Hacker News Reader

Comment by IlikeMadison | Hacker News Reader

> Bush assembled a serious international coalition before going for Iraq

Uh? Bush failed to assemble a coalition by providing dubious and faked proofs of supposed WMDs and chemical weapons. The Europeans and especially the French didn't fall for it. The only one who did was Tony Blair and he's still paying the price both domestically in the UK and abroad. AFAIK, Trump isn't planning to send troops in Venezuela on the scale Bush did in Iraq.

View on HN

The Spanish president at the time, Aznar, also "fell for it" (probably didn't believe it but played along just for posturing, because he loved being pictured with Bush) and paid the price domestically. The best thing is that he was such a toady, ignoring the Spanish people's will becuase he wanted to be seen with the big boys and to be their equal, and you don't even remember him when you recall that coalition. The fact that you haven't remembered him has actually made me smile hard.

Blair didn't believe it either. Nobody did. What everyone banked on (including e.g. Hillary Clinton) was that the invasion would be so awe-inspiring, popular and such an obvious unqualified success that everyone who opposed it would be embarrassed, and the WMD claims would quietly be forgotten (or maybe they could scrounge up a trailer with chemicals or something).

And for months, years even, that "can't argue with success" strategy worked great. Some help from a loyal press was necessary, of course.

This is what the architects of this invasion (it's hardly Trump alone) are banking on, too. We WILL get told that suddenly life is so much better for everyone in Venezuela, and for a while it might even be true - it's very cheap for the US to provide, after all. The serious, realistic position will be that this was a shrewd thing to do, and the Nobel Peace prize committee showed great foresight and were vindicated in their choice.

But then the Furies will come knocking.

To quote from internet history, the famous "you forgot Poland" from the 2004 presidential debates:

"KERRY: ...when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better.

LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President

BUSH: Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops."

> The only one who [fell for it] was Tony Blair

I wish that were true, but as somebody from Denmark I can tell you that it isn't

> The only one who did was Tony Blair

"You forgot Poland."

Many European nations contributed, it wasn't just the UK. The french were basically the only NATO members who didn't contribute

> Many European nations contributed, it wasn't just the UK. The french were basically the only NATO members who didn't contribute

Can you outline how Canada contributed? Because I distinctly remember our PM at the time, Chretien, saying 'no thanks'.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Iraq_War

How about Germany?

* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/aug/06/iraq.johnhoope...

That is not true either. France, Germany, Norway, Belgium, Canada, Greece and Luxembourg all refused to help. NATO was basically split in half on the issue.

And that was when the "French always surrender" meme started to pop up on the Internet. US propaganda at the time

Tony Blair wasn't fooled by the fake WMD evidence - he was fully on board and deliberately went against the advice and evidence of the intelligence services.

He should be tried for war crimes for dragging the UK into a war on false pretences.

Is there a source for this? In his autobiography he acknowledges he got it wrong, but based on the available evidence at the time

Well, there was the Chilcot Inquiry which was deliberately hobbled from fully investigating and reporting the shenanigans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry

Blair was accused of misleading parliament over the WMD claims and there was a limited attempt to impeach him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_motion_to_impeac...

Also relevant with regard to war crimes is this recent uncovering: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/dec/30/tony-blair-p...

(There's lots of various opinions given about Blair which are not really authoritative, such as: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair-iraq-gov...)

Thanks for this. I have read the executive summary and, actually, UK intelligence advised Blair that Iraq was not a threat to the UK and that military action would make things worse: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80f42ced915...

So this was purely a political move on the part of Blair to cozy up to the US. Maddening.

It infuriates me every time that I see Blair given publicity by the mainstream media and how he's still involved with international politics - especially the middle east/Israel. I did declare that I would never vote for Labour until they got Blair tried for war crimes (have voted for Greens since though most years that has been wasted as I live in Bristol which was a strongly Labour area).

Germany did send troops. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(edit: I was wrong. Italy, UK, Spain, Poland, Turkey among others.) Anyway, the point is that there was some sort of coalition.

You are wrong.

Bush successfully assembled a coalition to invade Afghanistan. He didn't even promise that there'd be WMDs there, he just said "They gots terrorists" and a large portion of the UN joined in the invasion.

Upon reflection, the justifications to invade Afghanistan were every bit as flimsy as the justification to invade Iraq.

Afghanistan was more justifiable. The argument was that it was a failed government that housed a terrorist organization that just attacked US.

What Iraq had to with it, i honestly have no idea. Somehow we pivotted from Afghanistan to Iraq

Maybe (and this is a big maybe) at the beginning. However, it really went to show how ineffective such actions are and lead to the creation of ISIS. 20 years of occupation were wholly unjustified.

The right move by the US would have been to kill osama the way they ultimately did, through intelligence gathering and a targeted strike.

The head of the organization responsible for the deaths of almost 3000 civilians was known to be present in Afghanistan, and the government refused extradite him.

That seems like a solid casus belli.

Not to me. The US was justified in killing Osama the way they did, through intelligence gathering and a targeted strike. Occupying the nation for 20 years was completely unjustified.

It isn’t from a legal point of view.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com