative.

Inspection work restarted just a few months before the war. It was an absurd situation where the US was saying they weren't cooperating, and the inspectors saying they haven't had enough time to actually do their job.

Thank you for this comment. It is a rare, accurate summary, in contrast to the usual, uninformed “lies about WMDs” sputtering. The lies about the mobile labs are the only unambiguous, deliberate lies on the part of US officials, about WMD stuff, that I know about. The rest, as you say, amount to manipulation of information, and attaching a particular narrative to thin scraps of evidence.

As I recall, they weren't clearly stating that. They were stating that they found no evidence of WMDs, but the Iraqis weren't being sufficiently cooperative for them to be certain. In retrospect, it seems like Saddam was trying to maintain some strategic ambiguity as to whether or not he had WMDs and relying on not having them to dissuade any war attempt, but the Bush administration was interpreting the evidence in the light most favorable to a case for war.

I've read that Saddam wanted to have the appearance that he possessed these weapons to scare off Iran and he did not expect the US to oust him.

Hans Blix was making frequent public statements warning of the urgent problem of Iraqi WMDs and the necessity to do something about it. After the war and the failure to find any WMDs, his public statements rather changed course.

Do you have a source on that? Not that I don't believe you, but when the war started I was fairly young so I didn't realize experts were disagreeing at the time and would like to learn more.

I like searching Google limiting the timeframe to see contemporary news stories. Everything was online at the time, so it's especially useful in this case. Look up weapons inspector Hans Blix's famous line "no smoking gun": https://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/.

This story is from Jan 2003. The invasion started in March. Keep in mind, it's hard to prove a negative. As you see, the Bush administration made their assertions with evidence that amounted to "Trust me, bro." How do you completely disprove that, you know?

Time bound google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=blix+no+smoking+gun&rlz=1C1G...

There were huge disagreements at the time. Many people weren't happy with the invasion of Afghanistan, but realised it might have been necessary after 9/11.

But the rationale for the invasion of Iraq was flimsy at the time, with papers literally copied off the internet being used as evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Dossier

This is just one example.

> The US (well, coalition led by the US) invasion was based on faulty/fraudulent premises, but the goals were still ostensibly humanitarian

This. Back in the day, people thought that the whole "exporting democracy" deal might actually work, to the benefit of the average Iraqi. Of course we know better nowadays, but the amount that the U.S. spent on this whole foolish campaign was arguably punishment enough.

> Iraq gov at the time was not at all something people sympathized with, and was widely considered to be corrupt, bullying, aggressive to neighbors, etc.

Also it routinely violated the human rights of the Iraqi people.

Also, if the Iraq war was a humanitarian disaster, the alternative was not too great either (i.e. akin to choosing to leave a child in the custody of an abusive parent because they're still being provided the bare necessities).

>Also it routinely violated the human rights of the Iraqi people.

So did we though.

>> Also it routinely violated the human rights of the Iraqi people.

> So did we though.

Perhaps, but it's not a binary question, but one of kind and degree. People get their human rights violated in the US itself, too, but I don't think anyone could reasonable draw an equivalency to Saddam Hussein's Iraq because of that.

Good summary. Thanks.

I participated in anti-war protests against the 2nd Iraq War. The whole world was extremely angry with the Bush regime and their war crimes. It's an absolute shame that e.g. Rumsfeld and Cheney have never been prosecuted for ordering torture, and the Bush jr. regime shattered the reputation of the US like no other US government before. Sanctions were not imposed for various geopolitical reasons, many EU governments acted cowardly. The EU was split between supporters of the war and governments against it. That being said, Saddam Hussein was an absolutely atrocious dictator and the idea of removing him from power was essentially good. The 2nd Iraq War is not remotely comparable with Russia's war on the Ukraine in that respect. The means were very wrong, though, ill-conceived without an exit strategy, and based on an illicit aggression. That's why we were protesting.

