[Zionist Nationalist]

Nice to know that the EU is still not totally nuts

[B0ycey]

The EU/UK are already players in (an economic) war on Venezuela.

I think we might be in agreement on this as I don't believe nation should interfere in another nations politics. Although the mere fact that it is an economic war rather than a military intervention means something has changed the rules of aggression and a lesson has been learnt. Although as Crantag was pointed out to me, the EU (Europe) has alternative views on many thungs and the same is true on this issue. Not all EU states are pro Guaido.

[skinster]

Economic war always precedes all out war. The EU is on the same side as Trump, Bolton, Abrahms, Pence etc.

[LaDexter]

The "Iraq War" was really part of a larger, broader agenda of Zionism to get the US to "re-conquer the Promised Land" for the benefit of Israel, the only country most of our elected "leaders" care about.

Chapter 1 of Book of Joshua.... there "God" defines country Israel, the "Promised Land...."


http://biblescripture.net/Joshua.html

" Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to pass, that the LORD spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, 2 Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. 3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses. 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast. 5 There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life:"


In other words, "Israel" according to "God" occupies all of Iraq west of the Euphrates.... and that is why Senator Dianne Feinstein was always for a US war against Iraq regardless of time period or reason stated, and 99% of the "reasons" were all deliberate Zionist lies.


Einstein warned us in 1948. Maybe someday we will wake up....

[Hindsite]

Stop it by any means necessary, including declaring war on the USA.

Protect the poor people of Iraq? You could have 600,000 people from dying and even prevent ISIS from emerging..... but why didn't you?

Why did you just whine about it and condemned the US instead of fighting them?

They also wanted to get rid of Saddam's vicious dictatorship in Iraq.

The "Iraq War" was really part of a larger, broader agenda of Zionism to get the US to "re-conquer the Promised Land" for the benefit of Israel, the only country most of our elected "leaders" care about.

No it wasn't.

[dontwastemytime]

The "Iraq War" was really part of a larger, broader agenda of Zionism to get the US to "re-conquer the Promised Land"......

Then why didn't the fudging world do anything!?

Oh my God!

[dontwastemytime]

They also wanted to get rid of Saddam's vicious dictatorship in Iraq.

Yes and create this mass migration that they are complaining about, was that one of the things they wanted too?

[Hindsite]

Yes and create this mass migration that they are complaining about, was that one of the things they wanted too?

No, that was an unintended consequence of the follow-up actions of the Obama administration.

[dontwastemytime]

No, that was an unintended consequence of the follow-up actions of the Obama administration.

Of course. We're done.

I would rather talk to B0ycey.

[Drlee]

Then why didn't the fudging world do anything!?

Oh my God!

So here is a serious answer.

First let's dispose of the notion that the "world" wanted to do anything. Where is your evidence that "the world" did? I see very little. I see UN speeches that called on "caution" or even outright opposition the notion of war but not from the big players. China and Russia would oppose the US if it wanted to give everyone lollipops by calling it "snack colonialism" or "an act of aggression against the children of the world". So dismiss them. They simply do not matter in the discussion. Both could threaten war but China will not go to war with its biggest customer and Russia is scared shitless that they actually push us too far.

So that leaves the only possible player that is big enough to stop us. The EU. It could not militarily oppose us. It is just not strong enough and has absolutely no expeditionary forces anyway. It needs us to counter Russia and China because it does not want to spend what it would take to do it alone. Again. Remember the US (and increasingly China but certainly not in 2001) is the only nation that has a substantial fleet. One powerful enough to interdict or protect (take your pick) the trade routes of the world. So go to war with the US and keep your products home. Or figure out what to do about a force of over 80 fast attack submarines bent on keeping you there. So war in 2001 was simply not an option. And it still isn't.

But here is the real deal. Younger people today do not understand the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon and either the white house or Capital building. This was not some simple bomber with an agenda. It was a planned, concerted attack on the GOVERNMENT of the US. All of the other governments saw this. They also saw how powerless they were to stop a similar attack. They realized that any nominally Christian country was a potential target too. They realized that the Islamic world had to be taught a lesson. The US could have picked Iran to thump and it would not have mattered much. Saddam was an easier target to build a case for because he was in the process of being a prick anyway.

I get a kick out of those who in outrage point to the fact that the US lied about WMD. This was never about WMD. That was a cover story. But WMD was what everyone was afraid of. The word had to go out to the Islamic world that if you harbor vipers in your midst, or God forbid presume to help them, that your country was going to be over and you as the leader would hang or some such.

So the quick answer to your question for the majority of nations is simply because we do not want to. There was never any question of going to war with the US. The possibility seems never to even have been considered. The overwhelming number of nations in the world were glad to see Islam put on notice.

As to the casualties and what came later? That was never part of the discussion in the first place.

[Atlantis]

What if the Iraq war wasn't wrong? :?:

If the US's invasion of Iraq based on a false pretext wasn't wrong, then why was Hitler's invasion of Poland based on a false pretext wrong? At least Hitler's decision had the merit of concerning direct strategic interests of his country in its immediate neighborhood and not a devastated country on the other side of the world and since, moreover, it was in the context of countering the Bolshevist advance in a very unstable political context, while the US was the unchallenged global superpower at the time of its invasion of Iraq.

[SolarCross]

If the US's invasion of Iraq based on a false pretext wasn't wrong, then why was Hitler's invasion of Poland based on a false pretext wrong? At least Hitler's decision had the merit of concerning direct strategic interests of his country in its immediate neighborhood and not a devastated country on the other side of the world and since, moreover, it was in the context of countering the Bolshevist advance in a very unstable political context, while the US was the unchallenged global superpower at the time of its invasion of Iraq.

