Iraq syndrome?

[Imperializt Russia]

It's not the West's job to intervene in the first place. It wasn't in Vietnam either, but people in the West are all so scared of a non-existent boogeyman.

At least in vietnam they had a goal.

Keep the soviet union and china from spreading coommunism.

What was their goal in Iraq?

Broadly the same thing, regime change.
I'm pretty certain that was the goal from the get-go.

Not sure why they thought "this man is a genocidal dictator who is a threat to our allies in the middle east and especially Israel" wouldn't sell with the American public.

[Claven]

Broadly the same thing, regime change.
I'm pretty certain that was the goal from the get-go.

Not sure why they thought "this man is a genocidal dictator who is a threat to our allies in the middle east and especially Israel" wouldn't sell with the American public.

Wonder why they supported him in the iran-iraq war then? Did they suddenly change their minds about him?

[Imperializt Russia]

Broadly the same thing, regime change.
I'm pretty certain that was the goal from the get-go.

Not sure why they thought "this man is a genocidal dictator who is a threat to our allies in the middle east and especially Israel" wouldn't sell with the American public.

Wonder why they supported him in the iran-iraq war then? Did they suddenly change their minds about him?

They supported him in the Iran-Iraq War, if for literally no other reason, because he was fighting Iran.

Cold War politics were never consistent.
Halabja might have turned them around, maybe they never really liked Saddam.
You must also remember that the Gulf War happened in the wake of the Iran-Iraq War as well, so it wasn't like invading Iraq was without precedent.

[Claven]

They supported him in the Iran-Iraq War, if for literally no other reason, because he was fighting Iran.

Cold War politics were never consistent.
Halabja might have turned them around, maybe they never really liked Saddam.
You must also remember that the Gulf War happened in the wake of the Iran-Iraq War as well, so it wasn't like invading Iraq was without precedent.

Well, at least we know that the US will always put their interests first. Pretty sure thats not so good for the third world

[Imperializt Russia]

They supported him in the Iran-Iraq War, if for literally no other reason, because he was fighting Iran.

Cold War politics were never consistent.
Halabja might have turned them around, maybe they never really liked Saddam.
You must also remember that the Gulf War happened in the wake of the Iran-Iraq War as well, so it wasn't like invading Iraq was without precedent.

Well, at least we know that the US will always put their interests first. Pretty sure thats not so good for the third world

The third world was the playground of the Cold War.

Nuclear arms prevented the powers of East and West from duking it out in full-scale warfare in Europe, so they went elsewhere to flex their muscles.
This unfortunately left the third world in a bind.

[Teemant]

It's not the West's job to intervene in the first place. It wasn't in Vietnam either, but people in the West are all so scared of a non-existent boogeyman.

At least in vietnam they had a goal.

Keep the soviet union and china from spreading coommunism.

What was their goal in Iraq?

I don't see Vietnam as an pure invasion because US helped South Vietnam there. Helping other countries shouldn't count as an invasion?

[Imperializt Russia]

At least in vietnam they had a goal.

Keep the soviet union and china from spreading coommunism.

What was their goal in Iraq?

I don't see Vietnam as an pure invasion because US helped South Vietnam there. Helping other countries shouldn't count as an invasion?

The goal was to invade the North.
Then there were all those incursions into Laos, Cambodia...

That said, I may have been incorrect.

[Claven]

At least in vietnam they had a goal.

Keep the soviet union and china from spreading coommunism.

What was their goal in Iraq?

I don't see Vietnam as an pure invasion because US helped South Vietnam there. Helping other countries shouldn't count as an invasion?

Right, cuz unlike Iraq, south Vietnam wasnt ruled by dictators who cared little for their people

[Prumia]

Is there Iraq syndrome in western politics and if there is should there be or shouldn't there be?

I do not know where you are, but where I am in the United States of America this entire idea came into being long before with Vietnam. The U.S. could win the battle, but would lose the peace. As with Vietnam, Iraq is an example of being able to win the battle, but failing to rebuild the country afterwards.

What makes this that much sadder, however, is when you think of Iraq as an improvement over Vietnam. At least in Iraq, we got rid of the person controlling the country.

It isn't any supposed "failure" of OIF/OEF that is causing people to be leery, it's the fact that since 1945 there hasn't been a single successful large-scale military engagement that has ended with the world in a better place than before the military engagement.

I would also say it could be argued that no-one really commits to full-scale military operations anymore. Everyone wants half measures. Instead of bombing them as the Allies did Germany, we insist on occupation and forcing democratic reforms. We can win the part that involves massive military arms; it is the part about reconstructing the country that always fails.

[Teemant]

I don't see Vietnam as an pure invasion because US helped South Vietnam there. Helping other countries shouldn't count as an invasion?

The goal was to invade the North.
Then there were all those incursions into Laos, Cambodia...

That said, I may have been incorrect.

North started this war. I'm pretty sure that it was how it all started in Vietnam.

[Teemant]

I don't see Vietnam as an pure invasion because US helped South Vietnam there. Helping other countries shouldn't count as an invasion?

Right, cuz unlike Iraq, South Vietnam wasnt ruled by dictators who cared little for their people

Korea and Vietnam are quite similar in my opinion but people view these differently and main reason is outcome.
There is no question today that helping South Korea was a right thing to do. South Korea wasn't democratic back then either.

[Imperializt Russia]

The goal was to invade the North.
Then there were all those incursions into Laos, Cambodia...

That said, I may have been incorrect.

