Did Denmark also have a colonial empire there for a bit?
European Politics Thread
-
-
You don't have to repeat all that. I know what your big brain intelligentsia thinks.
First off, it's preposterous to blame the Sykes-Picot agreement. The war didn't start because of this. It's just something americans like to tell themselves. They have a very zany way to write history. Their intelligentsia seems to have blacked out on the floor from 2003 to now.
One of the main reasons as to why the war is ending now is because ISIS isn't around anymore. If ISIS was around it's because the american people endorsed a retarded war in Iraq for years. The existence of ISIS and the proliferation of more and more religious muslim extremism is the direct consequence of the american intervention. The terrorist attacks in Europe for instance are a consequence of Dubyah's foreign policies. No one in Paris, Nice, London, Barcelona or Germany would have died if the US hadn't messed up all over the place in the Middle-East.
And there are lots of evidences, like all over the place that the conflicts in Syria have been nourished by the mess (you know, that one huge mess created by the US) in Irak.
One must wonder what the Syrian civil war would have looked like if their neighboring country on the east was Saddam Hussein's secular regime.Other thing here. When I say I blame Britons and United-Statesians for the Middle-East, I don't mean it symbolically like you blame Britain for Palestine for instance. I don't blame the Germans for the nazis for instance, because it happened 80years ago. Those germans pretty much don't exist anymore. But the Iraq war is very fresh, you were like a young teenager when it happened. And those people who endorsed the war are still in power, and are still alive. In a few decades, if the US stops being a warmongering country, then we'll have to blame the US symbolically.
Also, you have many, many, many american-centrist opinions. You don't get to tell me anything at all about arrogance
As for Lybia. I think that Sarkozy is the only one to really blame (Obama, Cameron and the others too, but not as much as Sarkozy). He just roped everyone else into it. But the French National Assembly never voted to take down Gadhaffi. That's one of the differences with the Iraq war. That's why I've said that Sarkozy "decided to kill Gadhaffi on his own". Polls showed that the French (62%) were okay about preventing the bloodbath that Gadhaffi had ordered. But the public opinion quickly dropped under 50% of approval 5months later when Sarkozy's intentions became even more un-clear. The president in France has too much power, it's not like in the UK or the US.
On the other hand, polls in the US showed that more than 50% of people were satisfied about the war in Iraq, that 30% thought that they weren't going hard enough and only 6% was against the war.
This is why americans as a whole are to blame and not just the Bush administration. -
@S.C.:
Did Denmark also have a colonial empire there for a bit?
Didn't have much, didn't leave much of a mark.
Though they DO still have the Greenland natives situation. So they get the crappiest seats in the audience, like sitting behind a pillar near the bathrooms. -
@S.C.:
Did Denmark also have a colonial empire there for a bit?
A very very bootleg colonial empire. Some podunk islands in the Caribbean, a port on the Gold Coast like everyone else did, a port in India like everyone else did, and the Nicobar Islands, where I'm pretty sure no Dane has ever actually set foot on.
-
This is ridiculous how americans have to bring up colonial empires to make themselves look cleaner
-
This is ridiculous how americans have to bring up colonial empires to make themselves look cleaner
Oh, don't get me wrong, America has definetly fucked over well over a dozen countries during the Cold War.
But Britain and France, among others, have been doing so well ahead of us.
-
As for Lybia. I think that Sarkozy is the only one to really blame (Obama, Cameron and the others too, but not as much as Sarkozy). He just roped everyone else into it. But the French National Assembly never voted to take down Gadhaffi. That's one of the differences with the Iraq war. That's why I've said that Sarkozy "decided to kill Gadhaffi on his own". Polls showed that the French (62%) were okay about preventing the bloodbath that Gadhaffi had ordered. But the public opinion quickly dropped under 50% of approval 5months later when Sarkozy's intentions became even more un-clear. The president in France has too much power, it's not like in the UK or the US.
Yeah, France's President can as far as I know pretty much order the military to do what he wants without parliamentary approval. No "Congress declares War", no "Authorization for the use of Military Force" after 9/11, no "War Powers Resolution".
Not that this makes the US decision to intervene in Iraq in 2003 any better, but the French's President's power is really, really unchecked on that occasion.
Carrot's still never gonna join the crew. 
-
You don't have to repeat all that. I know what your big brain intelligentsia thinks.
First off, it's preposterous to blame the Sykes-Picot agreement. The war didn't start because of this. It's just something americans like to tell themselves. They have a very zany way to write history. Their intelligentsia seems to have blacked out on the floor from 2003 to now.
I never mentioned Sykes-Picot mate. Though no in fact it's not preposterous to blame colonialism for metric shitloads of problems in Asia, Latin America and especially especially Africa. And again Iraq is unstable because of the Iraq war, Syria is not.