Well you know history is written by the winners. If Hitler had won no doubt we would all be singing his praises and there would be fifty foot statues of him from one end of Europe to the other just like Lenin or whatever. In hindsight it might even have been better for the poles as at least Katyn might not have happened.

As an aside it is sort of amazing how Hitler remains a universal reference for literally every conflict. History is drenched in blood, there are wars and conflicts beyond number, yet only the man with the funny 'tache seems eligible as a standard. Why not let Genghis Khan have some love? Or Napoleon?

Iraq was a follow up of the Gulf War, a finishing off. Arguably if we must compare the gulf war with WW2 then actually Saddam comes out as Hitler invading Poland as his invasion of Kuwait precipitated it. The US then would be like the allies jumping to save Poland except that unlike WW2 they did not shamefully let another more odious power take them. Kuwait had a luckier fate than Poland.

[Ter]

Sadam Hussein died like a man, with courage.
He did send cheques of 10,000 dollar to the families of every suicide bomber who committed atrocities in Israel and for that reason alone, he deserved to be hung.
And so it was done.

[Atlantis]

Iraq was a follow up of the Gulf War, a finishing off.

No, Iraq was just one of the latest UK/US interventions in the ME that started more than a century ago. The aim always was imperial expansion. Having "won" the cold war, the Neocons believed that nothing would stop them from a reconquest of the greater ME ("7 countries in 5 years"). As it turned out, they were wrong. History never is won. And Iraq was the turning point when the Anglos became the boogeymen.

PS: Funny how Trump continues the narrative by escalating the conflict with Iran as if the previous interventions hadn't been complete failures.

[SolarCross]

No, Iraq was just one of the latest UK/US interventions in the ME that started more than a century ago. The aim always was imperial expansion. Having "won" the cold war, the Neocons believed that nothing would stop them from a reconquest of the greater ME ("7 countries in 5 years"). As it turned out, they were wrong. History never is won. And Iraq was the turning point when the Anglos became the boogeymen.

PS: Funny how Trump continues the narrative by escalating the conflict with Iran as if the previous interventions hadn't been complete failures.

That is fine and arguably WW2 was a rematch of WW1 so there is hardly any war that springs up out of nowhere; they all have roots in the past. We probably need a rematch of the crusades at least. Islam still has huge swathes of Christendom it ought to give back.

[RhetoricThug]

Stop it by any means necessary, including declaring war on the USA.

Protect the poor people of Iraq? You could have 600,000 people from dying and even prevent ISIS from emerging..... but why didn't you?

Why did you just whine about it and condemned the US instead of fighting them?

Geopolitical conflicts are more than this country vs that country, flags and badges just happen to be stitched upon a soldier's sleeve. Cultural-socioeconomic factors play a major role in armed confrontations. An issue like the Iraq war cannot be resolved by bringing up the morality of war. War is immoral. The rest of world was built by war. Lastly, ISIS is a procedurally generated response to imperialism secratarian violence. The Cold War era produced modern proxy warfare and The Pentagramon has exploited it to further justify its own military doctrine.

Your thread should ask a more important question... Like "If war is wrong, why doesn't humanity stop it?"

[Zionist Nationalist]

I think Iraq would be fucked anyway even if Iraq war never happened at some point the Arab spring would ignite in Iraq and a similar scenario that happened in Syria would happen in Iraq

[Rich]

Iraq has done brilliantly since the Americans and allies liberated it from Saddam. Its seen a huge increase in GDP. Shia and Kurdish Iraq, while no Middle East Switzerlands have seen significant increases in individual liberties. There has been a huge decrease in the level of terror since Saddam's reign. It is the Sunni Muslims that have tried to stop this. It is this minoirty that, cheered on by western lefties has tried to bomb its way back into power. There is only one solution to Sunni Muslim terrorists, exterminate them where you can and expel the rest. Things took so long because central Iraq was polluted with so many Sunni Arab terrorists and Sunni Muslim terrorist enablers and collaborators.

The Shia are more Pagan than the Sunnis, so they are more decent. In many ways the Shia face the same problem with the Sunnis that we Infidels face with the Muslims as a whole. This constant urge to appease them, in the hope that they will become more reasonable. No their terrorism must be met with unflinching, merciless retribution.

[Godstud]

I think Iraq would be fucked anyway even if Iraq war never happened at some point the Arab spring would ignite in Iraq and a similar scenario that happened in Syria would happen in Iraq

Syria has never been a civil war. It's a war involving foreign funded terrorists. It's not "Arab Spring" that caused it.

Syria: It’s Not a Civil War and it Never Was
The weapons are foreign, the fighters are foreign, the agenda is foreign. As Syrian forces fight to wrest control of their country back and restore order within their borders, the myth of the “Syrian civil war” continues on. Undoubtedly there are Syrians who oppose the Syrian government and even Syrians who have taken up arms against the government and in turn, against the Syrian people, but from the beginning (in fact before the beginning) this war has been driven from abroad. Calling it a “civil war” is a misnomer as much as calling those taking up arms “opposition.” It is not a “civil war,” and those fighting the Syrian government are not “opposition.”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-its ... as/5498602

[Zionist Nationalist]

Yes it is a civil war. many people were fed with dictatorship rule of Assad and yes both sides received external support including foreign fighters without Russia and Iran Assad would lose