European Politics Thread

[Lord Gaimon]

@Nilitch:

And muslim extremism wouldn't be that much of a thing in the world. Also, ISIS would not exist for instance

why wouldn't they be? the biggest muslin terrorist attack happened before the war.

It didn't only benefit the Iraqi fighters. People are crossing the border from both sides. And they're not just going in Iraq to get water and bread

i don't really understand what you mean by this i didn't say anything about benefiting Iraqi fighters

Every scenario that doesn't evolve the Iraq war is just purely and entirely hypothetical.

So? counterfactuals are commonly used to analyse these types of situations.

And it's eventually a better scenario anyway

This is debatable the Saddam regime was pretty bad.

But I don't think that Saddam would have intervened anywhere because there probably would have been a revolution in Iraq too. Supposing that he would have gone on war in the first place

idk Saddam was always a warmonger i don't think he will pass an opportunity to dominate the region, and if an Iraqi revolution happened the situation would much worse than it is now so really not having the Iraq war wouldn't improve much.

[Nilitch]

@Ubiq:

I've come in at the tail end of this but this is so out of touch with the actual reality of how people perceived this war that I can't let it go. There were widespread protests of that war even within the United States despite the media massively pushing for it and shutting down pretty much any attempts to explain why it was such an obviously imbecilic notion from the start. If you look at Bush's approval ratings over his term, you can see them start cratering from pretty much the time the push for war started until the end of his time in office; the war is pretty much why Kerry even came close to winning in 2004 only a few short years after Bush had overwhelming support and it was basically the release of a new tape from Osama bin Laden that kept Bush in office since that pushed undecided voters to him. The idea that this country was united in support of that war is just wrong.

Of course there are protests. There are always protests, especially against war. But the people protesting are always a little minority, and they are in no way representative of the whole country/of the public opinion.

As I said earlier. Polls showed that 58% of americans were satisfied about how the war was handled. That roughly 29% thought they weren't going hard enough and something like 6% thought it was too agressive.

[Ubiq]

@Nilitch:

As I said earlier. Polls showed that 58% of americans were satisfied about how the war was handled. That roughly 29% thought they weren't going hard enough and something like 6% thought it was too agressive.

Link the polls in question so I can see the crosstabs for it.

Again, the idea that people in the United States were universally gung-ho about invading Iraq is so out of touch with reality that it's insulting. Especially your insistence that people here on this forum would have done so.

[SmokerSan]

@Lord:

idk Saddam was always a warmonger i don't think he will pass an opportunity to dominate the region

Again, from where do you get this? Saddam was not a warmonger, he was an asshole pawn against Iran. He was given the weapons as always from the west, paid by the Arabian monarchies. He was the ally of the west and their champion , fuck, he was even put in power by them. But things changed when he ended up the Iran war. One thing for you to always remember: Arab states, nations, countries do not manufacture weapons for wars, if they have them, it means somebody has been providing them. And that somebody are always the same. Russia or Nato. This is also true for wahabi mercenaries, otherwise called terrorists. If you get your info only here, you most probably think they are doing it for democracy. The politicians who are unable to provide some decent health care to their own, who are separating children and their parents since 2014, and yet you still think they have some love or consideration for people on the other side of the planet? As Nilitch has been saying, media bias in the US for wars is surreal. Look for instance at this: French weapons in the hands of mercenaries. If not given directly to them in Syria, they may have been traveling from Mali to Syria through Libya. Wow… or here. Yet, you still think that things and events are unrelated.

[Nilitch]

@Ubiq:

Link the polls in question so I can see the crosstabs for it.

From the beginning of the war
https://www.ipsos.com/fr-fr/guerre-en-irak
(ipsos is one of the biggest polling organizations in France)

Sorry, I didn't search for anything in english but these polls are made by american polling organizations (or media outlets, or whatever) in the US anyway.

!

Again, the idea that people in the United States were universally gung-ho about invading Iraq is so out of touch with reality that it's insulting. Especially your insistence that people here on this forum would have done so.

Well, I'm just reading the numbers. There are three different polls on this link. Two of them say that "70% of americans approve the war". But the third poll happens to be more precise and states the things I've said earlier
Also, there is no reason for the entire american community of this forum to be part of the very little minority that was against the war. They could be, but I'm just saying that statistically speaking, most of this forum was probably pro-war back then

[Johnny B. Decent]

@SmokerSan:

Again, from where do you get this? Saddam was not a warmonger, he was an asshole pawn against Iran. He was given the weapons as always from the west, paid by the Arabian monarchies. He was the ally of the west and their champion , fuck, he was even put in power by them. But things changed when he ended up the Iran war. One thing for you to always remember: Arab states, nations, countries do not manufacture weapons for wars, if they have them, it means somebody has been providing them. And that somebody are always the same. Russia or Nato. This is also true for wahabi mercenaries, otherwise called terrorists.