One of the main reasons as to why the war is ending now
Neat, so along with having zero understanding of the Syrian War, you also think the war is ending for some reason when it isn't.
is because ISIS isn't around anymore.
ISIS didn't even exist when the Syrian War began, and have nothing intrinsic to do with the conflict at all. They were opportunistic buzzards who rose to take advantage of the pre-existing violence and chaos. Their destruction will not resolve anything that led to this conflict existing.
You seem to be under the impression that the Syrian war is the ISIS War, which it isn't by any stretch of the imagination.
Learn about conflicts that you are talking about thank you.And there are lots of evidences, like all over the place that the conflicts in Syria have been nourished by the mess (you know, that one huge mess created by the US) in Irak.
One must wonder what the Syrian civil war would have looked like if their neighboring country on the east was Saddam Hussein's secular regime.Hmmmmm! Saddam the Sunni Arab champion of Iraq, extreme antagonist of Iran, and Kurd archenemy. Naw, can't imagine any ways he would have gotten involved in the Syrian war at all.
Other thing here. When I say I blame Britons and United-Statesians for the Middle-East, I don't mean it symbolically like you blame Britain for Palestine for instance.
Symbolically?? Hahaha fuck you. You REALLY don't get it do you.
It isn't symbolic. The damage is real, the fires are still burning, people are still dying.
People in those countries aren't fucking idiots you know. They're well aware of what the colonial powers did to them, and they damn sure won't forget anytime soon.I don't blame the Germans for the nazis for instance, because it happened 80years ago.
This is it right here. Western Europe sits in it's clean nice modern rooms and wistfully recalls bygone ages of crimes, "nice that we are good now" they say.
MEANWHILE: Back in reality, blood is still gushing freshly out of those "old" wounds.
Oh also, Germany paid their price for that. France, the Brits, us? We just left those places and went home, so we could pat ourselves on the back for being good guys now, and contract some convenient feel-good amnesia.Hey riddle me this Batman, in Cyprus when I went to see my ethnically cleansed father in law's childhood neighborhood, sealed off behind huge barriers by the Turkish army, a product of violent and traumatic ethnic conflict that the Brits fanned the flames of before they left. Was that all in my imagination? Or just ~symbolic~?
Also, you have many, many, many american-centrist opinions. You don't get to tell me anything at all about arrogance
Now what do you think I'm doing here. Absolving the US of crime? No. I'm reminding you that you're in the shitter with us. If you can't bear to deal with that than the arrogance is yours.
Look at this post you just made. The whole thing is flailing and wailing around trying to get the blood off your countries hands. NO NO NO, THAT'S YOUUUU GUYS. NOT US. WE'RE GOOOOOD.The president in France has too much power, it's not like in the UK or the US.
lol
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
This is ridiculous how americans have to bring up colonial empires to make themselves look cleaner
Right friends??? Right? Haha, get a load of these guys huh??
nervously elbows a very stone faced third world -
@Cyan:
A very very bootleg colonial empire. Some podunk islands in the Caribbean, a port on the Gold Coast like everyone else did, a port in India like everyone else did, and the Nicobar Islands, where I'm pretty sure no Dane has ever actually set foot on.
Still more of an empire than what New Sweden amounted to.
-
Still more of an empire than what New Sweden amounted to.
Honestly I feel like you guys should be like working concessions rather than in the audience the more I think about it.
Like the dudes who walk around selling hot dogs and beer. So still a good view of the action, but you gotta do some work.
Not sure if we should make the Finns work too or not. Like they didn't have anything like an empire ever, but I dunno if they really should get seats with all the victims of colonialism exactly? Maybe because of Russia, but they had such a cushy situation there.Ireland though, gotdamn, they definitely get a seat.
Also I should have mentioned it, but I think most of Eastern Europe gets seats as well. Definitely anything former USSR or Balkan. Less sure about former Austria-Hungary places, Hungary for instance definitely doesn't get a seat for that, but maybe for the East Bloc days.
-
@S.C.:
Oh, don't get me wrong, America has definetly fucked over well over a dozen countries during the Cold War.
But Britain and France, among others, have been doing so well ahead of us.
Yeah, I've already heard all these arguments. The difference is that France and the UK were dealing with the end of their colonial empires. They're not fucking up all over the world now, and they've stopped after the 60's. But the US, well, it's very much unclear if they stopped that after the Cold War. The most crystal clear example is the Iraq war. But it's not the only thing. In 30years or so, when new archives will be declassified and when their dirty jobs will be revealed (if there is any, but there is obviously going to be a lot) then the US government will say that "this is the past, we don't do that anymore". Just like they're doing right now with the Cold War things
The "colonial empires" is something we hear a lot as a counter-argument. But it was before the 60's, they were dealing with hundreds of years of stupidity. And honestly, it didn't fuck up all over the place. There were wars and friendly dictators maintained in power in those colonies/countries. But lots of them got their independencies peacefully
-
Indeed the prominent West Euro powers did nothing during the Cold War aside from gallantly leave their colonies one by one (or be literally forced out of them through guerrilla campaigns or outright war, but whatever). There wasn't any kind of involvement in anti-communist campaigns and such.
