UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Ostroeuropa]

Personally, I reckon we need a UN elite unit of assassins and kidnappers, like Mossad v Nazis. It'd be simpler than mandating invasions and might actually get us to give more of a shit about genocides.

[HMS Barham]

It does not add up on any level that

1. they knew the WMD claims to be false and yet

2. they made the WMD claims the centrepiece of their legal justification for the war

If they had said it was about preventing genocide, I could take seriously the claim that the military threat angle was invented by journalists. Your story makes sense if the formal justifications diverged from the popular justifications and that the formal justifications didn't involve WMDs.

I'm arguing the formal justifications were settled on as a result of the media storm leading up to the war, and a more sober media would have allowed them to move forward with justifications more based in reality, such as violation of the genocide convention.

But "We committed genocide, yeh they're dead already, but he's still presently a cunt, and we're re-aligning the area. It gives us legal justification. Prevent and punish. We may deter future genocides."
isn't as hysteria inducing as
"NUKES! NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUKES!"

What was their actual reason for launching the war, aside from their formal justification? Clearly it wasn't to stop a genocide that wasn't happening, or they would have invaded Zimbabwe instead.

If you think it wasn't WMDs and wasn't genocide, then it must have been to steal oil. Which I could take seriously if they actually stole any oil but they didn't, a slight hole in this theory.

[Ostroeuropa]

It seems that the French knew that the WMD claims were bullshit, because they're run by a bureaucracy of high IQ engineers.

I was a 13 year old boy at the time and even I thought the military threat claims were bullshit. I thought it was plausible that Hussein had chemical weapons that he could use to hit the sovereign base on Cyprus within 45 minutes, which would make the government's claims technically true, but that that was an insubstantial threat and not worth worrying about. Turns out I overestimated the government's competence.

Then again I supported the war because I believed that it would turn Iraq into South Korea on the Euphrates, because at that time I still believed that all men are created equal.

I also supported the war for westernist expansionism reasons.
I still think Nation Building can work, but only under the Maccarthurs Japan model, and it may take decades, you can't just hand over western institutions to a non-western culture and expect it to work.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm arguing the formal justifications were settled on as a result of the media storm leading up to the war, and a more sober media would have allowed them to move forward with justifications more based in reality, such as violation of the genocide convention.

But "We committed genocide, yeh they're dead already, but he's still presently a cunt, and we're re-aligning the area. It gives us legal justification. Prevent and punish. We may deter future genocides."
isn't as hysteria inducing as
"NUKES! NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUKES!"

What was their actual reason for launching the war, aside from their formal justification? Clearly it wasn't to stop a genocide that wasn't happening, or they would have invaded Zimbabwe instead.

If you think it wasn't WMDs and wasn't genocide, then it must have been to steal oil. Which I could take seriously if they actually stole any oil but they didn't, a slight hole in this theory.

I think it was to align the region to our interests, and attempt to westernize them.

Blair had a moral crusader attitude and didn't get his hit from Yugoslav intervention, and some sources claim he pushed Bush into it to "Finish what his father should have."

As I said, Blair's emphasis always seemed to be that Hussein was a tyrant, and we should remove him on that basis. He meekly parroted WMDs when Bush led the way with that.

[HMS Barham]

What was their actual reason for launching the war, aside from their formal justification? Clearly it wasn't to stop a genocide that wasn't happening, or they would have invaded Zimbabwe instead.

If you think it wasn't WMDs and wasn't genocide, then it must have been to steal oil. Which I could take seriously if they actually stole any oil but they didn't, a slight hole in this theory.

I think it was to align the region to our interests, and attempt to westernize them.

Blair had a moral crusader attitude and didn't get his hit from Yugoslav intervention, and some sources claim he pushed Bush into it to "Finish what his father should have."

Yes that was probably a large part of it.

I still think that they believed the claims about WMDs though. That they didn't need to make these claims is strong evidence that they believed them - not evidence that they didn't believe them.

If it would have been possible to have invaded to avenge a genocide, it would have had enormous advantages, the biggest one being that we actually did find mass graves in Iraq, whereas we didn't find WMDs. It does not make any sense to lie about the causus belli when your lie is going to be exposed in like 6 months and obviously dominate the next electoral cycle.

[Ostroeuropa]

I think it was to align the region to our interests, and attempt to westernize them.