His big mistake was wanting the oil from Kuwait. Because then we would have to buy it from him and that was a no-go.

[Monkey King]

@Lord:

Yeah but Spain's peak was like in the 15th and 16th centuries right? I was more talking about modern economies where Spain's commitment to mercantilist extraction hindered them from adopting a more capitalistic approach geared towards trade like the British and dutch empires ( not that they weren't extractive either) resulting in Spain falling behind economically on top of the near constant war.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. Thing is those modern economies also benefitted enormously from empire,

Slavery kept the south more agricultural, less capital intensive and less invested in schools and infrastructure than the north, this effect completely overrides any profit slavery made.

Tell that to the ruling class of the old lowland South, who were extremely wealthy.
I think you misunderstand the South, it was (and in some minor ways still is) very hierarchal socially. They used to have a straight up caste system for all intents and purposes, a place that transferred some of the feudalism of old Europe over and was happy to have it for those in power.
It was a place largely founded and sustained by second/third/fourth/etc sons of English aristocrats. And eventually got itself a serf equivalent with African slaves.
Wealth being concentrated in the powerful is a feature, not a bug, in this system.

The North by contrast was founded by various Protestant groups looking to start new communities from the ground up. Which thankfully freed us up here of many of the uniquely lowland southern problems that stem from feudal minded crap. Though the Dutch foundings in NYC begat mindless consumptive capitalism so uh, fuck.

If the confederacy has actually became independent and kept slavery they're path will probably be similar to Brazil.

Minus the race mixing, so worse.

[SmokerSan]

@S.C.:

His big mistake was wanting the oil from Kuwait. Because then we would have to buy it from him and that was a no-go.

Yes, but that was not the whole story. He was asked to pay for the Iran war. He thought he was doing it on their behalf and he thought of them as allies. He then invaded Kuweit for the money and and we know what happened next. The first Iraq war was on him, he fucked up his country and his own people. The second one though, Iraqi people never did anything to the West, never (9/11 terrorists are Saudi). Yet they got punished for that. Now, you can think that the US made a mistake in geography when they invaded Iraq, huuuum, but that doesn't explain this:

And the Brits confirming it, weapons of mass destruction hahahahah, one of the biggest lies in history. By the way isn't this called propaganda?

[Chrior]

@Monkey:

Though the Dutch foundings in NYC begat mindless consumptive capitalism so uh, fuck.

Huh, I always assumed you were a sort of laissez faire liberal capitalist/Third Way voter. Was I wrong?

[Big Black Hole]

@Ubiq:

Again, the idea that people in the United States were universally gung-ho about invading Iraq is so out of touch with reality that it's insulting. Especially your insistence that people here on this forum would have done so.

I remember a certain South Park episode which satirized the split opinion in the United States at that time in a very entertaining way…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_a_Little_Bit_Country

[Monkey King]

@Chrior:

Huh, I always assumed you were a sort of laissez faire liberal capitalist/Third Way voter. Was I wrong?

Insanely wrong lol wtf. Where did I give off that impression?

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Big:

I remember a certain South Park episode which satirized the split opinion in the United States at that time in a very entertaining way…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_a_Little_Bit_Country

Indeed leave it to the two cowards behind South Park to champion smug neutrality in any given circumstance.

[Chrior]

@Monkey:

Insanely wrong lol wtf. Where did I give off that impression?

I have no friggin clue, but your stance to usually be behind the Democratic party in a bunch of stuff made me think you were more of a centrist Third Way guy, which is where the party usually ends up since the 90s. Nothing wrong with voting that way, free speach and all. So, Nordic Social-democracy, then?

[Big Black Hole]

@Monkey:

Indeed leave it to the two cowards behind South Park to champion smug neutrality in any given circumstance.

I don't remember the episode that well, but seriously, could you explain what was wrong with it? I felt the issue was presented rather fairly if you want to include both sides. At least in the American debate. And the American debate was not only on the side of the "War promoters", which was the point Ubiq was trying to raise.

Just to clarify, I personally think that the 2003 Iraq War was a really, really stupid idea.

