Yes that's common people standing up for what is right. Not the international movement we're seeing now. It's almost as if the US controls the global narrative. I'm not shocked but it's funny to see everyone dance to their tune.
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
I mean all of that is true, but you can't discount the fear caused in Europe by both the proximity of this war and the spectre of another Cold War or WW3. A war in Iraq, Afghanistan or even Syria had little chance of spilling over in Europe and stirring up old animosities here; whereas this one does. I think it's to an extent natural to care more about things that could affect you locally than things happening outside of your "neighbourhood" so to speak.
And in a weird way that applies to people too. People will naturally care more about what happens to other people they have closer cultural ties with. The "white people being killed this time", does sadly have some truth in it. Not sure to what extent it's about colour specifically and to what extent it's about Europeans or Christians or the combination of all 3. But there's truth in it for sure. The way humans perceive "their own" and thus show different levels of caring is a long subject of study (and yes, racism is part of it too).
Also the British public gave a landslide electoral victory to the Labour Party who took Britain into the Iraq war - despite the "massive" protests.
I'm not sure who you're referring to there. Very few people I know believed that WMD nonsense or were for the War at the time.
So what's the point? It's not the US that invaded a European country, it's Russia.
This underlying bullshit that the West isnjust as bad as Russia is so much bullshit. Yes, the West has committed his fair share of atrocities but not on the same scale.
I think we all perceived it as a war to depose Saddam and force a regime change there. But the reasons were believed by most to be either economic or geopolitical (or a combination) rather than real security concerns about our safety or out of any care about the Iraqis. The WMD story didn't really go down too well here.
Not true. Labour won landslides in 1997 and 2001. In 2005 they lost 101 seats which still gave them a healthy majority of 66 seats but it didn't fall into the definition of a landslide. It gave them a popular vote share of 32.5% which was the smallest in history of any majority government up to that point. This would be an even smaller slice of the British public if you considered it as a percentage of all the all voting age population, such is the FPTP system.
I think it's perfectly credible to argue that Iraq destroyed Blair as a politician. His standing in British politics now is not a credible or respected one, this despite him being one of the most successful and talented politicians in British political history.
There were very big protests against the the war in Iraq, no? We're also judging the invasions as if they're happening at the same time under the exact same circumstances. There are definitely similarities, especially when it comes to lies being told to justify them. The general consensus I see is that they're both bad. Media coverage around the two though.... yeah, some of the stuff around the Iraq invasion wouldn't look out of place on RT.
The sad reality is that it's also probably a lot easier for the parts of the world boycotting Russia to do that than to boycott the US. I don't think the UK or US were going to boycott themselves either, though there was that thing in the US where they had "freedom fries".
In terms of good/bad it's generally difficult to try to sell starting an invasion while admitting you're the bad guys. Saddam, Russia, US, UK all baddies at points.
Social Media and public perception of your company now is absolutely on another level compared to what it was back then. Viral videos spread like wildfire and pretty much everyone has it readily available to them.
I don't even really get what the point of it is? Is it legitimize the Russian side by saying they are as good/bad as "the West" - which also ignores that the countries that sanction Russia didn't all support the Iraq war? Is it to say that the Zelenskyy regime is similar to Saddam/the Taliban?
More powerful countries have to deal with less uproar because they’re more powerful. More egregious acts have to deal with more uproar because they’re more egregious. To me that explains 90% of it. I don’t know why you need some narrative conspiracy to explain the disparity when the more important disparities are really clear. I think the Iraq war was an atrocity, in case you’re suspicious. It just doesn’t negate the other more important differences.
Yeah, this thread is just odd now.
West bad, so let's ignore Putin and Russia's atrocities? X happened then, so Y happening now can only be seen through this lens? Sort of an "eye-for-an-eye"/"my enemies enemy is my friend" stance on Geopolitics.
This has always been an issue with overtly post-Colonial critical theories though, particularly those that only really critique Western imperialism: it opens up the space for oppressive and heinous acts to be overlooked just as long as they're not being committed by one of the 19th/20th century Imperial powers. It also, in this case, fails to recognise Russia as an imperial force of its own, and one that has been active in destabilising large regions of the world in recent years - look at Syria.
The West/former Colonial powers have a lot to shoulder in regards to how the world is now defined, and pretty much all conflict in the Middle East can be traced back to the impact of the regions former colonisers. There needs to be recognition of this, and a better understanding of how these hangovers still inform much of what happens today.
However, the current situation in Russia is pretty unique, and that it's hard to see how Putin's regime expanding via the means it's choosing would have a positive impact on any part of the world. And whilst Russia has access to a feck off arsenal of nuclear weapons capable of wiping off large chunks of the globe, it's kind of obvious why and how the response to this conflict differs from those that have recently preceded it.
West bad, so let's ignore Putin and Russia's atrocities? X happened then, so Y happening now can only be seen through this lens? Sort of an "eye-for-an-eye"/"my enemies enemy is my friend" stance on Geopolitics.
