If the Iraq War was wrong, why didn't Europe and Canada and the rest of the world stop it? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15002864
Europe and Canada could have had a good start by not jumping aboard the imperialism train. Should the US have led the charge to stop European colonization of Africa and Asia? Yes? Well why didn't these hypothetical saviors come to the aid of the global poor? Maybe individual countries aren't as important as the system in which they were born.
#15002886
One of our problems is that the left has so much unconscious moral and cultural inheritance from Christianity. Note one of the differences between Cultural Marxism and Orthodox Marixsm, is that the latter at least makes the pretence of being historical-idealist, while the former makes no attempt to hide its historical - idealist nature.

An example of this is say women. In bare 200 years the position of women in our societies has been utterly transformed. Why?

The historical idealist view is because a number, in fact an increasing of number of women have dared to think differently, have dared to stand up to hate and prejudice. The inspiring examples of the early women's rights thought leaders have encouraged more and women to stand up against, bigoted,hateful irrational, patriarchal thinking.

The historical materialist view is that the Agrarian Patriarchal cultural superstructure was grounded on the Agrarian modes of production, centred as they were on the heavy plough and animal herding, that put women, and particularly pregnant and potentially pregnant women at a huge productive disadvantage. It was also supported on the organised hierarchical militaries that characterised the Agrarian epoch. This differed from the preceding horticultural modes of production and the succeeding economic revolutions have destroyed its economic base.

Anyway just war theory (or lack of theory) have been imported from Christianity.
#15003128
Because all of Christendom sees the rise of Islam as a threat. Because the US was attacked by Saudi Arabia and they were afraid that if they did not go along with this stuff that the US would take SA and thence the oil. Because nobody liked Saddam and he was a good scapegoat to put the other actors in the reason on notice.
#15003134
How was it good?

Drlee wrote:Because all of Christendom sees the rise of Islam as a threat.


This is a disgusting statement. "Christians" in America are a whole other breed if we go by their output on this board.

Because the US was attacked by Saudi Arabia and they were afraid that if they did not go along with this stuff that the US would take SA and thence the oil.


What?

Because nobody liked Saddam and he was a good scapegoat to put the other actors in the reason on notice.


The U.S. actually loved Saddam for a long time.

The real answer might be closer to the wishes of the neocon's PNAC agenda.
#15003149
Drlee wrote:Because all of Christendom sees the rise of Islam as a threat. Because the US was attacked by Saudi Arabia and they were afraid that if they did not go along with this stuff that the US would take SA and thence the oil. Because nobody liked Saddam and he was a good scapegoat to put the other actors in the reason on notice.

I think this was a good honest attempt at stabbing at the truth, but I think you use distorted logic here. The first sentence I don't really have much to say on because I've really never even so much as attended a church service, let alone understood Christian sentiments, so I've nothing to comment on that one. The second sentence starts off good, but then sort of flips the script suddenly. To clarify are you saying the Saudi's attacked the US on 9/11? Because if so, I agree it's a good theory and evidence-based, but the logic of the second clause of the sentence doesn't follow the first, for me. The Saudis attacked the US and therefore had to go along with what the US wanted? I don't think so.

I think that what you are tapping into involves loyalties and associations which are largely supranational. Sort of, the Saudis had the Americans by the balls. That's not to say the Americans were thence manipulated to do the Saudi's bidding, but rather that interests were such as that the US couldn't react in such a way as you suggest, without pissing in a lot of lemonades of the American ruling class (and that this would have been a calculated aspect, on the part of the Saudis). I'm not planting a flag on this or anything, as we really don't have the facts, and this is just an example of whimsical speculation. But I just didn't catch a logical train in your whimsical speculation. You can elaborate of course if you wish.