[Nilitch]

@Lord:

why wouldn't they be? the biggest muslin terrorist attack happened before the war.

You can't compare the size of an attack with the widespread anti-american/anti-west feeling in the world. There has been way way way more terrorist attacks after the Iraq war.
It's not because the biggest attack happened before the war, that the Iraq war was a success. On the contrary, it has been a disaster. The US basically poured oil on fire

If you invade a country and fuck them over for years and years, it's going to create resentment. Every politicians who think about long term policies know that. Unfortunately, Bush didn't give a shit and was only interested about enriching himself and his friends.

idk Saddam was always a warmonger i don't think he will pass an opportunity to dominate the region, and if an Iraqi revolution happened the situation would much worse than it is now so really not having the Iraq war wouldn't improve much.

Honestly, the problem is that you're making it sound like the Iraq war has had the least worst consequences among any other imaginable scenario

[Monkey King]

@Chrior:

I have no friggin clue, but your stance to usually be behind the Democratic party in a bunch of stuff made me think you were more of a centrist Third Way guy, which is where the party usually ends up since the 90s. Nothing wrong with voting that way, free speach and all. So, Nordic Social-democracy, then?

You don't move the Overton Window by voting for people who have no power. You move it by moving the actually relevant and existent left (such as it is) further that direction, and actually allowing it power in the first place.
Instead of pissing your vote down vanity projects like the American Green Party, while the damn near literal fascists gain power in the meantime.

Meanwhile? My opinion on libertarians? They're insanely naive cultists who have turned an inanimate form of societal energy with benefits and dangers (like say fire, electricity, nuclear power) called capitalism, into a religion where capitalism is a benevolent god that we must hold in awe and respect and never besmirch.
They are the equivalent of some caveman moron insisting that the fire in the cave be allowed to spread indiscriminately rather than kept firmly controlled in a rock pit.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Big:

I don't remember the episode that well, but seriously, could you explain what was wrong with it? I felt the issue was presented rather fairly if you want to include both sides. At least in the American debate. And the American debate was not only on the side of the "War promoters", which was the point Ubiq was trying to raise.

Just to clarify, I personally think that the 2003 Iraq War was a really, really stupid idea.

https://www.somethingawful.com/most-awful/seven-awful-internet/6/

[Lord Gaimon]

@Monkey:

Tell that to the ruling class of the old lowland South, who were extremely wealthy.

Slavery certainty makes the slave holders wealthy. But what we are talking about is development and the economy as a whole. just because the nobles of a feudal society are rich doesn't mean that feudalism is a good economic system.

[Monkey King]

@Lord:

Slavery certainty makes the slave holders wealthy. But what we are talking about is development and the economy as a whole. just because the nobles of a feudal society are rich doesn't mean that feudalism is a good economic system.

Where were we attempting to say it was a good economic system lol.

[Lord Gaimon]

@Nilitch:

Honestly, the problem is that you're making it sound like the Iraq war has had the least worst consequences among any other imaginable scenario

Well not any imaginable scenario but from the ones stated, probably.

Also I like to clarify that I do think the Iraq war is bad, but:
1-I don't think it was as disastrous for the region as you think.
2-I believe Saddam deserved what happened to him.
3-I don't think america went there to get rich or for any geopolitical interest it was just a bunch of neocons taking advantage of the circumstances to live out their fantasies of being saviors of an oppressed people.

[Chrior]

@Monkey:

You don't move the Overton Window by voting for people who have no power. You move it by moving the actually relevant and existent left (such as it is) further that direction, and actually allowing it power in the first place.
Instead of pissing your vote down vanity projects like the American Green Party, while the damn near literal fascists gain power in the meantime.

Meanwhile? My opinion on libertarians? They're insanely naive cultists who have turned an inanimate form of societal energy with benefits and dangers (like say fire, electricity, nuclear power) called capitalism, into a religion where capitalism is a benevolent god that we must hold in awe and respect and never besmirch.
They are the equivalent of some caveman moron insisting that the fire in the cave be allowed to spread indiscriminately rather than kept firmly controlled in a rock pit.

Well, that's certainly true. I never meant to say that voting for a third party in the USA was the best option to promote a more leftist oriented agenda, since the duopoly there essentially renders all other parties meaningless. Save a collapse of the traditional system like what happened in France in the last elections, but that doesn't seem likely anytime soon. It's just that the establishment Democrats have become so damn accomodated and arrogant towards all other opinions from even inside their own party that it has reached annoying levels. Since I don't want to contaminate this thread with an American discussion, I will just ask a quick question. This has turned into enough of a shitfest already. What's your take on the recent victories for young social democrats in the primaries, like Ocasio-Cortez? Do you think we're witnessing a significant shift to the left in democratic voting patterns or are they rather isolated developments?

