One main difference was that the world was extremely critical of the invasion of Iraq. Not just "some countries", but Western societies at large, including - or mostly - the ones whose governments decided to participate. For anybody sane, it was a stupid war for stupid reasons and with unpredictable consequences. Not hundreds of thousands but millions of people protested in main European cities:
I was too young to remember the war in Vietnam but my older colleagues told me the general feeling was very much anti-war, and they had to do pretty hardcore stuff in order to avoid being drafted.
If not war crimes, were the wars itself of good end-result? And endless streaks of them - Afghanistan, Libya, Syria.. where next?
The person is right, US (and NATO) deserved international outcry, and sanctions as Russians got, but instead everyone accepts their twisted "justifications" for their endless wars.
'Shock and Awe' isn't a war crime simply because the US and the 'coalition of the willing' won. By any objective measure, it's far worse than anything Russia has done so far, which is saying quite a bit.
The whole iraq invasion resulted in 7k civilian deaths. Pretty sure the russians are topping that in ukraine. For comparison, another case of shock and awe in recent history was done by russians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grozny_(1994%E2%80%9...
which resulted in the death of approx 6% of the civilian population in Grozny. Its not like Syria or Afghanistan was conducted any different, so this is what we can expect.
Where are you getting 7k from? Iraq Body Count [0] reports closer to 200k. Even if you use [1] to limit the death count to those caused by coalition forces, you get more than 7k just in 2003. Before you try to discredit it, the main criticism the project has received [2] is that it's undercounting.
The current Ukraine civilian death count is only up to 1.5k so far [3], so Russia's got a lot of catching up to do before it can compete with what's happening in Iraq (though I truly hope it doesn't).
This includes the casualties of the insurgency and civil war in the years after the invasion.
The Iraq Body Count project (IBC) documented a higher number of civilian deaths up to the end of the major combat phase (May 1, 2003). In a 2005 report,[86] using updated information, the IBC reported that 7,299 civilians are documented to have been killed, primarily by U.S. air and ground forces.
No, they dont.
"The Iraq Body Count project (IBC) documented a higher number of civilian deaths up to the end of the major combat phase (May 1, 2003). In a 2005 report,[86] using updated information, the IBC reported that 7,299 civilians are documented to have been killed, primarily by U.S. air and ground forces."
The invasions are the worse crimes, not necessarily specific acts that happened within them.
As garbage as "they're next to us and have some shared history" is for a reason to try to conquer someone, it's still a hundred times better than invading a country on the other side of the planet, turning it in to a war zone for a decade/decades, then leaving when you got bored is.
Right, if you actually want to read my comment instead of doing as you describe the leader, you might see things differently.
Because then you'll notice a few things: a its acknowledgement of certain
USA war crimes and b that its tongue in cheek.
Although also c and d too its always a good idea to provide sources for any claim (especially heinous acts) and most people associate war crimes with human-by-human acts such as mass rape, genocide and forceful relocation, which I'm genuinely interested in knowing if USA has done such act.
The U.S. did not invade Vietnam; it assisted the Republic of Vietnam in its self-defense against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. North Vietnam was the aggressor.
The U.S. did invade Iraq, using the authority granted in U.N. resolution 678. That was not a crime either, because it was carried out legally.
We did invade vietnam. Vietnam beat their brutal french colonizers and won their independence ( 1st indochina war ). But we decided to get involved and seized half the country. ( 2nd indochina war ).
> North Vietnam was the aggressor.
No. North vietnam were liberators helping their fellow vietnamese in the south ( viet cong ) expel a foreign occupier.
> The U.S. did invade Iraq, using the authority granted in U.N. resolution 678.
How sneaky of you. That was the 1st iraq war. What about the 2nd iraq war?
I almost agree with you but North Vietnamese as liberators... It's a bit much.
The Vietnamese wanted independence and the refusal of France and later the the intervention of the US into the Vietnamese internal politics led the Vietnamese people to turn to the Communist party as the party of independence.
The very same thing happened a few years earlier in Cuba.