The last sentence characterizing Saddam as a scapegoat seems logical. Taking the sentence as a whole, it seems you mean to say that Iraq and the assassination of Saddam (it was a kangaroo court, after a military capture, so I reckon assassination is a relevant description) was a demonstration to others. It may have been. I tend to think it was more about seeking to bring the territory of Iraq under a sphere of domination. This has been a longstanding trend in the policy moves of Western imperialists. But again, these are just whims.
#15003154
The problem with the Iraq war was we only knew that it was wrong for sure after discovering that Blair and Bush made a ton of shit up about WMDs after the event and we were strung along with propaganda prior to it. By which time when the ruse was revealed, Europe and Canada were already invested in the project and had to continue course because of it.

There of course were those who protested in the streets and made comment in parliament that the war was bogus, but they weren't the people holding the strings.

Today this is a very important lesson learnt by the world and now nations hold fire before jumping into bed with America when war is on offer.
#15003157
B0ycey wrote:The problem with the Iraq war was we only knew that it was wrong for sure after discovering that Blair and Bush made a ton of shit up about WMDs after the event and we were strung along with propaganda prior to it. By which time when the ruse was revealed, Europe and Canada were already invested in the project and had to continue course because of it.


I think it was obvious bullshit to begin with and Blair had agreed to the war months before making it public anyway. The "evidence" to make the case for war came after the decision to destroy the country and take over, not before.

Today this is a very important lesson learnt by the world and now nations hold fire before jumping into bed with America when war is on offer.


Not sure which planet you're living in but on planet Earth the U.S. is continuing to destroy country after country and the EU and other Western states continue to be on board.
#15003162
B0ycey wrote:The problem with the Iraq war was we only knew that it was wrong for sure after discovering that Blair and Bush made a ton of shit up about WMDs after the event and we were strung along with propaganda prior to it. By which time when the ruse was revealed, Europe and Canada were already invested in the project and had to continue course because of it.

There of course were those who protested in the streets and made comment in parliament that the war was bogus, but they weren't the people holding the strings.

Today this is a very important lesson learnt by the world and now nations hold fire before jumping into bed with America when war is on offer.

I like all your posts and everything, but I think this one is sort of an exercise in conflation. You may be right about Canada. As for Brittan, they weren't about to let the Americans go into Iraq without coming along, being the amount of British interests there. Whether or not that makes them true willing members is maybe a matter of perspective.

As for 'the continent', I don't think it's right to conflate them here either, as most (if I'm not mistaken) of them didn't fight in Iraq. They were in Afghanistan, but they opposed Iraq and didn't send troops to Iraq (don't you remember Freedom Fries?) The French didn't go to Iraq. I don't think the Germans did. I know the Poles did. I also know that the Spanish did, but pulled out after the Madrid train bombing. That's about as far as my memory serves me. Out of curiosity, did the Italians go to Iraq?

The French and Germans (correct me if I'm wrong) didn't, and those are really the two major powers of Europe, besides Britain. The circumstances for Britain and Canada seem somewhat different; to summarize.
#15003218
skinster wrote:Not sure which planet you're living in but on planet Earth the U.S. is continuing to destroy country after country and the EU and other Western states continue to be on board.


The quote you referenced was in regards to lessons learnt about going to war alongside America so has little relevance to whether America wants to go into war against Iran, NK, Venezuela or anyone else who they take a dislikening to. Although the EU would be against such action against these nations and perhaps the UK also.

Nonetheless before Iraq very few were passionate about whether we raged war or not in the ME and it wasn't really an important issue to the public in the 90s. Today you'll never get a majority in the commons and most of the population will be against another bullshit war like Iraq. So there are have been lessons learnt FYI. Nobody will take the word of a dodgy dossier as being true today as it turned out to be wrong the last time.

Crantag wrote:I like all your posts and everything, but I think this one is sort of an exercise in conflation. You may be right about Canada. As for Brittan, they weren't about to let the Americans go into Iraq without coming along, being the amount of British interests there. Whether or not that makes them true willing members is maybe a matter of perspective.