This is why I'm very happy that Russia is hit with maximum sanctions now. The world's unity against Russia's aggression is unprecedented, and my hope is that this firm response will also make future wars by other countries (including the US) less likely.

Saddam was a threat to the petrodollar (he wanted the Gulf to use the Iraqi dinar) and that is the sole reason for the Gulf War I and II. Assad wanted to trade oil in Euros. Gaddafi was a similar threat to the petrodollar.

It is only fitting that a war with Russia, a big oil producer, comes next. The US Mil-Ind Complex has learned from their mistakes and is going all-out on winning the hearts and minds on this one first.

If being a big meanies was all it took to take a few well-targeted missiles to the face, Saudi Arabia would have had a regime change a long time ago.

I'm skeptical of the implication that the invasion of Ukraine is not really happening, but a US fabrication aimed at winning hearts and minds. Also that the US is planning a war against a nuclear armed nation.

Where did I say that the invasion is not happening?

Whatever is happening, of which I am sure we don't know the half of it, there are plenty of hawks in the US who have been itching for a chance to wage war. Its good for the morale of the nation to fight a just and moral war, and is a great tailwind for the sitting President who can use it to unite a country which has been seeing rips in its social fabric for the past several years.

I sit in Europe and hope and pray that this doesn't escalate.

> Where did I say that the invasion is not happening?

You said the outrage over Russia's invasion was a product of the US. Since the US isn't in control of Russia's actions, the implication is the US is misrepresenting what's happening. You doubled down on this with your "Whatever is happening" nonsense.

Whatever is happening means what is happening behind the scenes, what we don't know about. Unless you think that everything is taking place under the clear light of day, which I don't. Let's not forget that the US has opposed Nord Stream 2 because they would love to supply Europe's fossil fuel needs themselves or through their buddies in the Middle East.

Also, I condemn Putin's actions fully. This war is going to be a heavy burden for Russians, Ukrainians and other Europeans alike, among others.

> Whatever is happening,

The Russian invasion of Ukraine- say it

> Its good for the morale of the nation to fight a just and moral war

The only President making an appeal to war has been the Russian President

> I sit in Europe and hope and pray that this doesn't escalate.

I share your sentiment, although it has escalated for Ukrainians already

I condemn Putin's actions whole-heartedly.

Also, escalate means escalate further than it already has, unless you think it can't get any worse.

This video predates the Iraq war by a few years but is a critical look into how this sort of thing works with world powers.

Noam Chomsky "Sovereignty & World Order"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtBQ7iTyfBQ

Also regarding the other comments about WMDs (from Vox):

"To some extent, this is beside the point; even if they had been totally cautious and careful in characterizing the intelligence, the war still would’ve been a catastrophic mistake that took an immense human toll. But the truth also matters, and the truth is that there were numerous occasions when Bush and his advisers made statements that intelligence agencies knew to be false, both about WMDs and about Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent links to al-Qaeda. The term commonly used for making statements that one knows to be false is "lying.""

https://www.vox.com/2016/7/9/12123022/george-w-bush-lies-ira...

Sanctions can exist against USA, but you’d only hear about them buried in the subject matter of tariffs. There’s no technical disqualifier.

In 2003, there were protests for sure. But the background on why Iraq was invaded is different than Ukraine.

Gulf 1 was a United Nations mission ending in 1991 with a ceasefire. Breaking the terms of that ceasefire could happen if:

- no-fly zone violated

- weapons inspectors denied access anywhere

- material support for attacks outside the country

Saddam violated the first two and confessed to world media about having WMDs. It was a lie, but it wasn’t hard for W to keep it going.

- regime change became USA policy under Ws predecessor, allowing him to say this is not simply an oil play.

A better Saddam could have admitted he lied about WMDs and surrendered in order to spare his people.

