If the US invasion of Iraq was wrong, why didn't the world stopped it?

Status
Closed

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,824
Did that stop it though?
We know nothing stopped the US in the end. It's kind of the rub of the problem of a unipolar world with a single Superpower. (The multipolar has its own challenges, but they are different.)

Why do you ask?

They did plenty.

Fx do you think Russia should get props for threatening to veto the US proposal to make its invasion a UN mandate, while France which did the exact same thing, should not? Possibly instead be expected to directly have use force to try to stop the US, i.e. its main strategic ALLY, up to and including military. It's not as is Russia or China breathed even a noice about being prepared to try that either.

US allies confronting the US and denying didn't just demonstrate their sovereignty – they also took a certain risk in directly opposing the wished of their most powerful strategic ally, who was taking them for granted. There are tons of double standards involved over the 2003 Iraq war.The French and Russians did the exact same things against the US, but the French got the US hate and ridicule over it ("Cheese eating surrender monkeys"; "Freedom fries"; "French victories; did you mean French defeats?" Etc.)

Do you think US allies were more morally obliged to downright fight the US directly than everyone NOT a US ally over this?

A more reasonable question for you to ask would actually be how come so many of the US European allies OPPOSED it on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gvelion

LatinoEuropa

Ad Honorem
Oct 2015
5,222
Matosinhos Portugal
It destabilized the country, led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and created ISIS and most nations in the world were against it but if most nations of the world were against it, why didn't these nations save Iraq and the people there and stopped the US, through force if necessary?

Because of your interests.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,824
The world doesn't have to answer to the US but if I'm pretty sure the answer is obvious "Leave it alone".
For how long? To do what?

The point is also that your scenario completely changes the dynamics of international politics. If some of the Europeans try to directly and forcibly confront the US, not only does it probably mean the US defeats them first, then goes ahead and invades Iraq, but now NATO is a mess, mostly defunct, the US is in conflict with some of its allies, who are in conflict with each other. And this over Iraq. Even if the US is prevented from invading it will be pushing to know what the protectors of Saddam Hussein want to do next. And it won't be asking politely.
So many of the world's governments where against it so I'm sure they will all speak at the same time and nobody is going to sort it out except for the Iraqis.
You mean generalissimo Saddam Hussain of the Baath Party (Arab Nationalist, i.e. Fascist). No one was asking the Iraqis in general. Certainly not the Shiite majority and Kurd minority. Or the Marsh Arabs. They were getting killed rather.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aggienation

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,368
T'Republic of Yorkshire
It destabilized the country, led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and created ISIS and most nations in the world were against it but if most nations of the world were against it, why didn't these nations save Iraq and the people there and stopped the US, through force if necessary?
You again? You're gone.
 
Feb 2019
345
California
I am not asking the US to cooperate or why it hasn't cooperated, I am asking why the world didn't stop it.

If it veto's what ever the world throws at it, fine, ignore it, this is after all a "US vs. the world" scenario.
OK I guess i have to spell it out for you. Because "the World" would have gotten its ass kicked.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
Something along the lines being done in Syria by Russia.
What are they doing to the US? Isnt that the opposite direction? US is containing them.

US fueling conflict by overtly and "secretly" arming numerous rebel groups who came close to toppling Assad. Russia directly intervenes to prevent Assad collapsing. US gets involved in Eastern Syria because Islamic State is in numerous countries, and US already assisting Iraqi govt and Kurds. US then uses ISIS as a cover to occupy eastern Syria, deny Assad a lot of oil, and make Russian effort complicated, leading to a rather vicious battle where US forces annihilated a Russian mercenary group with deep ties to Putin.

How was Russia going to do something in 2003?
 
Aug 2016
977
US&A
It destabilized the country, led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and created ISIS and most nations in the world were against it but if most nations of the world were against it, why didn't these nations save Iraq and the people there and stopped the US, through force if necessary?
For the same reason starving children won't get us off the couch. Now where is my remote?
 
  • Like
Reactions: At Each Kilometer
Status
Closed