As for 'the continent', I don't think it's right to conflate them here either, as most (if I'm not mistaken) of them didn't fight in Iraq. They were in Afghanistan, but they opposed Iraq and didn't send troops to Iraq (don't you remember Freedom Fries?) The French didn't go to Iraq. I don't think the Germans did. I know the Poles did. I also know that the Spanish did, but pulled out after the Madrid train bombing. That's about as far as my memory serves me. Out of curiosity, did the Italians go to Iraq?

The French and Germans (correct me if I'm wrong) didn't, and those are really the two major powers of Europe, besides Britain. The circumstances for Britain and Canada seem somewhat different; to summarize.


I think you make a fair point about Europe as a continent having different views with Iraq. There was an issue with legality and most were pushing for UN resolutions rather than war. Although there were states that supported invasion that never supplied troops (Italy) and that needs to be taken into account when reviewing nations that were fooled in the WMDs lie.

Nonetheless I would like to pick up on what was written at the start of the quote. It is true that the UK was a strong supporter of invasion. It was believed to be an easy quick war and the US was offering oil contracts to those who supported their position. That made Blair a poodle. I doubt the UK would have gone to war without the US but Bush was going to war no matter what. And Blair just wanted the contracts. Instead we got refugees. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
#15003221
B0ycey wrote:The quote you referenced was in regards to lessons learnt about going to war alongside America so has little relevance to whether America wants to go into war against Iran, NK, Venezuela or anyone else who they take a dislikening to. Although the EU would be against such action against these nations and perhaps the UK also.


Not sure what you're on about since we continuously follow the U.S. in their wars and the EU is very much pro these wars too, including the most recent war on Venezeula. The EU is for such action repeatedly and also for such actions like policy of allowing people fleeing countries they destroy from drowning in the sea.

Nonetheless before Iraq very few were passionate about whether we raged war or not in the ME and it wasn't really an important issue to the public in the 90s.


Yeah that might be because the war of terror began in 2001.
#15003223
skinster wrote:Not sure what you're on about since we continuously follow the U.S. in their wars and the EU is very much pro these wars too, including the most recent war on Venezeula. The EU is for such action repeatedly and also for such actions like policy of allowing people fleeing countries they destroy from drowning in the sea.


The EU has different views on Venezuela. They made a statement for Maduro to step down and that is about as far as they will go. If America invade Venezuela they do it alone. I doubt they would even have the British holding their tail. The same is true with NK and Iran is heavily supported by EU nations as they want to use the petroeuro.

Yeah that might be because the war of terror began in 2001.


Of course. That is why I said the 90s. Wars change views and attitudes because lessons are learnt. There is no such thing as a good war. All wars are bad and have consequences and the only way you learn that is by witnessing them first hand.
#15003225
The US empowered the Shias, the civil war was the consequence. It was bound to happen at some point, so I don't think the US is particularly guilty by triggering it.

B0ycey wrote:The problem with the Iraq war was we only knew that it was wrong for sure after discovering that Blair and Bush made a ton of shit up about WMDs after the event and we were strung along with propaganda prior to it. By which time when the ruse was revealed, Europe and Canada were already invested in the project and had to continue course because of it.


UNMOVIC under Blix didn't find jack shit. There was no "ruse", it was a pretense or at least a minor motivation and everybody knew it.
#15003227
B0ycey wrote:The EU has different views on Venezuela. They made a statement for Maduro to step down and that is about as far as they will go.


Not really since they've made it clear they believe random Guaido is the president and they support the U.S. war on Venezuela and are a-ok with the UK's theft of billions of Venezuela's gold as well as Spain preventing the shipment of medical supplies to Venezuela (that they've been holding onto for months).

The EU is racist dogshit in general, I mean, look at this:


If America invade Venezuela they do it alone.


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

What I'm asking is, which beliefs are we supposed[…]

I can understand why people band together into ra[…]

I think any extradition would set a bad precedent[…]

YouTube functions as a platform, not a publisher,[…]