I’m flagging this topic and wanted to be accountable for doing so: I don’t think there is anything about the HN community that makes it especially/uniquely well placed to answer this question. There is plenty to read about it online and a dozen subreddits that would be a better fit.

You obviously may do as you wish, but it seems awkward to be having discussions about Ukraine on this site but not have discussions about what many see as a similar situation involving the US in the past.

IMO, not really. Russian sanctions are a current topic that may well be relevant to those HN users that run startups. Or discussing things like Namecheap no longer hosting Russian domains. That’s all relevant. A dive into a historical debate, not so much.

I think there is a place for political discussion here, but I wish the OP would do so from his main account, not one that is so obviously a burner.

Thats why there was the dancing before the US invasions; getting "Security Council Resolutions" which we could then enforce as a legal agent of the UN. Those were "Legal wars".

I do not understand the skeins of justifications and circumlocutions around it; it seems very similar to "Might makes Right" with a (tall) froth of persiflage atop it to me. But there are people who hold faith with that fluff and find it a source of righteousness, and I don't say they're utterly wrong and disconnected from reality, either.

The Iraq war was not sanctioned by the UN in the end was/is regarded as illegal.

True, but the UN passed 16 resolutions against Iraq leading up to the war. That leant a lot of legitimacy to the war itself. The US coalition ended up withdrawing their resolution since it would have been vetoed, but felt like they had enough legitimacy from the UN to go ahead anyways.

And not to split hairs, but "illegal" to whom? The UN? Ok, but the major powers were the guilty ones. Who would enforce such a charge of an "illegal war"? Who had the power to actually enforce it?

First or Second?

The US controls the world. It is above any regulation or international law. Other countries have to comply with UN and other agencies... not the US. US will always find an excuse to do whatever is best for their oligarchies (AKA Transnational Corporations).

A transnational corporation isn't an oligarchy.

(Nor are they "oligarchs", almost by definition, though you could make the argument that the world is heading slowly towards global oligarchy of a Rollerball type)

An oligarchy is a system of government where very few, usually extremely wealthy people control the system (and where wealth is acquired through proximity to power).

The US, even with all its political dark money problems, is not an oligarchy.

(Russia is not an oligarchy anymore either; it's an "auto-kleptocracy" of sorts. But the prior oligarchs exist, in no small part as proxies for kleptocratic wealth, either within Russia or in the diaspora.)

And to further explore the point, the USA itself is not particularly close to oligarchy.

There are just too many wealthy and non-wealthy voices, though it's hard not to see Trump as being at least more favourable to oligarchy (if not autocracy) as a principle, even though enacting it would be a long way off.

(I think this point can be made observationally and apolitically, but others may see it differently)

If it was trending particularly strongly towards oligarchy, I am not even sure who those oligarchs would be -- it's kind of fun to come up with names, though. So here's a go at it -- you can assume I am not projecting any particular position on these people.

Jeff Bezos for sure; he has exactly the kind of empire that would be useful to an oligarch in a situation where there was no resistance to it, and I think Trump reacted to Bezos the way he did out of an instinctive feeling for that.

As to others: Warren Buffet, Elon Musk, one or two of the Waltons, one of the Mercers (Rebekah, probably), Rupert Murdoch?

Also: Michael Bloomberg. Actually the best example I can think of. He'd for sure be an oligarch if the US was an oligarchy.

I notice Hacker News keeps flagging legitimate concerns people have about our government and large tech companies. My last post about YouTube suppressing independent news was also flagged.

Never point to the elephant in the room.

I’m paraphrasing Chomsky here, but basically the bodies that determine what is and isn’t a war crime are deferential to power.

So if you’re the most powerful country on earth and you do something heinous, it’s unlikely to be considered a war crime, and definitely won’t be punished in any substantial way.

Pretty bleak!

The purpose of sanctions is not to punish, but to apply pressure aimed at obtaining compliance, or at least compromise. The US doesn’t depend all that much on other countries for trade, and no other countries can orchestrate big international collective actions the way the US can. Imposing ineffective sanctions is, at best, a demonstration of impotence.