Nor do they maintain overpowering economic strangleholds on former colonies either.–- Update From New Post Merge ---
But lots of them got their independencies peacefully
Famed peaceful legacies of France:
in Troy McClure voice
-Vietnam!
-Laos!
-Cambodia!
-Algeria!
-Morocco!
-Ivory Coast!
-Mali!
-Burkina Faso!
-Lebanon!
-Syria!
-Central African Republic!
-Chad!
-Niger!
-Guinea!
-Mauritania! -
@Big:
Yeah, France's President can as far as I know pretty much order the military to do what he wants without parliamentary approval. No "Congress declares War", no "Authorization for the use of Military Force" after 9/11, no "War Powers Resolution".
The French president can do whatever he wants with the military power. He can give weapons to whoever he wants and send the special forces wherever he wants, whenever he wants. But, if he wants to "declare war". Like, using the official army. He can do it, but the National Assembly has to vote 4months later if they want to pursue the war. Meaning that the president could decide to go on 3month wars every 3months if he wanted to.
As for Sarkozy and Lybia. He exactly did that. And 4months later, François Fillion (PrimeMinister) gave a speech at the NationalAssembly, asking the deputies to maintain the war in order to make Gadhaffi "bend" (/plier) because it "wasn't enough to ensure the security of the Lybian people". The deputies gave their approval with a wide majority. Except that even if they give their approval 4months later to keep up the war, they still don't have any authority on the president after that vote. And what did Sarkozy do ? He killed Gadhaffi. It wasn't what he had the approval for.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Monkey:
Indeed the prominent West Euro powers did nothing during the Cold War aside from gallantly leave their colonies one by one (or be literally forced out of them through guerrilla campaigns or outright war, but whatever). There wasn't any kind of involvement in anti-communist campaigns and such.
Nor do they maintain overpowering economic strangleholds on former colonies either.yeh lol, that's literally what I've said. Do you have issues with your eyes ?
And the virtues of the link between the Euro and CFA-franc are debatableFamed peaceful legacies of France:
in Troy McClure voice
-Vietnam!
-Laos!
-Cambodia!
-Algeria!
-Morocco!
-Ivory Coast!
-Mali!
-Burkina Faso!
-Lebanon!
-Syria!
-Central African Republic!
-Chad!
-Niger!
-Guinea!
-Mauritania!Why are you acting like you were contradicting anything here ? Bad strawman. The ArlongParkForum people are too smart to fall into this
-
@Monkey:
Honestly I feel like you guys should be like working concessions rather than in the audience the more I think about it.
Like the dudes who walk around selling hot dogs and beer. So still a good view of the action, but you gotta do some work.
Not sure if we should make the Finns work too or not. Like they didn't have anything like an empire ever, but I dunno if they really should get seats with all the victims of colonialism exactly? Maybe because of Russia, but they had such a cushy situation there.Give us a spiky seat in the bumbling oaf section of the colonialists. Y'know those guys who never had anything substansial but certainly not for lack of trying. Being inept at it doesn't make the attempt any less shit. Finlands pretty much a chew toy though, always had to die on someone else's battlefield. There's a reason those guys drink like fish
-
@Monkey:
And again Iraq is unstable because of the Iraq war, Syria is not.
This should stop right here. This is as bad as saying that Pétain isn't responsable for the Collaboration (with the nazis). And what, do you think there are giant walls at the frontier ?
And this isn't "me" vs "tha amerikkans" here. This is your intelligentsia vs mine. But your master-race of monolinguals can't know that. Just get out of your echo-chamberNeat, so along with having zero understanding of the Syrian War, you also think the war is ending for some reason when it isn't.
I haven't said a thing about Berlusconi either. That it's the third country responsable for that war. You know. Are you also gonna blame me for not having mentioned him sooner ?
So many strawmans thoISIS didn't even exist when the Syrian War began, and have nothing intrinsic to do with the conflict at all. They were opportunistic buzzards who rose to take advantage of the pre-existing violence and chaos. Their destruction will not resolve anything that led to this conflict existing.
You seem to be under the impression that the Syrian war is the ISIS War, which it isn't by any stretch of the imagination.