This has always been an issue with overtly post-Colonial critical theories though, particularly those that only really critique Western imperialism: it opens up the space for oppressive and heinous acts to be overlooked just as long as they're not being committed by one of the 19th/20th century Imperial powers. It also, in this case, fails to recognise Russia as an imperial force of its own, and one that has been active in destabilising large regions of the world in recent years - look at Syria.
The West/former Colonial powers have a lot to shoulder in regards to how the world is now defined, and pretty much all conflict in the Middle East can be traced back to the impact of the regions former colonisers. There needs to be recognition of this, and a better understanding of how these hangovers still inform much of what happens today.
However, the current situation in Russia is pretty unique, and that it's hard to see how Putin's regime expanding via the means it's choosing would have a positive impact on any part of the world. And whilst Russia has access to a feck off arsenal of nuclear weapons capable of wiping off large chunks of the globe, it's kind of obvious why and how the response to this conflict differs from those that have recently preceded it.
I just find it so weird that so many get defensive when someone who doesn’t reside in the west (and therefore a little more neutral about this) points out to the obvious hypocrisy in this situation.
the violent “how does that justify Putin killing Ukrainians?” “West always villain” defences are hilarious at best anddangerous at worst.
so to answer many together - No.It doesn’t justify Putin and his dickhead ego. He’s wrong. The world should stand with Ukraine exactly like they are now.
And since we are not negotiators on either side, guess we also have to bandwidth to simultaneously also talk about similar instances in the past and how it doesn’t elicit a similar response. Maybe it stokes Enough awareness that when next a Yemeni is bombed out of their home, the Europe runs to demand we stop Saudi oil.
Also this argument of “first war in social media realm” doesn’t cut. Syria and Yemen weren’t too long ago/ ongoing. Syria has almost the same actors and Russia didn’t face global backlash for razing cities then.
ps. Palestine is ongoing. On social media too.
the violent “how does that justify Putin killing Ukrainians?” “West always villain” defences are hilarious at best anddangerous at worst.
so to answer many together - No.It doesn’t justify Putin and his dickhead ego. He’s wrong. The world should stand with Ukraine exactly like they are now.
And since we are not negotiators on either side, guess we also have to bandwidth to simultaneously also talk about similar instances in the past and how it doesn’t elicit a similar response. Maybe it stokes Enough awareness that when next a Yemeni is bombed out of their home, the Europe runs to demand we stop Saudi oil.
Also this argument of “first war in social media realm” doesn’t cut. Syria and Yemen weren’t too long ago/ ongoing. Syria has almost the same actors and Russia didn’t face global backlash for razing cities then.
ps. Palestine is ongoing. On social media too.
This is the weirdest thing about the whole "what about the West and Iraq?" thing. Germany and France didn't condemn the invasion with the benefit of hindsight: they protested it from the very beginning and refused to take part! That's a pretty big part of the supposed West.
I haven't followed the debate that led to this post so not necessarily arguing against any wider point you're making, but just to say, Labour got 35% of the vote in 2005. The fact that they got a majority in parliament off the back of that says more about the state of the opposition and the failings of our electoral system than it does about public support for Labour/the war in Iraq. To my knowledge it's the lowest share of the vote ever to put a party into government (barring junior partners in coalitions). For comparison, Cameron was forced to cobble together a coalition when he got 36% of the vote in 2010, despite Brown's Labour being even weaker than Howard's Tories had been in 2005.
So no, 2005 wasn't a landslide by any measure - they lost a million votes and about 50 seats. In almost any other electoral system it would have been a complete and immediate disaster for Labour and Blair. In everything but the number of MPs the electoral system spat out it was a disaster for Labour and Blair (it demonstrated many of the issues the former as been struggling with since and was the start of the end for Blair's time in No. 10). Getting more and more off-topic, but British political discourse would do well to stop treating our deeply flawed electoral system like it's an all-knowing sage dispensing inviolable wisdom and deep truths about the psyche of the country.
Unless, of course, you mean they handed them the landslide in 2001, but that's not really relevant given Iraq wasn't really on the agenda at that point.
Blue: Opposed
Yellow: Support
Orange: Actively engaged
Grey: Neutral
Fair to say that The West was split.
I won't talk about Germany but France don't take decisions based on right or wrong but generally on what benefits them or not. For example, I suspect that the presence of Lafarge and Total in Irak was a good reason to not destabilize the region, also France were Irak's largest arm provider.
How about no nuclear war and no end of the world? I think it's of our best interest when you put it like that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60649214
Oh, NOW it's ok to boycott those two companies?! No cries of Russophobia in sight, I see...
Oh, NOW it's ok to boycott those two companies?! No cries of Russophobia in sight, I see...
I don't doubt you're right but the point still stands: treating the "West" as some monolithic entity is a bit stupid, and it happens all the time in this discourse.