Blair had a moral crusader attitude and didn't get his hit from Yugoslav intervention, and some sources claim he pushed Bush into it to "Finish what his father should have."

Yes that was probably a large part of it.

I still think that they believed the claims about WMDs though. That they didn't need to make these claims is strong evidence that they believed them - not evidence that they didn't believe them.

If it would have been possible to have invaded to avenge a genocide, it would have had enormous advantages, the biggest one being that we actually did find mass graves in Iraq, whereas we didn't find WMDs. It does not make any sense to lie about the causus belli when your lie is going to be exposed in like 6 months and obviously dominate the next electoral cycle.

Maybe so.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Then again I supported the war because I believed that it would turn Iraq into South Korea on the Euphrates, because at that time I still believed that all men are created equal.

Well, in that case, genocide would have fixed that.

[Liriena]

Then again I supported the war because I believed that it would turn Iraq into South Korea on the Euphrates, because at that time I still believed that all men are created equal.

Or, to put it more accurately, you failed to take into account the social, cultural, economic and political specificities of Iraq, ignorantly assumed that the same thing that had happened decades before in an entirely different context could be carbon-copied... and the lesson you took from your ignorant blunder was "I should have been more racist about it."

[Eibenland]

They had to claim that Iraq was a military threat and had breached prior UN resolutions relating to arms control to give a legal justification for the war. This was not created by journalists.

Journalists were partly at fault for also being full of technically incompetent people who are totally (and, seemingly, proudly) ignorant of all military matters. But the people who voted for Blair's cheesy grin are the same people who make these papers profitable.

Military threat wasn't necessary. A means could have been found through the genocide conventions. Prevent and punish.

The problem is that the Genocide Convention is too weak. It has only been enforced once, in the case of war criminals convicted by the ICTY.

[Ostroeuropa]

Then again I supported the war because I believed that it would turn Iraq into South Korea on the Euphrates, because at that time I still believed that all men are created equal.

Or, to put it more accurately, you failed to take into account the social, cultural, economic and political specificities of Iraq, ignorantly assumed that the same thing that had happened decades before in an entirely different context could be carbon-copied... and the lesson you took from your ignorant blunder was "I should have been more racist about it."

The Maccarthur approach can be carbon copied specifically because it does those things.

[Eastfield Lodge]

Well, in that case, genocide would have fixed that.

Basically- the way to make Iraq work would be to give it the Australia treatment.

Problem: we have plenty of land, we don't have a population surplus, our population is shrinking, and Iraq is far from the best place to conquer anyway.

#EmpireBuildingProblems

[Painisia]

Why did UKIP in the election in 2017 get bad results? Is it because people in the UK regretted Brexit?

[HMS Barham]

Why did UKIP in the election in 2017 get bad results? Is it because people in the UK regretted Brexit?

UKIP no longer any unique selling point because the Conservatives and Labour both supported Brexit in the 2017 election as well.

[Painisia]

Why did UKIP in the election in 2017 get bad results? Is it because people in the UK regretted Brexit?

UKIP no longer any unique selling point because the Conservatives and Labour both supported Brexit in the 2017 election as well.

Wasn`t Theresa May originally against Brexit?

[Liriena]

Why did UKIP in the election in 2017 get bad results? Is it because people in the UK regretted Brexit?

UKIP's identity revolved almost entirely around Brexit. Without it, they had little to offer to British voters that the Tories or Labour weren't offering already.

[The Archregimancy]

The race and IQ discussion can now be found here:

viewtopic.php?p=33183664#p33183664

With apologies, the split isn't 100% seamless as I had to make a couple of judgement calls with the earlier posts in the discussion; but it should be enough to separate out the main discussion points in the topic.

[Souseiseki]

UKIP no longer any unique selling point because the Conservatives and Labour both supported Brexit in the 2017 election as well.

Wasn`t Theresa May originally against Brexit?

she was a very quiet remainer, likely just sticking to the government line, that has a known hate boner for the ECJ and ECHR. i'd say it's a 50/50 as to what she actually believed.

[Thermodolia]

So whats the current prognosis of Brexit?

[Vassenor]

Wasn`t Theresa May originally against Brexit?

she was a very quiet remainer, likely just sticking to the government line, that has a known hate boner for the ECJ and ECHR. i'd say it's a 50/50 as to what she actually believed.