Learn about conflicts that you are talking about thank you."The civil war in Syria has been nourished by the conflicts in Iraq"
Get your head out of your ass and learn to readAnd yes, ISIS existed before the Syrian civil war started.
Hmmmmm! Saddam the Sunni Arab champion of Iraq, extreme antagonist of Iran, and Kurd archenemy. Naw, can't imagine any ways he would have gotten involved in the Syrian war at all.
Yeah, keep imagining what you can't know then
Symbolically?? Hahaha fuck you. You REALLY don't get it do you.
It isn't symbolic. The damage is real, the fires are still burning, people are still dying.
People in those countries aren't fucking idiots you know. They're well aware of what the colonial powers did to them, and they damn sure won't forget anytime soon.What I've said is super clear. Symbolically means "not the country today". When I blame the US, I blame your current neighbors for instance who probably endorsed the war. Hell, most of the americans on this forum probably endorsed this war in 2003. Given that there are lots of people above 30.
This is it right here. Western Europe sits in it's clean nice modern rooms and wistfully recalls bygone ages of crimes, "nice that we are good now" they say.
MEANWHILE: Back in reality, blood is still gushing freshly out of those "old" wounds.
Oh also, Germany paid their price for that. France, the Brits, us? We just left those places and went home, so we could pat ourselves on the back for being good guys now, and contract some convenient feel-good amnesia.You're a crazy person. This is typical of north-american liberals to blame each other for things that their country did hundreds of years ago. We don't do that here. We don't blame each other for the Shoah because it simply doesn't make any sense. The French of the 40's aren't the same people as the ones of today. This is simple logic. Can you get that through your head ?
But tell us. What did you think about the Iraq war when you were a teenager ??Hey riddle me this Batman, in Cyprus when I went to see my ethnically cleansed father in law's childhood neighborhood, sealed off behind huge barriers by the Turkish army, a product of violent and traumatic ethnic conflict that the Brits fanned the flames of before they left. Was that all in my imagination? Or just ~symbolic~?
yeah, keep acting like a super victim here. Do you blame the British people ? or do you blame the decisions taken by the British government in 1960 ? That's where lies the huge difference. Is it too hard to understand ? Or do you just want to "blame other countries TOO" just to make the US look nice and clean?
Now what do you think I'm doing here. Absolving the US of crime? No. I'm reminding you that you're in the shitter with us. If you can't bear to deal with that than the arrogance is yours.
Look at this post you just made. The whole thing is flailing and wailing around trying to get the blood off your countries hands. NO NO NO, THAT'S YOUUUU GUYS. NOT US. WE'RE GOOOOOD.You really didn't reply to anything. You even failed to understand basic logic.
And I blame the French for having elected Sarkozy btw. I've said that many times. Even though he took all these decisions himself, it doesn't change that the French turned out to be super dumb by electing this guy in the first place. At least, they didn't do it twice. Coughs Dubyah
I don't understand where I'm being hypocrite about the French government's crimes here.lol
What "lol". Just read a book that hasn't been written by an american for once in your life
-
Dude, I'm sure that if you said any of this vitrol to any african you find on the streets they would knock your teeth out.
Like your fucking country is built on the misery of who knows how many people, you didn't kill anybody, no one you know killed anybody, but still, you live in the house, eat the food, reap the education, enjoy your fucking working trains, and overpriced water, and healthcare, built on these people's lives.
Own your fucking privilege.
3DS FC: 0516-7666-3837
SW-4128-8032-0729
-
Dude, I'm sure that if you said any of this vitrol to any african you find on the streets they would knock your teeth out.
Like your fucking country is built on the misery of who knows how many people, you didn't kill anybody, no one you know killed anybody, but still, you live in the house, eat the food, reap the education, enjoy your fucking working trains, and overpriced water, and healthcare, built on these people's lives.
Own your fucking privilege.
Hey i konw colonialism was bad, but this post is dumb. France will still have been rich even without colonies.
and no one will "knock his teeth out" over some mild comments lol
-
lol yes in America lefties do own up to the fact that we live on good things built directly or indirectly by slavery (yes, even in the Northeast we benefitted from the trade generated by what Southern plantations were producing).
And no, this is not a negative feature of American leftism.
It's not taking literal personal blame for it, it's acknowledging both your own society for what it is built on (and continues benefitting from), and the still extremely real negative legacy of those old things on living breathing modern people. And that frankly there should be a role in it.
When Mali was melting down a few years back, France got involved in peacekeeping efforts. What is that if not some responsibility being taken for tatters left behind by empire?–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Hey i konw colonialism was bad, but this post is dumb. France will still have been rich even without colonies.
and no one will "knock his teeth out" over some mild comments lol
Tunisians? Probably not. Your neighbors to the west? Muuuuch more likely!