[SmokerSan]

@Lord:

2-I believe Saddam deserved what happened to him.

Wow, and hell with the innocent millions living with him on the same land?

@Lord:

3-I don't think america went there to get rich or for any geopolitical interest it was just a bunch of neocons taking advantage of the circumstances to live out their fantasies of being saviors of an oppressed people.

I am speechless to read this. So these people hate their own people and oppress them but the lake to save some far away barbarians? By creating one of the biggest lies? And these neocons, have no interest to help their allies in the region? Wow…

[Lord Gaimon]

@Monkey:

Where were we attempting to say it was a good economic system lol.

My initial point was that slavery isn't good for the development of an economy and you used the southern ruling class as a counter example.
My feudalism comment was to show that that's absurd. I know you don't think it's a good system.

[Kaiolino]

@Ubiq:

Link the polls in question so I can see the crosstabs for it.

Again, the idea that people in the United States were universally gung-ho about invading Iraq is so out of touch with reality that it's insulting. Especially your insistence that people here on this forum would have done so.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

There was a slight dip in his poll numbers but as you can see throughout late 2002 and the first half of 2003 they were well over 70%.

Here is a Gallup article on how 70% of Americans approve of the Iraq war: https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx

[Lord Gaimon]

@SmokerSan:

Wow, and hell with the innocent millions living with him on the same land?

hmm? what the hell are you talking about? thinking Saddam deserved what he got doesn't mean I support the war.

I am speechless to read this. So these people hate their own people and oppress them but the lake to save some far away barbarians?

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

And these neocons, have no interest to help their allies in the region? Wow…

How did it help their allies, it only helped their enemy (Iran).
I don't see why you are so surprised by this a lot of wars in history have been caused by ideology and not realist calculations.

[wolfwood]

This all seems very fair and even-handed.

[Monkey King]

@Chrior:

It's just that the establishment Democrats have become so damn accomodated and arrogant towards all other opinions from even inside their own party that it has reached annoying levels.

This is both true, and also way overblown.

What's your take on the recent victories for young social democrats in the primaries, like Ocasio-Cortez? Do you think we're witnessing a significant shift to the left in democratic voting patterns or are they rather isolated developments?

I think we're seeing what we saw with Republicans during the Obama era. The rise of our own Tea Party equivalent, minus astro-turfing and insanity.

[Chrior]

Let's hope that comes to pass and we can see the birth of a big influencing group within the Democrats that can steer the party a bit to the left back again. There needs to be some equilibrium in the political spectrum and that has been lost since the 80s/90s with the switch to the right in most Western countries. Not to mention the nearly wiping out of social-democrats throughout Europe in recent years, only for the far right to gain most the vote those parties lost. Ouch.

Funny enough, the far right has basically no hold here in old Portugal thanks to our anachronistic Portuguese Communist Party. Yes, a surviving Marxist-Leninist party, back from the Soviet days, faithful to the USSR after the Stalin-Mao split, after Stalin's death, after even the fall of communism worldwide. A party that not only defends Chavez's Venezuela, like the younger, trendier radical left, but friggin North Korea. The fact that this party survives ensures that the old rural folk over here keep voting for them instead of voting for some dumb f***s like Trump, Farage or Le Pen. It also helps that these old folks were alive and well (not really well) during our far right dictatorship, of course.

Also, these young'uns talking 'bout colonial empires. Pft. Lemme tell you how it all began. Y'know tiny little Portugal, that country right next to Spain, where Cristiano Ronaldo is from? With nice beaches and pretty little cities, and very nice food, that everyone loves to pat in the head today? Well, this is a school map from around 50 years ago, when my parents were kids:

!

The title reads "Portugal is not a small country". Them good old days…

[Monkey King]

@Chrior:

Also, these young'uns talking 'bout colonial empires. Pft. Lemme tell you how it all began. Y'know tiny little Portugal, that country right next to Spain, where Cristiano Ronaldo is from? With nice beaches and pretty little cities, and very nice food, that everyone loves to pat in the head today? Well, this is a school map from around 50 years ago, when my parents were kids:

! http://hemerotecadigital.cm-lisboa.pt/EFEMERIDES/exposicaocolonial/Portugalnaoeumpaispequeno.jpg

The title reads "Portugal is not a small country". Them good old days…

There's a good reason I told the ushers to be super alert for the tiny Western Euro imperialists trying to sneak out the back acting cute and innocent.

