Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "The Armchair Historian" channel.

@L98fiero The objective was to replace the Iraqi government and put into a new more democratic government. By that very metric the US won in that conflict by achieving its objective, much as South Vietnam's survival was the US' goal in the Vietnam War but it failed in that regard. "Super mess" Iraq's new government asked the US to leave, it could not do anything more unless it wanted to violate the new democratic Iraq's sovereignty -which is how ISIS managed to get such gains since Iraq wasn't ready. Now the US is forced to stick around. The new Iraq was financially more secure than Saddam Hussein's Iraq and more stable in that it doesn't require a dictator to crush dissent 24/7 to keep the peace; but it's military was weak and culture would and still will need much time to move on from that era where the majority Sunni suppressed the Shia as well as inter-tribal conflicts. The US did far more to crush ISIS than anyone else sans the Kurds. Edit: And to be blunt, the Iranian militias themselves had caused much mayhem in their time in Iraq, so their time there was not exactly pleasant. They actively engaged in the insurgency against the new Iraqi government and actively attacked US-Iraqi forces in the midst of ISIS' invasion. So spare me your lionizing of Iran's "help". The nations that the US turned into democracies were never economically subservient to the US. The US either goes in for political interests or economic interests; this case was the former. The US took every opportunity it had to gain economically and used it instead to empower the new Iraq, such as making sure all oil rights it sold were to the highest bidder -including China and Russia being those highest bidders, not the US. The only time US interventionism came back to haunt the US was in Afghanistan, really. But even that is questionable since the mujahideen was what the US supported, and there is no reason the Taliban HAD to emerge from that group; it could have easily been a more moderate Islamic group that won over Afghanistan, but I digress.
1
@MrSlavikman Celebrating a national hero who has a troubling history is not the same as being Nazis. The only one acting like Nazis are the ones invading another country in conquest. So yeah, definitely support Ukraine murking the Russian army until they learn their lesson.
1
@tacoking1333 No, that would be more like you. You're the tool that takes any propaganda that goes against the US as fact, when the other guy was just bashing the oil and corporation meme as reasons for the 2003 Iraq War. No self-respecting individual with a brain can take these ideas seriously. Also, the idea that the Iraq War specifically destabilized the region is absurd. The region did not get more or less destabilized until 2011, when the US left too early leaving a power vacuum. The 2003 Iraq War itself did not cause a power vacuum, later decisions did.
1
@awfan221 ISIS already existed in Syria prior to the 2003 Iraq War. ISIS became more powerful as a result of patronage from differing Middle Eastern powers, and when the US left in 2011 it became truly a threat when it rolled over meager Iraqi national defenses and took US equipment. Most of its equipment it received from China, though. But "muh evil merica" gets more upvotes, so yay for ignorance!
1
Vietnam itself was imperialist, so...
1