And dude, why do you think Western Europe built huge empires like they did? Empires of that sort were massive money making schemes as much as they were territorial competitions. The infrastructure of entire Sub-Saharan African countries was built up around things like mineral extraction, as in, minerals leaving the country.
MaxterDexter is Venezuelan. Latin America is such a mess relative to Anglo America by and large part because those colonies were quite literally that. Huge mining/crop farms for Spain to plunder and extract right back to Spain. The status of the local area didn't matter relative to that driving purpose.
-
Dude, I'm sure that if you said any of this vitrol to any african you find on the streets they would knock your teeth out.
Like your fucking country is built on the misery of who knows how many people, you didn't kill anybody, no one you know killed anybody, but still, you live in the house, eat the food, reap the education, enjoy your fucking working trains, and overpriced water, and healthcare, built on these people's lives.
Own your fucking privilege.
You've reached peak stupidity with Frataro-boy here. We're exploring unknown territories now
Especially given that I'm so far from being 100% pure French race and that the French fucked up over my ancestors territories too. But I'm not blaming my neighbor for something that the 4th Republic did 70years ago
And why would anyone be mad at me if I tell them not to blame me but the French government of that time ?
-
Hey i konw colonialism was bad, but this post is dumb. France will still have been rich even without colonies.
and no one will "knock his teeth out" over some mild comments lol
It's what I feel like doing when the spaniards rename the independency wars into whatever the politically correct name they decided for it that I can't remember or translate, or people talk about how what chavez did wasn't "true socialism".
True, most european countries would have been rich without conolialism, not gigantic empires, but good enough livehood for them I'd guess. That doesn't excuse it, I feel like that makes it worse.
Honestly, I'm more angry at the Marxist side of things, as it is what has screwed me over in my lifetime.
-
@Monkey:
Tunisians? Probably not. Your neighbors to the west? Muuuuch more likely!
yeah maybe if he insulted martyrs or actually defended colonialism as a good thing but i think most Algerians wouldn't beat a guy up over the comments made in this thread.
And dude, why do you think Western Europe built huge empires like they did? Empires of that sort were massive money making schemes as much as they were territorial competitions. The infrastructure of entire Sub-Saharan African countries was built up around things like mineral extraction, as in, minerals leaving the country.
MaxterDexter is Venezuelan. Latin America is such a mess relative to Anglo America by and large part because those colonies were quite literally that. Huge mining/crop farms for Spain to plunder and extract right back to Spain. The status of the local area didn't matter relative to that driving purpose.
Just simply forcing them to open trade would have been much more efficient than the brutal colonialism that happened.
and colonialism isn't necessary for development (look at Germany) and sometimes it actively hinders it (look at Spain).
also slavery wasn't good for the economy either but that didn't stop anyone. -
Why are we even talking about all of this ? At first I was just saying that the UK and the US should welcome most of the refugees and MonkeyKing got mad because "the Iraq mess cannot have any consequences on the Syrian Civil war"
This is literally what the French media and intellligentsia widely agree on. But it seems like americans are living in a huge echo-chamberIt's really astonishing that no one seems to understand the difference between the Iraq war and (for instance) the war in Libya led by Sarkozy, in terms of blame and national responsibility
-
Just simply forcing them to open trade would have been much more efficient than the brutal colonialism that happened.
and colonialism isn't necessary for development (look at Germany) and sometimes it actively hinders it (look at Spain).
also slavery wasn't good for the economy either but that didn't stop anyone.Uh, Germany did have a colonial empire. They lost it all after losing WWI, giving their colonies up to the various winning powers.
Spain profited immensely from their empire, becoming crazzzzy rich centuries ago. They mismanaged that wealth spectacularly however is why it seemed like they were poor as crap around the time the others in Western Europe started to really get into overseas colonialism. They peaked early, crashed, and around the same time also lost like 80% of their empire to independence movements when Napoleon messed them upalso slavery wasn't good for the economy either but that didn't stop anyone.
Slavery was profitable for quite awhile, but eventually the economy moved on to more industrial things and yes the South was increasingly left behind as the North became all about factories. The South is not a place renowned for moving on toward new things easily let's just say.
The point remains that this does not erase what wealth it did generate.–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Why are we even talking about all of this ? At first I was just saying that the UK and the US should welcome most of the refugees and MonkeyKing got mad because "the Iraq mess cannot have any consequences on the Syrian Civil war"
This is literally what the French media and intellligentsia widely agree on. But it seems like americans are living in a huge echo-chamberIt's almost like a country very involved in the implosions of Libya and the literal creation of Syria as we know it, telling others that they alone deserve the blame, is a gross and stupid thing.