Belgium: ~Oh gawsh mister, I dunno wat yer talkin' about blinks huge watery Disney eyes, u must be lookin' fer big awful bad men like Bwitain and Fwance. Not liddle old me! giggles~

Security: Sir, please come with us.

Belgium: TOUCH ME AND I SHALL SEVER YOUR LIMBS AND RAPE YOUR LANDS AS I ONCE FLAYED THE CONGO.

[Nilitch]

This is always interesting to see how people's opinions about (some) stuff can be that much influenced by their intelligentsia and their universities

[Ubiq]

@Nilitch:

Also, there is no reason for the entire american community of this forum to be part of the very little minority that was against the war. They could be, but I'm just saying that statistically speaking, most of this forum was probably pro-war back then

Thirty to forty percent of the population is hardly a "very little minority". Opposition to the war wasn't a LaRouche Democrat or Green Party position but a strongly held belief by good sized part of one of the two major political parties.

Plus, you know, I was actually on Arlong Park by 2004 and, while political discussions weren't big on this forum, I'd honestly be surprised if many, let alone most, of the people I saw here back then supported the war.

@Kaiolino:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

There was a slight dip in his poll numbers but as you can see throughout late 2002 and the first half of 2003 they were well over 70%.

In the four year, you can see they were in the mid-60s to mid-to-high 50s during that period until his speech about Saddam right before the war pushed it back up to a high of 71.4 which immediately began to drop. Bush lost thirty-five points in popularity over the 500 days after September 12, 2001 and twenty points after less than half the time after the Iraq War began.

Your second link even points out that thirteen percent jump in popularity.

Here is a Gallup article on how 70% of Americans approve of the Iraq war: https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx

Note that was a jump up of almost twenty points from polls before the war, which, if this was a sample of the same people, means a considerable portion of that support were convinced by his speech immediately before the war while another group was basically "Well, it's happening, might as well make the best of it."

I'm not seeing any sort of breakdown as to who was polled though beyond merely the number polled and "adults".

[Nilitch]

For how long has this forum been existing ? I thought it was created in early 2005

@Ubiq:

Thirty to forty percent of the population is hardly a "very little minority". Opposition to the war wasn't a LaRouche Democrat or Green Party position but a strongly held belief by good sized part of one of the two major political parties.

Well, now I don't know which numbers exactly we're supposed to talk about. If lots of datas everywhere makes people feel more secure, so be it.
But as always with polls, the outcome depends on the questions that are asked. The people that are polled are always diverse to be representative of the national opinion.

And that one poll that shows that 30% of americans thought that the war wasn't "agressive enough" is a very famous poll in the anti-americanist rhetoric. Because it shows how many insane warmongers there are over there. Anyway, I see that it's this poll that's an issue for you since you ignored it. It gives direct public opinions on the course of the war, not "intervention yes/no/maybe/don't know". Because properly speaking all those issues that exist today are a result of how the war was handled, not the intervention in itself.

Here is the poll (and another one here). Fox News knows how to be useful sometimes, lol

!
I'll give you that maybe it's not 6%, but 7 or 13 at most. Because "too agressive" doesn't actually mean peace & love in the end

Also, this two questions here prove that wether the Iraq war changes the threat of possible terrorist attacks on american soil is no concern for the american people (since there is only a slight difference between both questions). In other words, this was barely a war against terrorism–- but just a warmongering thing.
Not to mention that if that many people (something like 60%) think that they should go on war against Iraq and that the attacks against the US will probably increase with this war, it means that they really must a bunch of man-babies. What's even the point of the war then ?

!

And this here proves that people who actually really opposed against the war were a tiny minority

!
(even 3% seems too high tbh, there are obviously people who were very much against the war and who did nothing against it but still answered "yes" to that question)

Now you might argue that these are "FoxNews polls anyway". But there is no reason at all to believe that they manipulated the results. Neither there is any reason to believe that they asked these questions to warmongering red-necks specifically. Given that the results for the question about the support of the war itself is around 70% too, just like on the other polls.
It's true that there are very stupid questions though, like "did you send a prayer for the president ?" and also very butthurt ones like "how much do you think we should fuck the French over for not following us in Iraq ?". But it would be far-fetched to say that they influenced the polls with these questions.

