European Politics Thread

[Monkey King]

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 up

also 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-chamber

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...

[S.C. Amigo]

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.

[Lord Gaimon]

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.

[SmokerSan]

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.

[Lord Gaimon]

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.

[Nilitch]

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

[Lord Gaimon]

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.

[Nilitch]

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 ---

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 etcetera


As 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"

[Lord Gaimon]

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.

[Ubiq]

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.

[Nilitch]

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

[SmokerSan]

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...

[Lord Gaimon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Spoiler:

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

[S.C. Amigo]

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]

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]

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?