Also the thing with living in arrogant myopic asshole countries like each of our own, is being self-aware. The US has a very insular echo chamber mindset, it's true. The Brits absolutely do as well. Now, about that self-awareness…
-
As a Yugoslav, I think I can say that the idea that the Allied Powers had to take Serbia and all that new balkan territory freed from the Austrians and shove it together into one country was, in hindsight, a really bad idea.
-
@Monkey:
Uh, Germany did have a colonial empire. They lost it all after losing WWI, giving their colonies up to the various winning powers.
Germany's empire was pretty small though, right? and it happened after Germany already became the most developed country in mainland europe.
Spain profited immensely from their empire, becoming crazzzzy rich centuries ago. They mismanaged that wealth spectacularly however is why it seemed like they were poor as crap around the time the others in Western Europe started to really get into overseas colonialism. They peaked early, crashed, and around the same time also lost like 80% of their empire to independence movements when Napoleon messed them up
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.
Slavery was profitable for quite awhile, but eventually the economy moved on to more industrial things and yes the South was increasingly left behind as the North became all about factories. The South is not a place renowned for moving on toward new things easily let's just say.
The point remains that this does not erase what wealth it did generate.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.
If the confederacy has actually became independent and kept slavery they're path will probably be similar to Brazil. -
Everything that's been happening since 2003 is the direct consequence of this war.
There are some people who really think that what happened in Iraq has nothing to do with Syria. Likewise, what happened to Libya has nothing to do with what happened later in all sahel region and still happening to this day. The rat's name is "Baghdadi" for fuck sake. It means somebody from Algiers, May be?
No matter how you try to teach them, their hatred to Russia will always blind their sight. For instance: everybody agrees to this and this, still no relation between Iraq war and Syria? And it's funny how you people think that your politicians love us civilians when they barely show love for their own people. Democracy was never their aim. In the case of Libya, it's just a game of power, that has seen Italy loose his turf for others and also sanction Gaddafi for trying to kill the Franc-CFA, that's why Sarkozy killed him. And in Syria, you are forgetting a lot of actors involved: Saudi Arabia the ideology and money backer, Turkey and their plan to destroy the Kurds, Israel and their plan to destroy any other muslim non-aligned country, and of these warmongers are US allies.It's very easy to notice that every single war happening right now is being made by the US, Nato or allies and vassals. The war in Yemen, is one of them. If what you say is right about your politicians loving poor civilians, why do they not bother with Yemen people? UK, France and US are seeling right now the weapons to destroy this country. If your people really care about democracy, why no one is saying anything about these: here or Here.
It's only after Turkey started to see that France and Israel are pushing for a Kurdistan that they started to go against the plans to completely destroy Syria.
What's happening right now in the middle-east has nothing to do with democracy, your politicians will never have the smallest ounce of love or sympathy for us here, all they are doing is playing war games, influence games and economic games with our lives here. Please, stop talking blood bath that could have happened, when the Iraq war alone has killed millions of innocent people and kids who never even thought to harm any of you. Have the decency to stop talking about Gaddafi and his hypothetical blood bath when one of the deadliest famine is happening right now with your weapons doing it, when people you are backing are doing it. Please stop pretending you care and stop insulting yourselves and think that your politicians and rulers have the empathy to care. All in all is: Oil, Israel and influence. Our lives have nothing to do with it, our well being has nothing to do with it.
-
There are some people who really think that what happened in Iraq has nothing to do with Syria. Likewise, what happened to Libya has nothing to do with what happened later in all sahel region and still happening to this day. The rat's name is "Baghdadi" for fuck sake. It means somebody from Algiers, May be?
The Syrian civil war wasn't caused by what happened in Iraq. And I don't know what Baghdadi is supposed to prove, what's happening in Syria isn't about ISIS.
No matter how you try to teach them, their hatred to Russia will always blind their sight. For instance: everybody agrees to this and this, still no relation between Iraq war and Syria?
Western support for non Kurdish opposition was minor and didn't last long, the bulk of ISIS's military capability came from the ex Saddam army, doesn't that give you an idea how a Saddam that was still in power would have reacted to the war?
And again the Syrian civil war isn't about ISIS.And it's funny how you people think that your politicians love us civilians when they barely show love for their own people. Democracy was never their aim. In the case of Libya, it's just a game of power, that has seen Italy loose his turf for others and also sanction Gaddafi for trying to kill the Franc-CFA, that's why Sarkozy killed him.