Plus, you know, I was actually on Arlong Park by 2004 and, while political discussions weren't big on this forum, I'd honestly be surprised if many, let alone most, of the people I saw here back then supported the war.

And so am I surprised by all the people I know who supported Sarkozy. Oddly enough, no one among my relatives today seem to have ever supported him. People have very tricky memories.

[Ubiq]

@Nilitch:

For how long has this forum been existing ? I thought it was created in early 2005

This version dates back to February of 2005 but there were earlier incarnations that date back to 2003 or earlier.

And that one poll that shows that 30% of americans thought that the war wasn't "agressive enough" is a very famous poll in the anti-americanist rhetoric. Because it shows how many insane warmongers there are over there. Anyway, I see that it's this poll that's an issue for you since you ignored it. It gives direct public opinions on the course of the war, not "intervention yes/no/maybe/don't know". Because properly speaking all those issues that exist today are a result of how the war was handled, not the intervention in itself.

And I note once again that these polls aren't providing crosstabs to show how they break down; Opinion Dynamics as a company mostly pulls up polling results from quite a few years ago with the more current material being about their role as a marketing firm and consulting group.

And this here proves that people who actually really opposed against the war were a tiny minority

! [qimg]https://www.zupimages.net/up/18/28/au74.png[/qimg]
(even 3% seems too high tbh, there are obviously people who were very much against the war and who did nothing against it but still answered "yes" to that question)

France had over forty million people living there in World War II but only a few hundred thousand people were part of the Resistance. Clearly over 90% of the population must have supported the German occupation.

Now you might argue that these are "FoxNews polls anyway". But there is no reason at all to believe that they manipulated the results. Neither there is any reason to believe that they asked these questions to warmongering red-necks specifically. Given that the results for the question about the support of the war itself is around 70% too, just like on the other polls.
It's true that there are very stupid questions though, like "did you send a prayer for the president ?" and also very butthurt ones like "how much do you think we should fuck the French over for not following us in Iraq ?". But it would be far-fetched to say that they influenced the polls with these questions.

With it being Fox News, there's every reason to think they manipulated the results. Fox was one of the biggest proponents for the war to begin with and their polls always have a heavy Republican lean anyway.

[Monkey King]

Nilitch the only reason you aren't being steamrolled with anger and laughter for asserting ridiculously stupid shit like "3% of Americans were against the war tops" is because most of the Americans on here are (like yourself) too young to remember the Bush administration.
The entire fucking 2004 election was practically a referendum on the war, and it was an extremely heated 50/50 smash up that saw passions and anger flaring betweem Dems and Republicans.
fucking lol at "3% TOO HIGH". You're a goddamn joke who chronically opens your mouth wide to talk loudly about things you know nothing about. Shut it sometimes.

[Jabra]

When in doubt as a clueless European, like me, turn to South Park.

[Nilitch]

@Ubiq:

And I note once again that these polls aren't providing crosstabs to show how they break down; Opinion Dynamics as a company mostly pulls up polling results from quite a few years ago with the more current material being about their role as a marketing firm and consulting group.

Dude, it really doesn't matter that you don't see the specifics of this poll though. You're kinda being nitpicky here. I understand that great quality polls show us lots of details, but it's not because it doesn't that it invalidates its outcome
As far as I know, it looks like this poll isn't taken seriously by left-wing americans who think that their country isn't prone to such imbecilities.
And when I say "as far as I know", I mean that we've heard this argument about this poll many times–-- "this is a fox-news thing anyway" from north-american lefties.

This is something that often happens. For instance, when Obama got elected we've got "this is true america that is back" from the left. But is it really tho ? It looks like he was the anomaly in the american landscape, and with Trump we're kinda (kinda) back to normal.
Now that the Douche got elected, we get "this isn't the "true" america" from most media outlets (because most of the important media outlets are pro-Democrat). And the last thing that's been happening for a while now is this: "the american people are not responsable for Trump's election, it's all because of Putin and maybe a little bit of Zuckerberg". Okay, Putin probably did influence the elections (I mean, he obviously did). But my point is that americans seem to have a problem about dealing with their own bullshits. What's the problem about blaming them for the Iraq war ? Nationalism for the right ? Political correctness for the left ? maybe. (and also nationalism for the left, to be honest)
In the end, same reason why the French got fucking amnesia after WW2. We had to wait 20 to 30years to think about what had happened

Same for the Japanese. I don't blame them today, like I blame americans for the Iraq war. But we can legit blame them all for how much they endorsed that crazy Emperor in WW2. Because unlike in Europe, there was no Resistance at all in Japan.

