this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
521 points (96.8% liked)
Not The Onion
15918 readers
1344 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A few European countries sent troops, but more importantly there was not a peep from Europe about, you know, not creating another refugee crisis in their backyard. He said oppose, not not support. Europe could've done more to oppose the Iraq war.
This is interesting, today we know that a conflict in the middle east will cause a large spike in refugees/migrants to the EU, back when the Iraq war started, was that not the case?
Until 2004, the EU was a western European entity, with Greece alone possible to describe as being anywhere near the Middle East, and lacking a land border with the rest of the EU.
The Iraq war did not cause and international migration crisis. People were primarily moved internally and to other (unfriendly) ME countries.
What really started the migration crisis was ISIS and the Syrian war, 10 years later. Where a Russian ally fought the byproduct of American misrule in the Middle East, and Russian allies directed migrants into Eastern European countries unready for them financially or culturally.
Quite what the EU, a non-military force that primarily overlaps with NATO, was supposed to do differently there I don't know. Should it have predicted that the US would essentially lose to Assad, to the Taliban, and that they would then switch sides and ally with Russia while still in NATO?
You'll find that ISIS, in fact, grew out of the anti-American insurgency in Iraq. They actually weren't ISIS at first; they were Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Divest from US weapons would've been one simple way to make America reconsider their crusade in Iraq.
Yes. I specifically mentioned ISIS came from American misrule in Iraq. The people aligned with ISIS were on America's side during the Iraq war.
I can picture the pitch to an EU that has just accepted a massive long term project of trying to lift Eastern Europe out of post-Soviet destitution. OK bro, divest bro because obviously the techbros are going to turn America fascist once the boomers implode the world economy in a few years. Just do it bro. Match American military spending bro. You need it bro.
What people? From what I've understood Al Qaeda in Iraq's predecessor organization was attacking US troops basically right after the invasion.
I didn't say that. I said: Threaten to divest from US weapons if America invades Iraq, because it's a morally reprehensible illegal war and because it was predictably going to create a massive refugee crisis right in Europe's backyard.
To be honest I wasn't even alive when the Iraq war started so I have no idea, but looking back the pieces (immigration from the Middle East to Europe being easy, ethnic and religious rivalries in Iraq getting ugly, America's inability/unwillingness to install stable governments abroad) were all there so anyone in a relevant EU role who didn't see it coming should be fired.