This is conspiracy nonsense Gaddafi wasn't trying and couldn't kill the Franc-CFA and like most dictators he was genuinely hated by his people and the revolution was because of that. The western intervention witch was for the better happened because southern Europe didn't want a long civil war near it's border and probably they hoped for Libya to become a democracy too, and the chaos we have now is because they didn't commit to the intervention
And in Syria, you are forgetting a lot of actors involved: Saudi Arabia the ideology and money backer, Turkey and their plan to destroy the Kurds, Israel and their plan to destroy any other muslim non-aligned country, and of these warmongers are US allies.
these are just small parts of a bigger conflict, most the fighting is done between the opposition and the regime and most the people killed were killed by the government and its allies. If you want to blame a foreign country blame Russia and Iran. But you still should look at the war primarily as a Syrian conflict.
It's very easy to notice that every single war happening right now is being made by the US, Nato or allies and vassals.
Only Yemen really.
The war in Yemen, is one of them. If what you say is right about your politicians loving poor civilians, why do they not bother with Yemen people? UK, France and US are seeling right now the weapons to destroy this country.
Yeah i agree.
If your people really care about democracy, why no one is saying anything about these: here or Here.
i agree with this there should at least be economic sanctions.
It's only after Turkey started to see that France and Israel are pushing for a Kurdistan that they started to go against the plans to completely destroy Syria.
What?
What's happening right now in the middle-east has nothing to do with democracy, your politicians will never have the smallest ounce of love or sympathy for us here, all they are doing is playing war games, influence games and economic games with our lives here. Please, stop talking blood bath that could have happened, when the Iraq war alone has killed millions of innocent people and kids who never even thought to harm any of you.
The Iraq war was mostly ideological there was no benefit for the US only losses.
All in all is: Oil, Israel and influence. Our lives have nothing to do with it, our well being has nothing to do with it.
The US doesn't benefit from being in the middle east. Leaving wouldn't make the oil trade stop it would just releave resources for places that actually has geopolitical interest for the US like the east Asia-pacific.
The US is in the middle east because the genuinely want to export democracy.
You should stop looking at the world like it's full of master plans and evil genius sociopaths, maybe you'll get a better grip on reality. -
Ok this is a shitshow now. Third party Arabs are joining the quarrel too. Anyone else's up for it?
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Being the most honest possible. One really has to have lost his mind to think that there is a huge-ass blackhole at the Syrian frontier with Irak that prevents any conflicts from crossing the border- and eventually nourishing the other conflicts on the other side of the frontier
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
The Syrian civil war wasn't caused by what happened in Iraq.
Yeah, he literally did not say that tho. I'm starting to believe that there is a weird voodoo spell on this forum that prevents people from having good reading comprehension
-
Yeah, he literally did not say that tho. I'm starting to believe that there is a weird voodoo spell on this forum that prevents people from having good reading comprehension
Well he seemed to be agreeing with your comment that "Everything that's been happening since 2003 is the direct consequence of this war." so i assumed that was what he meant.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Being the most honest possible. One really has to have lost his mind to think that there is a huge-ass blackhole at the Syrian frontier with Irak that prevents any conflicts from crossing the border- and eventually nourishing the other conflicts on the other side of the frontier
yeah, but no one is saying that though.
-
yeah, but no one is saying that though.
There are some people who really think that what happened in Iraq has nothing to do with Syria.
The Syrian civil war wasn't caused by what happened in Iraq.
No one said the Syrian war was caused by ISIS or that that anything that happened in Iraq triggered this civil war. But basically that what happened in Iraq has sustained the Syrian conflict
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
And it's funny how you people think that your politicians love us civilians when they barely show love for their own people. Democracy was never their aim. In the case of Libya, it's just a game of power, that has seen Italy loose his turf for others and also sanction Gaddafi for trying to kill the Franc-CFA, that's why Sarkozy killed him. And in Syria, you are forgetting a lot of actors involved: Saudi Arabia the ideology and money backer, Turkey and their plan to destroy the Kurds, Israel and their plan to destroy any other muslim non-aligned country, and of these warmongers are US allies.
I never said that any politician was a saint, nor that they cared about anyone. Sarkozy's intentions in Libya were always unclear
The point remaining that the Iraq war opened a huge playground for every idiots in the Middle-East. And that every single americans are responsable for it (except those 6%??).
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Monkey:
It's almost like a country very involved in the implosions of Libya and the literal creation of Syria as we know it, telling others that they alone deserve the blame, is a gross and stupid thing.
Also the thing with living in arrogant myopic asshole countries like each of our own, is being self-aware. The US has a very insular echo chamber mindset, it's true. The Brits absolutely do as well. Now, about that self-awareness…
Look, the French population didn't create Syria. But americans (almost all of them) fully endorsed the Iraq war. The Government went there, supported by the Congress and the whole country. They screwed up all over the Middle-East with that war.