France had over forty million people living there in World War II but only a few hundred thousand people were part of the Resistance. Clearly over 90% of the population must have supported the German occupation.

Yes, the French were scumbags. (And they might still be.) They were all clearly happy to get rid of the Jews and they're responsable for the Collaboration with the nazis as a whole. But it(/the blame) doesn't really matter anymore because these French pretty much all died. On the other hand the Iraq war is very very fresh, which is why it makes complete sense to blame the american population as a whole TODAY (except the ones who are under 30 I guess. And the 1% to 3% above that age who was against the war).
Just like some German after the war shamed the generation before them for being nazi scumbs.

But you're trying to make it sound like it was a "my people are saints vs your nation" thing. It is not. And I'm the first one to criticize the French when I have to, and I never hesitate to say that the French under Pétain who did nothing against the nazis(/eventually Germany as a whole tbh) were as much guilty as the the ones who worked with them. BECAUSE, they weren't just selling potatoes

In other words, not 90% of the French were guilty for the Shoah, but 97 to 99%. Yes. (not the whole Shoah tho, obviously). The French were basically waiting like a bunch of sheep to get slaughtered after the Jews. It's so fucking insane, it's way worst than just twiddling one's thumbs for years when there is a war on the other side of the globe

Anyway, this is a war we're talking about. Not some shitty labour law, or a libertarian tax program. If 3% of the population goes on protest, they are the ones who oppose the war. And the only ones. The people who mumble "fuck the war" between friends at the bar are useless and do not actually oppose anything. They are part of the system and in the end, they are all in line with the common opinion. Just like the French who sat on their ass for four years were. If you don't try anything and just whisper "wow, the germans are evil". It doesn't change in the slightest that they're killing children for being Jews (just killing children at all is evil tbh), and that you're next

With it being Fox News, there's every reason to think they manipulated the results. Fox was one of the biggest proponents for the war to begin with and their polls always have a heavy Republican lean anyway.

No there really isn't. And yes, the whole world knows what FoxNews is. We're not just looking at their polls and thinking "omg those american hombres are so evil". And again, wether it's the news outlets, the intelligentsia or polling organizations (like ipsos, that I linked. and btw is "politically neutral" obviously) we widely think this poll has no reason at all to be doubted.
There is no reason to believe that they asked these questions to a different demographic since, as I said earlier "the results for the question about the support of the war itself is around 70% too, just like on the other polls."

And I'm not hanging around on the american politics thread anymore (lol), but I believe that people are/were posting FoxNews polls too sometimes and it didn't look like a problem.
You can't just choose to not believe their poll when it doesn't fit your feelings about how you felt the population was like in 2003.

Also, you told me "there were widespread protests of that war". No, there clearly wasn't that much because only 3% of the population at most protested against the war.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@Monkey:

Nilitch the only reason you aren't being steamrolled with anger and laughter for asserting ridiculously stupid shit like "3% of Americans were against the war tops" is because most of the Americans on here are (like yourself) too young to remember the Bush administration.
The entire fucking 2004 election was practically a referendum on the war, and it was an extremely heated 50/50 smash up that saw passions and anger flaring betweem Dems and Republicans.
fucking lol at "3% TOO HIGH". You're a goddamn joke who chronically opens your mouth wide to talk loudly about things you know nothing about. Shut it sometimes.

show polls about how much americans supported the war
MonkeyKing: Fuck these numbers. You don't have MY F4CtSssss !!!! Look at some other numbers one year after the start of the war please !!! And somehow– you know nothing. I'll have you know that many teenagers on this forum are impressed by my sarcasm and "knowledge"

And no lol, the elections are in no way a referendum for the war, lmao. It's just the classic Democrat/Republican quarrel that keeps going on. No one gives a shit about what they campaigned for this election. Do people think that the persons who didn't vote for Bush in 2004 were against the war only because they voted Democrat ? nope, the people who voted Democrat for their entire life just kept voting democrats. And so did the ones who voted Republican. Only a slight part of the population swings between both parties. Hey, see it that way, the point is that Trump would probably not be president if he hadn't run as a Republican. This is a better argument that "muh Rasputin did this to us"
What's fucking hilarious is that it's the only time that the Republicans won the popular vote in this century, but somehow "it shows how much the american people opposed the war"

Anyway, just stay away sassy cat--- and keep ignoring half of my posts. I'm just trying to take you out of your echo-chamber--- you should grab my hand. I mean it
Or do something creative. Like, gather up all my "ignorant" posts so that I understand what you're talking about at least

--- Update From New Post Merge ---

I'd like to remind people that we're still talking about all this because of the repercussions that the Iraq war had on the Syrian conflict and the "refugee crisis" that came from it. And how Europe is dealing with the american people's bullshitts because of that

I don't mind about welcoming refugees. But you can't be pedantic about how the EU handles the refugee issue like Trevor Noah, if you're the ones who caused that migration to happen in the first place.