So there are two questions: who could have imposed meaningful sanctions on the US? The answer is probably nothing short of a concerted international effort amongst many nations. And then, the more important question, who would have imposed sanctions? Nobody, because the Iraq war had a substantial amount of international support, at least within Europe.

> The US doesn’t depend all that much on other countries for trade, and no other countries can orchestrate big international collective actions the way the US can

Uh, what? I can think of plenty of international trade partners and holders of US Treasurys.

If you want a really good answer, read George W. Bush's memoir: Decision Points. (It's worth a read even if you hate GWB.)

To Summarize GWB's explanation: Saddam Hussain was threatening to orchestrate a terrorist attack on the US, similar to 9-11. Saddam was a dangerous dictator and orchestrating genocide. George W. Bush built an international coalition that all agreed that invasion was the appropriate response.

(Remember that the political climate at the time was that the US and the international community did not want another 9-11. Also remember that a lot of politicians panicked after 9-11.)

Bush's comments about the informant who passed us (the US) information about the weapons of mass destruction leaves a lot open for interpretation. He had to scrub confidential information out of the book. Remember, a lot of "defense" also means passing misinformation to your enemy, and if you are the recipient of misinformation, you want your enemy to think you believe it. Keep this in mind as you read Bush's explanation about the intelligence passed to us regarding the WMDs in Iraq.

(Edit: GWB gave Saddam ample time to voluntarily leave Iraq. There were arrangements made for him to have a large sum of money and protection if he stepped down.)

Amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/Decision-Points-George-W-Bush-ebook/d...

Was the war the right thing to do? I'll listen to historians who have full access to classified information.

> Why wasn't the USA sanctioned over it's war with Iraq?

Because the USA has the strongest army and the dollar is the world's reserve currency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci... specifically. Note the unanimous resolution. It was a mistake that almost every country was involved in, that did considerable damage to the whole international legal order.

To be fair, the US should've been sanctioned and taken to the ICC for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.

The US government actually threatened to sanction the International Criminal Court if they proceeded with any investigation of war crimes and the matter was dropped.

If you'd like to understand better the whole deal with Iraq, from the early days until the rise of ISIS, check out the Blowback podcast [0], Season 1.

[0] https://blowback.show/

The US actually never installed a puppet regime, held free elections and got BTFO by Iranian backed Iraqi politicians.

It was in an amusing sense textbook democracy.

When peace is a possibility all deaths in war are "unnecessary".

But I think your question is really about the asymmetry and apparent hypocrisy of sanctions.

Sanctions run both ways so they require a power relationship to make sense.

If one guy whose ball it is, decides the game is unfair he can "sanction" the other 10 players by taking his ball home. If I sanction you by not coming to your party, it's probably me who loses out by cutting off my nose to spite my face.

Iraq II was s shitshow, utterly unfair and a result of the most awful foreign policy. But the USA has more to _offer_ the world, so it made no sense for international sanctions. Much as I like Russians as people, I'm quite good for vodka right now thank you. We will take a hit in fuel prices next winter for sure. Putin created an oligarchy that turned Russia into a relatively unproductive country unless you're in the luxury yacht or novelty poisons business.

I'm sure OP is asking this in good faith. It's a reasonable question. But I want to remind everyone here, and really stress, that "What about Iraq and Afghanistan" is literally reasoning Vladimir Putin is using to invade Ukraine.

I would like to ask people not to amplify that message while Europe is at war with Putin. Talk about it after all you like, it's a very reasonable question, but distracting the discourse while everybody is united over support for Ukraine is what he wants.

Do not signal boost him.

> "What about Iraq and Afghanistan" is literally reasoning Vladimir Putin is using to invade Ukraine.

Why wouldn't he? The US provided him with a perfect template to justify his invasion.