North started this war. I'm pretty sure that it was how it all started in Vietnam.

The North started "this war" about twenty years before the American public knew what a "Viet Nam" was. In fact it was still part of French Indochina then. The US had been backing Minh before even that, when they were fighting against the Japanese.

Nothing is concise in world politics from about 1930 onwards.

[Imperializt Russia]

Right, cuz unlike Iraq, South Vietnam wasnt ruled by dictators who cared little for their people

Korea and Vietnam are quite similar in my opinion but people view these differently and main reason is outcome.
There is no question today that helping South Korea was a right thing to do. South Korea wasn't democratic back then either.

And wasn't since, until the late eighties.

Intervention in South Korea and indeed South Vietnam may well have been the "right thing to do".
How those wars and interventions were conducted before and after, that's another story entirely.

The best intentions in the world can be completely undermined by poor execution of that intention. Like, say, Vietnam.

[Claven]

Right, cuz unlike Iraq, South Vietnam wasnt ruled by dictators who cared little for their people

Korea and Vietnam are quite similar in my opinion but people view these differently and main reason is outcome.
There is no question today that helping South Korea was a right thing to do. South Korea wasn't democratic back then either.

But was the president of South Korea at the time trying to dedicate the country to the Virgin Mary? Or killing people deemed to be conspiring with communists? Or did he kill tens of thousands of political prisoners?

[Claven]

The goal was to invade the North.
Then there were all those incursions into Laos, Cambodia...

That said, I may have been incorrect.

North started this war. I'm pretty sure that it was how it all started in Vietnam.

Sure, when communists start an insurgency to bring down a dictator who was oppressing the people, they're the bad guys. But when we go about replacing presidents throughout the third world for our gain, not the people of those countries, we're the liberators. The bringers of democracy

[Chestaan]

The goal was to invade the North.
Then there were all those incursions into Laos, Cambodia...

That said, I may have been incorrect.

North started this war. I'm pretty sure that it was how it all started in Vietnam.

The US prevented re-unification from happening because it was clear that the majority of people would vote for the communists in a democratic election. They then propped up a dictatorship in the South despite the fact that the people in the South had no desire to be under said dictator.

[CTALNH]

At least in vietnam they had a goal.

Keep the soviet union and china from spreading communism.

What was their goal in Iraq?

Isnt it obvious? Dem bombs. Didnt Bush and Blair scream that to the whole world?

And Americans actually believed that?

[Claven]

Isnt it obvious? Dem bombs. Didnt Bush and Blair scream that to the whole world?

And Americans actually believed that?

The entire coalition believed it. And if the Americans at the time didn't, they must've really liked bush to vote him in for a second term

[CTALNH]

And Americans actually believed that?

The entire coalition believed it. And if the Americans at the time didn't, they must've really liked bush to vote him in for a second term

....

I had lost my faith in humanity a long ass time ago now....now I am just disappointed...

[Claven]

The entire coalition believed it. And if the Americans at the time didn't, they must've really liked bush to vote him in for a second term

....

I had lost my faith in humanity a long ass time ago now....now I am just disappointed...

Well, there were protests throughout the western world and after the war people started to have doubts

[Imperializt Russia]

....

I had lost my faith in humanity a long ass time ago now....now I am just disappointed...

Well, there were protests throughout the western world and after the war people started to have doubts

Not that I remember them at the time, but I think the protests were more "why the shit should we" rather than "we think your claims are bollocks".
Though I suppose in order to feel it's not worth intervening against what is alleged to be WMD state that is purported to be a direct threat to not only Israel but also the UK and US (somehow), one must inherently believe the claims to be bollocks.

[Claven]

Well, there were protests throughout the western world and after the war people started to have doubts

Not that I remember them at the time, but I think the protests were more "why the shit should we" rather than "we think your claims are bollocks".
Though I suppose in order to feel it's not worth intervening against what is alleged to be WMD state that is purported to be a direct threat to not only Israel but also the UK and US (somehow), one must inherently believe the claims to be bollocks.

Hey, I'm a pacifist. As long as they were against the war.........

[Napkiraly]

I don't see Vietnam as an pure invasion because US helped South Vietnam there. Helping other countries shouldn't count as an invasion?

The goal was to invade the North.
Then there were all those incursions into Laos, Cambodia...

That said, I may have been incorrect.

I think in the beginning there were plans, but then when it became clear that the Soviets and Chinese would intervene if there was a ground invasion it was stricken off. After that it was about stemming the Viet Cong and later the NVA. Inflicting enough casualties to break their ability to threaten South Vietnam and get them to the negotiating table.

[Greater North American Confederacy]

I would also say it could be argued that no-one really commits to full-scale military operations anymore. Everyone wants half measures. Instead of bombing them as the Allies did Germany, we insist on occupation and forcing democratic reforms. We can win the part that involves massive military arms; it is the part about reconstructing the country that always fails.

coughs.. Germany, Austria, Italy, Japan..

[Genivaria]

I would also say it could be argued that no-one really commits to full-scale military operations anymore. Everyone wants half measures. Instead of bombing them as the Allies did Germany, we insist on occupation and forcing democratic reforms. We can win the part that involves massive military arms; it is the part about reconstructing the country that always fails.

coughs.. Germany, Austria, Italy, Japan..

Yes the Marshall Plan turned out to be an excellent investment didn't it?
The stabilization of unstable regions via development of infrastructure not only helps calm down radicals but also increases prosperity in the region.