But you know. At this point we should just agree to disagree. And just ignore me from now on when I'll say that the US and the UK should welcome most of the refugees

[RazgrizX]

[Duanejoymn]

This post is deleted!

[Georgekalry]

This post is deleted!

[Nilitch]

Rare footage of mad Mélenchon

[Ubiq]

I… what? WHAT?

[wolfwood]

My daily entertainment is reading the comment section at the daily mail.

This brexit shitshow is about the blast into fifth gear right about now

[Satsuki]

snort In case you were wondering, Andy Serkis doesn't like the whole Brexit thing.

[Ubiq]

There's going to be a vote of no confidence by Parliament after a vote on the Brexit deal was postponed the other day.

[Kaiolino]

Forgot this thread existed for a sec, so I'll just whine here for the rest of the evening.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

Alt right FvD goes from nothing to second biggest party in the upper chamber/senate, which doesn't have much power (it can only send already drafted legislation back to the lower chamber) but does create the opportunity for opposition parties to force concessions from the governing coalition.

[hreinnbeno]

@Kaiolino:

Forgot this thread existed for a sec, so I'll just whine here for the rest of the evening.

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

Alt right FvD goes from nothing to second biggest party in the upper chamber/senate, which doesn't have much power (it can only send already drafted legislation back to the lower chamber) but does create the opportunity for opposition parties to force concessions from the governing coalition.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2IY9guXgAMZT4l.jpg:large

As a foreigner living in netherlands I find the election quite interesting. Specifically when looking at it per municipility. But isnt it rightly understood that the voters of FvD are mostly former voters of PVV (another far right party), SP (socialist party (which is though quite anti establishment party) and CDA (christian in name but mostly conservatives)

[Kaiolino]

@hreinnbeno:

As a foreigner living in netherlands I find the election quite interesting. Specifically when looking at it per municipility. But isnt it rightly understood that the voters of FvD are mostly former voters of PVV (another far right party), SP (socialist party (which is though quite anti establishment party) and CDA (christian in name but mostly conservatives)

They mostly come from PVV, VVD and CDA. Only 6% of FvD voters have voted SP earlier. Though obviously SP had a terrible election again, despite being fiercely opposed to the unpopular governing coalition and not having ties to the previous government like the PvdA does. Apparantly cozying up to the far right by praising Trump didn't help when you're the SOCIALIST party!

[hreinnbeno]

@Kaiolino:

They mostly come from PVV, VVD and CDA. Only 6% of FvD voters have voted SP earlier. Though obviously SP had a terrible election again, despite being fiercely opposed to the unpopular governing coalition and not having ties to the previous government like the PvdA does. Apparantly cozying up to the far right by praising Trump didn't help when you're the SOCIALIST party!

Yeah I didnt base it on the poll more looking at municipilities and calculating (although population changes do occur). It just always seemed that the votes that D66 and pvda lost went to groen links and Denk. And the percentages that SP lost fit together with what CDA and PVV lost and sometimes VVD (although they lost a lot less) and even sometimes SGP to round what FvD gained.

Probably it means that some D66 go to VVD and etc etc and SP voters go to groen links or 50 plus, pvdd and more stuff.

But I do like indeed how complicated it is with all these parties and you can understand what kind of town (demographics, university or not, big industry or not (harbour is an industry these days)bible belt or not) you are in depending on how people are voting.

[KageKageKing]

Code Red! Code Red! Article 13 was approved!

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/26/tech/eu-copyright-article-13/index.html

[MajinArekkusu]

Old politician farts ignoring all the people to fill their lobbyist pockets. Fk em.

[Ubiq]

Eight different Brexit proposals all failed.

The closest to success were a proposal to form a new customs union with the EU, which lost by eight votes, and a second referendum to conform any plan before Parliament could ratify it, which lost by twenty-seven. The second referendum actually got the most Yea votes overall.

[onemoment]

All the news about Brexit seems to get worse all the time. I don't get UK politics, but it's shocking they can't agree on something considering everything that's happened.