But the Communist parties were not "liberators", as both the Vietnamese and the Cuban peoples discovered very quickly. But the French (obviously) and the US weren't either.
Vietnam is a nice country... for tourists. People there are not free at all. Nor are Cubans.
It invaded me attacked South Vietnam to stop a national uprising there, that was 1961, after some time the war did expand to North Vietnam and the rest of Indochina.
Saying it was legal and not an invasion, because the client regime invited them, is like saying the Soviet Union never invaded Afghanistan, because they were also invited and it was ‘legal’.
They were crimes, the two biggest crimes since WW2
> Saying it was legal and not an invasion, because the client regime invited them, is like saying the Soviet Union never invaded Afghanistan, because they were also invited and it was ‘legal’.
While Afghanistan was a Soviet client state before the Soviet-Afghan war, that War started with a successful decapitation strike by the USSR against the Afghan regime, so it’s not really analogous to the US war in South Vietnam.
>The U.S. did invade Iraq, using the authority granted in U.N. resolution 678. That was not a crime either, because it was carried out legally.
The UN explicitly stated that the invasion was illegal. I even remember the chief inspector declaring that he should have gone back to fishing instead of wasting time because the US had already decided to invade Iraq on false pretenses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
"The invasion of Iraq was neither in self-defense against armed attack nor sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force by member states and thus constituted the crime of war of aggression, according to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) in Geneva"
Remember "freedom fries"?
The war hysteria was as rabid then as it is now for "pro ukraine" bullshit of arming both sides and letting blood spill.
Amazing mental gymnastics white washing the millions of people murdered by US in desperate search for their oil.
UN resolution 678 granted the liberation of Kuwait. That has been achieved in February 1991. It did not grant the invasion of Iraq as it has happened in 2003.
"Russia did not invade Ukraine; it assisted the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic in their self-defense against Ukraine. Ukraine was the aggressor."
These rules get real slippery real fast. If your entire position is based on a slanted reading of some minor detail of obscure legalese, don't be surprised when evil people use the legalese against you
"Russia did not invade Ukraine; it assisted the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic in their self-defense against Ukraine. Ukraine was the aggressor."
GP asks because when it’s geo-frickin-politics it’s really not - Uo is calling R bad, I must also call R bad, otherwise Uo will call I bad as well. Because Uo calling I bad - is less bad for I - than R pissed off with I. Because R and I have supported each other throughout and Uo simply can not be trusted and Uo has repeatedly proved that it cannot be trusted. In fact there’s a good chance Uo as well might call I bad after I has called R bad and had lost a long time ally and eventually has been left alone.
And here people make it look like a weekend outing with some pals - hey, you should have called Jack out because he unnecessarily yelled at me! Yeah!
And because there’s clear difference of outrage when brown, yellow, black lives are bombed into oblivion, burnt into tar, whisked away into nothingness from sovereign territories without any accountability and repercussions compared to when the war is right inside Europe. Yeah, that’s real. But you all can’t see that. Why? Because it has been given a catchy name “Global War on Terror”? By the way, this is not a thing of past. It is still going on. Full throttle.
Others see that. Have been seeing for decades. Have seen the f..ing cold war and its farce as well.
So why GP asks? That’s why GP asks that’s everybody is bad here and calling Russia out bad will mean calling others’ actions/deeds good while possibly shooting themselves in the foot.
> Do you believe invading militaries should not be opposed?
Yes, should be. “Every” invading army should be. Every! Colonial powers should pay. Aggressors should atone, reimburse. In an ideal utopia inhabited only by pure flower children and silver snowflakes all this would happen maybe.
Not your or someone’s selective outrage!
Bit does it happen? No.
In the real world that doesn’t happen, it hasn’t happened, and hence many countries and entities are “not stupid enough” to catch a flying arrow in someone else’s yard in their own hinds. However heinous or a bad bully that archer is. Because as I said that’s the better of two bad options for many.
