Was it Cruel and Barbaric of the United States to Invade Iraq?

[LuisDantas]

2003's US military invasions in the Middle East were very much catastrophes, for many and varied reasons.

It will take decades for the full impact of the damage to be gauged, but they may well have been decisive in the IMO irrevocable start of the loss of the US's standing before world countries.

Not too many Americans seem to fully realize that since 2003 the US no longer even attempt to be perceived as honorable by other countries. They invaded Afghanistan and Iraq in challenge of the global consensus. Worse yet, they attempted to lie about that and failed miserably. But worst of all, there has been both a lack of full repentance and actual further moral degeneration since.

But sure, it was indeed terrible for the Iraqis as well, although I suspect that they, too, don't fully grasp the reach and depth of the damage.

 

[Revoltingest]

2003's US military invasions in the Middle East were very much catastrophes, for many and varied reasons.

It will take decades for the full impact of the damage to be gauged, but they may well have been decisive in the IMO irrevocable start of the loss of the US's standing before world countries.

Not too many Americans seem to fully realize that since 2003 the US no longer even attempt to be perceived as honorable by other countries. They invaded Afeghanistan and Iraq in challenge of the global consensus. Worse yet, they attempted to lie about that and failed miserably. But worse of all, there has been both a lack of full repentance and actual further moral degeneration since.

But sure, it was indeed terrible for the Iraqis as well, although I suspect that they, too, don't fully grasp the reach and depth of the damage.

You're being too charitable.
We've never had a period of better behavior.
The mid-east wars were just a continuation of prior thuggish foreign policies.

 

[LuisDantas]

You're being too charitable.
We've never had a period of better behavior.
The mid-east wars were just a continuation of prior thuggish foreign policies.

The first POTUS that I remember was Jimmy Carter.

I guess I was spoiled.

 

[Valjean]

I think that's what they want people to think. The widening chasm is mainly between the rich and the not rich, while the elite in both major factions control the game.

That's not to say that the elite are all of one like mind. There are some issues upon which they disagree, although they're mostly symbolic, superficial, and irrelevant to the needs of the masses.

I have to make a distinction here. There are "the elite;" the actual 001% of oligarchs and leaders, and there are the conservative, right-wing masses manipulated by them.

As for these masses, in addition to cultural, 'nurture' differences from "progressives," there are actual organic, neurological differences. Conservatives can be identified on brain scans like fMRIs with over 80% accuracy, even in children. They perceive the world differently, and react to it differently.
Study Predicts Political Beliefs With 83 Percent Accuracy | Science | Smithsonian
Studies: Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From Venus - The Atlantic
Negativity bias: why conservatives are more swayed by threats than liberals

Psychologist Johnathan Haidt has outlined identifiable perceptual and attitudinal differences as well, based on his Moral Foundations theory. His famous TED talk, The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives, has been posted here on RF in the past.

 

[Stevicus]

The first POTUS that I remember was Jimmy Carter.

I guess I was spoiled.

The first president I remember was Richard Nixon.

 

[Revoltingest]

The first POTUS that I remember was Jimmy Carter.

I guess I was spoiled.

Carter too was repentance challenged.
This contributed to his poor handling of Iran.

 

[LuisDantas]

Carter too was repentance challenged.

What do you have in mind exactly?

Do you mean that you expected him to go further regarding Iran?

This contributed to his poor handling of Iran.

It seems to me that it was mainly the voters who challenged him.

And of course, it only got worse since.

 

[Revoltingest]

What do you have in mind exactly?

Do you mean that you expected him to go further regarding Iran?



It seems to me that it was mainly the voters who challenged him.

And of course, it only got worse since.

Our government overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran (1953) to install the Shah.
Note that he was dealing with the new government which overthrew the Shah.
An apology could've gone a long way to resolve conflict.
And now we should apologize for killing a million or so Iranians in our proxy war (using Iraq).
(This the one in which we supplied Saddam with bio & chem WMDs.)

My spidersense tells me that Trump is not going to apologize to Iran.
Perhaps some future Prez, eh?

 

[LuisDantas]

Our government overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran (1953) to install the Shah.

At a time when Truman, not Carter, was the POTUS.

Note that he was dealing with the new government which overthrew the Shah.

At the tail end of his term, sure.

An apology could've gone a long way to resolve conflict.

Quite possibly. And it was probably unwise of him to fail to.

Still, I can't help but wonder how much of a choice he had. The 1979 Iranian Revolution was not exactly praiseworthy even at its best, and it did not go out of its way to establish friendly relationships with Carter, either.

Also, it seems to me that a strong argument can be made that once the interference ended, the matter was now for Iranians, not Americans or British, to change as they saw fit. Which they did in 1979, in a way that was apparently unexpected at the time. The 1953 coup was a shame for the USA, but it does not follow that there was a better way to react to the situation in the late 1970s than Carter's.

Historically, has any POTUS ever made a comparable apology? Under which circunstances? What were the consequences regarding internal support?

How many people even expected Carter to feel responsible for a situation established 23 years before his term began?

Somehow I don't think Reagan was ellected due to the perception that he would be a better diplomat towards Iran. And I sure don't think that he even attempted to convince anyone once he had the opportunity. If anything, he did the opposite.

And now we should apologize for killing a million or so Iranians in our proxy war (using Iraq).
(This the one in which we supplied Saddam with bio & chem WMDs.)

I remember that. The 1980s were insane, far as American policy went. The people who hold Reagan on a pedestal these days give a distinct impression of not having been around when he was POTUS.

My spidersense tells me that Trump is not going to apologize to Iran.

Let's just agree that it would be very surprising if he did.

I am willing to be surprised there.

Perhaps some future Prez, eh?

Odds are small, as long as public opinion and the major parties oppose such a gesture to the extent that they do - and, to the best of my understanding, always did. And it has been getting noticeably worse in recent years.

 

[Stevicus]

I have to make a distinction here. There are "the elite;" the actual 001% of oligarchs and leaders, and there are the conservative, right-wing masses manipulated by them.

As for these masses, in addition to cultural, 'nurture' differences from "progressives," there are actual organic, neurological differences. Conservatives can be identified on brain scans like fMRIs with over 80% accuracy, even in children. They perceive the world differently, and react to it differently.
Study Predicts Political Beliefs With 83 Percent Accuracy | Science | Smithsonian
Studies: Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From Venus - The Atlantic
Negativity bias: why conservatives are more swayed by threats than liberals

Psychologist Johnathan Haidt has outlined identifiable perceptual and attitudinal differences as well, based on his Moral Foundations theory. His famous TED talk, The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives, has been posted here on RF in the past.

One thing that I can see from my own vantage point on the far left is that I can see how much more alike conservatives and liberals are. It's easier to see them from the outside looking in than they can see about themselves on the inside. Of course, while they're inside that political bubble of their own design, they see each other as polar opposites, but such has never really been the case.

It's just like Don Corleone vs. Don Barzini. They may have been enemies who hated each other, fighting for power, but in fact, they were far more alike than they were different.

 

[Woberts]

The US has rarely exerted itself for "the good of the world." I don't remember us rushing into Cambodia, Darfur, Rwanda or East Timor. I don't see us rushing aid to Yemen or South Sudan.
The US does little if it (or certain special interests) can't make a profit on the deal. As a matter of fact, it often installs and protects repressive despots willing to give America economic or military favors.

The US did rush into Rwanda, but only to save its citizens.