[jeanluc_discard]

This is hypocrisy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

This isn't, "We did this bad and so we can't condemn you now." This is, "We did this over decades, constantly, everywhere, and it was consistently sanctioned and approved." The media smiled and the US people "supported their troops."

You call this a "mistake in the past?" First, the US is still illegally there, taking Iraq's oil, a war crime, as it jumps up and down in moral outrage about this. Second, more importantly, they're not calling a mistake.

The next step for us is to listen to why Russia is concerned with NATO expanding into the Ukraine.

Russia just offered peace under one main circumstance, that the Ukraine declare itself neutral so that there is a buffer zone. Seems reasonable, especially considering that the US already has military bases in 50 countries -- maybe it can skip this one country. Maybe it's up to the Ukraine now.

[monkeydreams]

It's almost as if someone can believe that "The US should not have invaded Iraq" and "Russia should not invade Ukraine" at the same time.

[awb]

Oof. This sounds like the official Russian narrative.

It doesn't look like you're here to address OP's question, just to push your political views with a throwaway account.

I'm not gonna take the bait, but maybe try Twitter, Reddit, FB, etc. They might be more receptive (at least to arguing with you).

[empressplay]

This is an incredibly dangerous position to take. Every argument should be taken on its merits, regardless of who else holds that position. Vilifying an argument simply because an adversary holds it is drifting in a direction you really do not want to go in, if you have any love of freedom whatsoever.

[awb]

No, just a distaste of debating propaganda. I think it's perfectly fine to ignore dubious arguments rather than engaging with them.

[jeanluc_discard]

This is Ad Hominem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I've been on HN since 2007 but only recently have I been afraid to voice some opinions on my main account.