You yourself seem to live in an echo-chamber since it looks like it's the first time that you hear that the US is responsable for the Middle-Eastern refugee crisis. And you cannot not live in an echo-chamber if you only speak english btw. Lots of what is being produced by German and French academias is NOT translated in english. This is why I often hear crazy things from people here like "my american opinion is the truth. Nilitch doesn't have the f4CtS".
Also, what you're implying is very much far-fetched. Basically that "France is somehow responsable for the Al-Assad family dropping secularism and going full nuts on people who are not Alawites". And what I'm saying is "the US is totally responsable for not having foreseen that invading Iraq, occupying the land for many years and eventually leaving would turn a lot of muslims into wannabe-nazis". And that these nazis played an important role in the Syrian Civil War. In the country right next to Iraq where they can freely go because there is no real frontier that'd prevent them from doing so (it's just desert). This is why "the Iraq mess greatly nourished the Syrian civil war". This is why this war has been lasting for so long.
And it's far from being just ISIS though. Many groups went in Iraq when they had to retreat, treat their injuries, get weapons etceteraAs for Libya. I've already said it all. I really hate to repeat myself but the refugees aren't coming from Libya but from Eastern-Africa and the Sahel. Sarkozy helped the rebels in Libya for a few months only, that's all. He didn't invade the whole freaking continent
And he helped for the on-going war in Libya on his own. You can't just "lol" at this. This is true. The French president has too much power in comparison with the British PM and American president just like BigBlackHole pointed out. You didn't know that. It doesn't matter, I'm not gonna put pressure on you. Next time, just do your homework before being the sassy american historian that tries to teach his neighbors that everyone has blood on their hands and that "it's very objective" -
No one said the Syrian war was caused by ISIS or that that anything that happened in Iraq triggered this civil war. But basically that what happened in Iraq has sustained the Syrian conflict
well i guess it's my fault for not assuming "direct consequence" just meant sustainment lol.
And I still kinda disagree with that because as I said before most of the fighting is done between Syrians and the war wouldn't be that different without Iraqi fighters. And in a scenario where the Iraq war didn't happen Saddam would have probably intervened in Syria anyway. -
But americans (almost all of them) fully endorsed the Iraq war. The Government went there, supported by the Congress and the whole country.
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.
-
well i guess it's my fault for not assuming "direct consequence" just meant sustainment lol.
And muslim extremism wouldn't be that much of a thing in the world. Also, ISIS would not exist for instance
And I still kinda disagree with that because as I said before most of the fighting is done between Syrians and the war wouldn't be that different without Iraqi fighters.
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
And in a scenario where the Iraq war didn't happen Saddam would have probably intervened in Syria anyway.
Every scenario that doesn't evolve the Iraq war is just purely and entirely hypothetical. And it's eventually a better scenario anyway
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
-
Well he seemed to be agreeing with your comment that "Everything that's been happening since 2003 is the direct consequence of this war." so i assumed that was what he meant.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
yeah, but no one is saying that though.It's not a "civil war" when: US, Turkey, Russia, Iran, Liban, Israel, Saudi Arabia, France, UK and mercenaries form Tunisia, Algeria and many others are involved. At least, in my humble knowledge, that's not a civil war. I am not saying ISIS started the civil war in Syria. I just said ISIS was created in Iraq with Iraqi people and after that went to Syria and changed the name to include the whole region. So yes, Iraq war started the destabilization of the region.
The Iraq war was mostly ideological there was no benefit for the US only losses.
Are you serious? If you mean benefit for the whole population of the US, of course there's none. But the chaos is the benefit to all US allies there and the chaos keeps their enemies busy. I am not even talking about the military industry, the oil companies. The chaos in that region keeps Iran, Russia and Hezbollah busy, while giving the Kurds, Israel and Turkey (US allies) the possibility to do their shit. And giving Saudi Arabia the religious (sunni-shia conflict) war they want. Chaos is one of the benefits. The same goes for Libya, chaos is the benefit as well as the change in who now controls the oil which shifted from Italy to France/UK.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I never said that any politician was a saint, nor that they cared about anyone. Sarkozy's intentions in Libya were always unclear
My comment was not meant to you. It's funny how the Lybian destruction is treated differently from Europe (especially in France) and in the US. They really still think they did it for "democracy", while in France, one of the main actors, it is really clear that Sarkozy did it for obscure reasons and that the intervention is a complete error. At least, Sarkozy is being investigated for his ties with the Gaddafi family and money, yet here they only know about the blood bath that was going to happen to poor Lybian civilians and they were saved by saint US/UK/French politicians like Sarkozy. Really funny…
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Complicating things since 2009.
-
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.
-
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 -
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.
-
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.
-
@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?
-
@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?
-
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…
-
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…
Indeed leave it to the two cowards behind South Park to champion smug neutrality in any given circumstance.
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
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 fireIf 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
-
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/
-
@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.