People often forget that the consequences of current actions extend far into the future.

The current Ukraine-Russia conflict that will result in the re-militarization of Germany as well as the Chinese threat that led to the same thing happening in Japan will have similar consequences decades from now.[1]

[1] Why the US is no threat to China, but a remilitarised Japan, led by Shinzo Abe, may well be (https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/2118257...)

Please note that this person has been arguing that Zelenskyy is to be blamed for the civilians that Russia is killing during their invasion, because he did not surrender to an invasion from a foreign power.

That is the kind of person this is.

At least at the government-executive level, other nations did not hate the US as much as we now hate Putin. And no one was going to stick their neck out for Saddam Hussein, who was after all, a monster who massacred his own people and invaded a neighboring country. No one would miss him when he was gone. Did that justify the war? No.

the US has murdered well over 6 million innocent civilians in the middle east since 2001. so i would say that makes the US just as evil as Hitler, right?

Is nazis in ukraine the same as wmds in iraq? Not really?

This is all just history repeating really.

Iraq did invade Kuwait of their own accord and fully annexed. UN security council fully condemned and demanded they leave kuwait. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...

Gulf war starts and Iraq was defeated. They had to agree to stop being douches.

UN security council was defied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...

The videos showing the aftermath of the nerve agent wmds used by Iraq against civilians were crazy frightening. literally entire towns were laying on the ground unable to breath. Not dead yet, just unable to breath. While technically nobody knows if Iraq fired them or not... it pretty much is the case they are the only ones who would. Iraq terminated their relationship with the UN and ejected all the UN observers.

In super hindsight, those sarin and vx bombs ended up being used in syria. It's not really a question whether or not Iraq had these weapons. The whole yellow cake nuclear stuff was unclear but that wasn't really confirmed that Iraq ever got nukes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...

Everyone voted for this. China, France, Russia, UK, and USA supported stopping Iraq.

Russia on the otherhand? What UN security council resolutions have they got to back up this invasion of Ukraine? Nazis?

They went and made good friends with China to use them as a shield for their invasion. Even Pakistan who hates Russia suddenly becoming their friends. Over what? Fear of the USA? The USA isnt even involved in this besides just being united with Europe's approach.

More like they are afraid Russia is going to nuke them if they dont comply. I dont know. Looks to me like they are surrounding India.

Really though. The USA's war exhaustion is maxed out. They've been at war for over 20 years. They need to withdraw from all their wars and focus back at home. Start talking about peace and the need to only help where the UN and their allies agree.

> The USA's war exhaustion is maxed out. They've been at war for over 20 years.

Citizen, here. I'm pretty sure, without looking it up, that we have been on internal war footing well longer than 20 years.

>Citizen, here. I'm pretty sure, without looking it up, that we have been on internal war footing well longer than 20 years.

I dont think i understand exactly.

Like the USA has practically always been at war. I do believe right about the year 2000 they had no active wars. The USA loves war... they need to back off for a little while.

The notion of 'active' wars has been all too fluid over here. We had been involved in the Bosnia and Herzegovina intervention as recently as the mid-90s so nothing really got a proper chance to cool down.

>The notion of 'active' wars has been all too fluid over here. We had been involved in the Bosnia and Herzegovina intervention as recently as the mid-90s so nothing really got a proper chance to cool down.

I didn't know NATO was involved at all. My understand it was entirely United Nations. Reading it, still seems that way to me. Kind of feels like it was UN peacekeeping mislabeled as NATO.

We just need to stop all this war shit. Step back and shore ourselves up.

Wikipedia says NATO was involved 1992-1995, and that checks out with me recollection of those years. I was pretty young, and wondered why I kept hearing about this one foreign war that wasn't even involving the U.S.

I am sorry, I am utterly ignorant of international law. But can't declaration of a no-fly zone and its enforcement be construed as an act of war in itself?

Think of it as a schoolyard bully who is also the teacher's pet.