> So do you support taking action against the Russian military's genocide or not?
of course. and OP answered with the same answer.
please stop strawmanning, the joke is on you for not accepting the evidence. try to open your eyes to the murderous hypocrisy and deep-rooted racism of Global North/Western imperialism.
He is pointing out hypocrisy. Why is there a moral imperative to cripple your own economy because country A invaded country B, when you did not do so the 20 times country C did the same and worse?
The reasons to keep Russians wars in check has more to do than with morality. The threat that Russia will invade other nearby countries for lebensraum is currently feeling much more real for all countries bordering Russia.
The US is unlikely to invade Poland in order to displace the polish people with Americans. To some degree a war over oil resources feel much less threatening to countries than a war for lebensraum, especially for countries which don't have a lot of oil resources. Every nation however has land, and thus every nation is a target when a country like Russia is after territory. This is a big reason why a lot of countries around Russia is currently increasing their military budgets, loosing more money on that then any losses to the economy from not buying conflict resources from Russia. If you are pumping your money into the military, it makes economical sense to not fund the military threat you are defending against.
"Good" and "bad" are unhelpful, moralistic categories to gauge this kind of thing. Morals are culture- and society-specific. If I was a Raytheon stockholder, I would be ecstatic right now and would cheer the Russians on to keep kindling that flame. If I lived in Ukraine, I would have a very different opinion.
So, which categories can we apply? In the end, much like standard crime, there can be only one: Are they following the standards set by international law, or are they not? And that we cannot honestly answer as of now. Consider these basic questions:
1. Is the Russian military responsible for the decision to wage what we in the west consider a "war of aggression" against Ukraine? To parse that question lightly more pointed: Has every member of the Russian forces currently engaged in the Ukraine theatre signed off the decision to invade?
2. Is the Russian military collectively responsible for any action the Russian military and/or the Russian political leadership takes?
3. Can we be certain that all the information we get is truthful, especially when it comes to information that would suggest Russian military war crimes?
4. Which amount of civilian casualties is "acceptable" before it becomes a punishable war crime? When "we" kill civilians, "we" call it "collateral damage". At which point does collateral damage become a war crime?
5. Is the Ukraine war illegitimate? When considering this question, please take into account that we may have several gaps in our understanding of the situation, and that we tend to wave away Russian sources as "enemy propaganda".
If they are breaking international law, the decision makers in the Russian political leadership and military should be judged and potentially punished by an international court of law. Unfortunately, that only works as long as they are a member of that court (or are thoroughly defeated), and Russia isn't - much like the US - (and is unlikely to be defeated).
This seems like pretty useless ad-hominem. The US only got involved because of Pearl Harbor. At the time Long Island was "the eugenics capital of the world". The Third Reich got their inspiration from the US, although they thought the one drop rule went too far. Heck, in 1939 there was a Nazi rally in Madison Square Park. Do you think it was moral relativists going to that rally?
And truly the Nazis basically won WW2 given Operation Paperclip and all the massacres the US oversaw afterwards in Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, etc.
Sure we might not speaking German or wearing swastikas, but the American Eagle is currently financing genocide (let's use Yemen as the example here) and the only media attention we can seem to get is for Ukraine because their aggressor is our geopolitical enemy
I'm all for the sanctions against Russia before someone accuses me of whataboutism. However, I would like to see stronger international standards, as well as an ICC joined by the US. That requires the US to allow for international oversight and not have a Hague invasion clause. Are Americans willing to be held to the same standard as their enemies? If not just say might makes right and remove this pretense that it's about war crimes or human rights
Have you been to Russia?
Have you seen how they are pumped with propaganda? How every opposition voice has to worry that either they'll get arrested or killed by a "random" person when they go home.
Try that in US, what will happen? Nothing.
Russia (and China) are big countries and dangerous ones because ruled not by the rule of law but by a will of rulers and oligarchs. And now we have opportunity to stop at least one of them.
Change it - to try that “about US” and “be in” Yemen, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. Then see what happens to the individual! Guess?
