I wasnt the one that brought up the 'Great Game'.
You agreed and added to the list.
Maybe not the EU. Technically. Many member states went to Iraq and Afghanistan. The distinction is not very relevant.
It is very relevant. You are making other countries gulty by association, when you are not making the distinction between the suprenational organisation the European Union and the european nationstates.
What states were involved in the invasion of Afghanistan? USA, UK, Canada and Australia. Wow so many european nations!
What states were involved in the invasion of Iraq? USA, UK, Poland and Australia. Wow so many european nations!
So what members of the EU werent involved in the invasions? Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden. The vast majority.
If you dont do anything, you side with the power.
No, you dont.
So by doing nothing we sided with Israel. But we did more than nothing, we're very cozy with Israel,
I imagine other democracies are cozy with all other democracies no matter where they are.
and co-operate with sick things like that photo-op after Charlie Hebdo, including Israeli prime minister. Reaping the political rewards.
They cooperated so much that they asked him not to come to Paris.
The EU doesnt have direct relations with Saudi Arabia, so how does it support it? Again, cozy with the Americans, benefitting from how the Americans interact there. Not-acting. The recent leadership change in Saudi Arabia were telling.
So the EU having good relations with USA, somehow makes the EU support Saudi Arabia? Okay.
Btw in Mexico, heads were cut off too. Apparently doesnt warrant as much attention as ISIS.
The EU doesnt control the newspapers and media, so i dont know why this is relevant. And the drug cartels in Mexico are not in control of large areas of the middle east and proclaming that they are going to conquer rome. Can you see how one thing is more relevant to the public of the members nations of the EU?
Yeah, it was so burdening shackelling all those black people and working them in the fields.
One, what does it have to do with EU? What does it have to do with the majority of the citizens of the EU? Why does this come into play in regard to immigration to EU and refugees? You know european and americans ended slavery, it is not going on anymore.
Or preventing the Indian people from getting salt from the ocean. Salt from the ocean! Those savages!
So what, what does it have to do with anything? Are we just spurting random bad thing that happend to groups of people? What about the millions of european that were taken as slaves by arab pirates and the ottoman empire, it went on undtil the end of the 19 century. What about the Mongol Horde invasion of Europe? What about the muslim invasion and oppression of Spain and Portugal? What about the crime, murder and rapes by the so called refugees in Europe nowadays? What about the millions of european that died in the world wars? What about the ethnic cleansing against the Danes by the Swedes in the skanelands? What about the irish potato famine? What about the Armenian genocide and the gulags in soviet russia?
When i say "we" i mean "the West", basically, Australia, Europe and the US. Looks fairly accurate to me, and we should not hide behind "oh that is the US" when we basically never put anything in their way or object with any loudness.
We, the west, tried to save the world, and this is the world which that endeavour lead to. You denounce intervention in the non-western world, yet you want us to intervene. You denounce slavery and colonisation as something uniquely western, yet every civilization and nation did it, but you forgot we were the first to end it for good and denounce it. You denounce the west for the crimes perpetrated by it, but conveniently forgets the perpetrated against the west.
We have the ability to help other people, and we should.
Why?