When was it not OK? Genuine question, I don't know what you're referring to.
That's because members of the West tend to speak about themselves as a monolith when they pretend to have a moral compass.
That is the narrative conspiracy right there which you agree with. The centralized narrative setting and laughable double standards is clearly due to the US' ability to influence and dominate.
Yeah, but they're generally left leaning as far as I'm aware.
From the BDS website:
“Companies such as Coca Cola and McDonald’s are not priorities for the BDS movement at this stage. We focus on companies that play a clear and direct role in sustaining Israeli violations of international law and that we can have a tangible impact upon.”
BDS aimed at Israel has been relatively strategic and specifically targeted, and the organizers spent considerable time outlining the campaign’s limits (e.g. no targeting of individuals as individuals). This crazy, haphazard rush to isolate Russia without any real consideration for how it might actually help achieve a change in Russian policy doesn’t really bear comparison.
Check these links:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-54999010
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/bds-the-global-campaign-to-delegitimize-israel
https://www.ajc.org/news/bds-is-antisemitic
Somehow singling out one country for isolation for clear and apparent wrongdoing and illegality isn't an issue anymore....
You come to the most nonsensical conclusions from my posts. If you think this thread is about people wanting Ukrainians to suffer or die, then there is no point discussing.
I was responding to your post where it seems that was the topic of conversation and you seemed to be claiming the opposite. Maybe I misread it.
As for the post being moved, it was of topic for the other thread imo.
1- Do you think the 500k Iraqi who died after the war is a fair price to pay you think? 5-7m refugees around the world? The world was against it But imperialistic ambitions is well written in these countries political agenda just as the Russian.
2- Backlash? tell that to the families and friends of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people who lost their lives. Everybody with sane thinking knew it was lies, expect the blind who believes what the mass media tells them. But thank god not everyone believed them and the gigantic demonstrations in European cities like the one in London and Rom is a good example that people can distinguish governments agendas/lies from the truth.
Nobody liked Saddam, most of Iraqis hated him, but the price they paid to get rid of him was expensive, very expansive. The Iraqis never trusted the US and UK in 2003, they never forgotten 1991 when they helped him put the southern Iraqi uprise down after the Safwan tent agreement.
What irritates me is that people talk about war like it is a PC game, like it is call of duty to them. They have never been through war and they understand very little of the effect of it. They think they know what war is, but they know feck all. The only people I feel for and stand by is Ukrainian people, my heart bleeds every time I see the pictures or videos. I have no sympathy nor respect to governments nor war/weapon merchants.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/07/us-sanctions-against-russia-but-not-israel
US accused of hypocrisy for supporting sanctions against Russia but not Israel
Critics compare Israeli military actions of Palestinian territories with Russian invasion of Ukraine but pro-Israel groups dismiss allegations as false parallels
On Tuesday, the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, told the UN human rights council that it must send a “resolute message” to Vladimir Putin to stop an invasion that has destroyed schools, hospitals and residential buildings, and killed hundreds of civilians.
“These are the human rights abuses this council was created to stop. If we cannot come together now, when will we come together?” he said.
In the same speech, Blinken made point of calling ongoing UN human rights council investigations into Israeli actions in the occupied territories “a stain on the council’s credibility” and called for them to be halted. The investigations have found Israel responsible for persistent “violations of the right to life” and other crimes.
US accused of hypocrisy for supporting sanctions against Russia but not Israel
Critics compare Israeli military actions of Palestinian territories with Russian invasion of Ukraine but pro-Israel groups dismiss allegations as false parallels
On Tuesday, the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, told the UN human rights council that it must send a “resolute message” to Vladimir Putin to stop an invasion that has destroyed schools, hospitals and residential buildings, and killed hundreds of civilians.
“These are the human rights abuses this council was created to stop. If we cannot come together now, when will we come together?” he said.
In the same speech, Blinken made point of calling ongoing UN human rights council investigations into Israeli actions in the occupied territories “a stain on the council’s credibility” and called for them to be halted. The investigations have found Israel responsible for persistent “violations of the right to life” and other crimes.
The invasion and the occupation were different things. We should have left as soon as possible after Saddam was deposed but the invasion itself was absolutely the right thing to do even if the reasons were (partly) false. There is nothing right about what Russia is doing.
You believed based on lies. US and UK is not MOST.
Not true.
Pocket change. Didn't happen in the Western world so it doesn't count.
They have a word for it too 'collateral damage'.
Haaretz is not your traditional, whitewashing proud of the Apartheid, Israeli propaganda outlet.
They kept publishing the late Zeev Sternhell (Israeli hero and holocaust survivor) after he'd been ostracised by the Apartheid regime.
Ah yes. All for the greater good. Whatever that is.
The West has armed rebels, levelled cities, bombed hospitals, created unprecedented humanitarian crisis, created monsters that they cannot handle for over 7 decades.
One must seriously believe in the restoring democracy propaganda to believe the West hasn't done worse.