Even this comment of yours reeks of hypocrisy. You are totally focused on “what happens to people in the US” and as long as that’s fine all is hunky dory.
In your comment you’ve totally not even touched upon what “USA has been doing outside USA - to other countries - usually the developing and underdeveloped countries”. Because that is “well.. you know… you know..”.
> by the rule of law
Which fucking law? Whose rule? Whose rule of law?
Entire fucking colonialism was a “legal endeavour”, in fact essentially a “civilising” the “natives” expedition that the kind white world took upon itself with great pains to do in the name of God and the King. Is that kind of rule of law you’re talking about? Because that kind of thinking never went anywhere during nid 1900s. It’s right there.
Well, then I guess Russia also decided to sell Ukraine some “freedom”. Oh, that sounds horrible? But why so?
> ...Russia? Have you seen how they are pumped with propaganda?
have you been to the US and/or UK? what do you make of the capitalist owned and capitalist controlled media?
> Russia (and China) are big countries and dangerous ones because ruled not by the rule of law but by a will of rulers and oligarchs.
ah cool, so they don't have weird things like FISA courts and a huge national security apparatus (sort of like this CIA thing), and army, which together coups countries and assassinates leaders? [1]
> And now we have opportunity to stop at least one of them.
Yes, I remember last time I posted something on the internet that disagreed with what corporate media was saying and then the secret police came to beat me and warn me that my family members may disappear.
alienation growing everywhere (parallel with increasing inquality) means capitalist realism is everywhere, so yeah, maybe the censorship and encroachment on free speech is less visible, but that's also because our imagination has been shot meaning we can't easily imagine and write about/describe alternatives. remember Thatcher's "there is no alternative" (TINA), Fukuyama's 'end of history', etc.? many in the working class now struggle to see our chains.
“have you been to the US and/or UK? what do you make of the capitalist owned and capitalist controlled media?”
You may be surprised to learn how irrelevant the corporate media is now, very low viewership counts, and a flourishing alternative media ecosystem, where everyone can believe what they want.
This diversity of information sources has its echo-chamber downside, but no one is being imprisoned because of their views like in Russia or China.
I vehemently disagree with the (second) invasion of Iraq, but pretending it's the same to step in when some dictator has torture as a favorite hobby as it is to invade a peaceful and happy democracy is taking the cynicism a bit too far. Afghanistan & the 1990 Iraqi war were entirely legitimate for obvious reasons.
Aehm, no! Afghanistan was a reaction to 9/11, since the ruling Taliban had been accomodating and supporting Al Quaeda. The first (or second, depending on how you're counting) Gulf War started with Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
Degrading and highjacking what might have been a constructive thread. Way to go.
Yes, lots of hypocrisy to go all around—its called human nature. But what Russia is doing TODAY is just plane evil, and what other countries have done and will probably do again does not make Russian action any less evil.
>But what Russia is doing TODAY is just plane evil
Really?? approximately half a million children died in Iraq. Russian soldiers take the brunt of civilians throwing objects and molotov cocktails at them and try to stop them by standing on the roads.
You think Iraqi civilians could have blockaded US army by standing on the road?
It's human nature when Russia does it (and what Russia is doing is abhorrent and disgusting) and when US does it, its brushed under the carpet as champion of democracy
People in the US have far more ability to change the US than they do countries on the other side of the globe. Which is why the US's crimes have to be minimized - so people can freely ignore them and simply bray for military action against other countries.
It’s also a way to smuggle claims of racism into the conversation, since in 2022 you can’t have a conversation without racism or people will fall on the floor shaking in withdrawal.
In other words, please cripple your already struggling economies because of a war that you had nothing to do with. Sure, your citizens might have to freeze or starve but this is absolutely necessary to support the current thing. Oh, and please keep buying Saudi and Emirati oil and please keep selling them weapons to bomb Yemen. Anything else would be whataboutism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_prot...
I was too young to remember the war in Vietnam but my older colleagues told me the general feeling was very much anti-war, and they had to do pretty hardcore stuff in order to avoid being drafted.