She's an opportunistic backstabber who's views flip-flop almost constantly to fit what she thinks the majority wants.

[Souseiseki]

like real talk every so often i think back to how for many in our generation the iraq war was our first major political incident

it probably kickstarted an entire generation of cynicism

Yet the correct viewpoint is post-cynicism.

Normie cynics think that Tony Blair intentionally lied so as to steal oil. If this is the case where is my cheque from stealing oil and dead Iraqi baby blood? I will cash it. There is no such cheque. No one has it.

Post-cynicism is that Tony Blair really believed there were WMDs there. Why? Because he knew absolutely nothing about strategic or military matters, or probably anything technical at all. And it was the normie cynics who wanted such a man, rather than an "evil" guy like Churchill (or Thatcher) who might've had something of a clue.

i think the first point can be discarded. even if we flat out say that the war was done for oil profits that doesn't not mean the common man should or would have seen any benefit from it. you are, flat out, asking "if the oligarchs started the war for their own interests why aren't the non-oligarchs getting a cut?!".

it may not have been tony blair himself lying, hell, you could be right and he may have very well believed it. the point is that someone down the line was full of shit and the institutions that were supposed to protect us from bullshitters either could not or would not stop it.

[States of Glory]

Why did UKIP in the election in 2017 get bad results? Is it because people in the UK regretted Brexit?

Paul Nuttall was useless as leader and after Brexit, there was effectively a civil war within the party as various members tried to impose their own vision (see the 2017 UKIP leadership election for the full details). Also, the media's focus on the personal contest between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn ensured that third parties in general flopped (with the exceptions being the two big Northern Irish parties and possibly the Greens).

[Eibenland]

Yet the correct viewpoint is post-cynicism.

Normie cynics think that Tony Blair intentionally lied so as to steal oil. If this is the case where is my cheque from stealing oil and dead Iraqi baby blood? I will cash it. There is no such cheque. No one has it.

Post-cynicism is that Tony Blair really believed there were WMDs there. Why? Because he knew absolutely nothing about strategic or military matters, or probably anything technical at all. And it was the normie cynics who wanted such a man, rather than an "evil" guy like Churchill (or Thatcher) who might've had something of a clue.

i think the first point can be discarded. even if we flat out say that the war was done for oil profits that doesn't not mean the common man should or would have seen any benefit from it. you are, flat out, asking "if the oligarchs started the war for their own interests why aren't the non-oligarchs getting a cut?!".

I think his argument is that nobody, not even the oligarchs, got a cut.

[The Blaatschapen]

Personally, I reckon we need a UN elite unit of assassins and kidnappers, like Mossad v Nazis. It'd be simpler than mandating invasions and might actually get us to give more of a shit about genocides.

I am actually all in favour of bringing justice to the people who make the decision to commit genocides.

Not sure what it has to do with UK politics specifically though.

[Dooom35796821595]

So whats the current prognosis of Brexit?

Christmas break before round 2.

[HMS Barham]

Yet the correct viewpoint is post-cynicism.

Normie cynics think that Tony Blair intentionally lied so as to steal oil. If this is the case where is my cheque from stealing oil and dead Iraqi baby blood? I will cash it. There is no such cheque. No one has it.

Post-cynicism is that Tony Blair really believed there were WMDs there. Why? Because he knew absolutely nothing about strategic or military matters, or probably anything technical at all. And it was the normie cynics who wanted such a man, rather than an "evil" guy like Churchill (or Thatcher) who might've had something of a clue.

i think the first point can be discarded. even if we flat out say that the war was done for oil profits that doesn't not mean the common man should or would have seen any benefit from it. you are, flat out, asking "if the oligarchs started the war for their own interests why aren't the non-oligarchs getting a cut?!".

it may not have been tony blair himself lying, hell, you could be right and he may have very well believed it. the point is that someone down the line was full of shit and the institutions that were supposed to protect us from bullshitters either could not or would not stop it.

If I don't have the cheque who has it? I said no one has it. Maybe you disagree. Then who?

From where I am standing the oil belongs to the government of Iraq, which seems to be an extension of the government of Iran.

Our institutions are democracy. People elected Blair because he seemed nice. He probably was. Doesn't mean he was smart. If we were ruled by some evil mustache-twirling field marshal type, I doubt he would have taken us into Iraq.