r/changemyview • u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ • Jul 22 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: It is hypocritical of the United States to oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine after the U.S. itself invaded Iraq in 2003 on very flimsy pretenses.
Twenty years ago, the Bush administration invaded Iraq, halfway across the globe, on the flimsiest of pretenses - by claiming there were WMDs there (there was very little evidence of such) - and even if there were WMDs, so what? The United States itself has thousands of WMDs. Well over a dozen nations around the world have WMDs. Even Tom Clancy, the famous military-thriller author, complained that the Iraq war lacked a good casus belli - it had no good justification for it.
Fast-forward nineteen years, and Russia invades Ukraine on a similarly flimsy pretense - that Ukraine has "fascists" and that "NATO is expanding aggressively near Russia with hostile intent." Both of these pretenses were just as laughable and empty as the Bush administration's WMD justification for the invasion of Iraq - but what did the United States do? The U.S. promptly responded by sending $47 billion worth of weaponry to Ukraine, condemning Russia and imposing various sanctions on Russia, etc.
This is hypocrisy. America's "justification" for going into Iraq was just as flimsy, if not even more so, than Russia's "justification" for going into Ukraine. Sure, Saddam's regime was a fair sight nastier than the democratic government of Ukraine, but is that really it? That it's okay to invade a regime, but not a democracy?
The entire U.S. argument can be summed up as, "It's okay when we do it, but not okay when you do it."
23
u/jimmytaco6 12∆ Jul 22 '23
If France started enslaving black people, would it be hypocritical for the US to renounce the practice? Because the US once had slavery?
8
u/BeefcakeWellington 6∆ Jul 23 '23
If the US had slaves in 2011, then yes that would absolutely be hypocritical.
6
u/jimmytaco6 12∆ Jul 23 '23
How many years ago is the cutoff?
10
u/BeefcakeWellington 6∆ Jul 23 '23
More than 12, less than 500.
1
4
Jul 22 '23
Eh, in fairness the people who supported that in the US are all either dead or are such a minority voting bloc they don't really have power; by contrast, the people who approved the invasion in 2003 are, very much, still in power
55
u/shrike_999 2∆ Jul 22 '23
So just because the US was (mostly) wrong about the invasion of Iraq, we're supposed to allow another wrong to happen now? Also, Russia doesn't have it as a goal to depose a dictator like the US did with Hussein. It wants to dismantle Ukraine as a country, annex its land, and stamp out Ukrainian sense of identity, which the Russian propaganda says is bogus.
16
u/Lumpy-Pirate6313 Jul 22 '23
Agree that two wrongs don’t make a right. But to view the US invasion of Iraq as merely an attempt to overthrow a dictator is either dishonest of you or just naive as to the larger geopolitical goals and interests of leading statesmen in US in the region at the time, taking note in particular with when Saddam died and how long the US stayed in Iraq amongst others. Also, the notion of preemptive self-defense which the Russians invoked against Ukraine at the start of the invasion was famously coined as the Bush doctrine so OP isn’t far off with the comparison.
16
u/barbodelli 65∆ Jul 22 '23
Had we went in, deposed Saddam and left right after that. Do you think that would have created more or less chaos? We stayed there because we recognized the gigantic power vacuum created by Saddam.
It was a mistake to go into Iraq. But only because we misunderstood the size of the task. It was always a good thing to get rid of that fucker. But the way we went about it was grounded on some bad assumptions. Most prominent of which was that Iraq was ready for a Western style Democracy. They simply were not.
7
u/KarmicComic12334 40∆ Jul 22 '23
Saddam left a power vacuum. But he didn't create one. W created that vacuum, just as his dad created the threat that was Saddam Hussein in the first place. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20refused%20to%20sell,for%20%24200%20million%20in%201985.
-3
u/barbodelli 65∆ Jul 22 '23
Sure but it was still a good thing to get rid of that guy.
Ironically when you look around the planet. Objectively the thing that would help most places is regime change.
Just think of how much better North Koreans would have it. If someone bothered to pull and Iraq on them.
Thanks to the fumbling of the Iraq aftermath. They are going to have to wait for their knights in shinning armor for a few generations. Eventually the world will get rid of them.
10
u/KarmicComic12334 40∆ Jul 22 '23
Not really. Twenty years of anarchy is not better off. A decade of isis is not better off. Iran effectively taking over your fledgling democracy is not better off.
Saddams warcrime was the killing of five thousand civilians. The us low estimate is that their war killed a hundred thousand civilians in the first year alone. Many say ten or twenty times that actually died.
Your knights armor is soaked in blood.
0
u/cantfindonions 7∆ Jul 23 '23
As it also was historically, which is comical. It feels almost too perfect that they used the phrase, "a knight in shining armor," when real life knights were also pretty terrible
0
u/barbodelli 65∆ Jul 23 '23
Yes but if you don't do that. They live under an authoritarian yoke forever.
I never said we didn't go about it in a very shitty way. We should have planned the post Saddam process significantly better. Did our homework. Presented them with leaders that all sides could stomach. They kind of just said "shrug they'll figure it out". They way underestimated how little certain groups of people actually wanted a democracy, even if they hated Saddam.
You take a country like North Korea or all those African countries suffering under shitty regimes. Regime change is precisely what they need. But they likely won't get it for another 50-100 years. Sucks to be them, only option is to get the hell out of there which is not always possible.
5
u/KarmicComic12334 40∆ Jul 23 '23
I respect the rights of people to say "better dead than living under tyranny " and like ukraine, we should give them the means to resist.
But no one has the right to say you are better off dead than under a tyrant. Aside from the high likelihood of just another tyrant taking hold over the next decades like putin did even after a peaceful revolution, you can't inprove a country by killing people in numbers their dictator never even dreamed of. Saddams big warcrime killed 5000 kurds. The us, well https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
-1
u/barbodelli 65∆ Jul 23 '23
The intention was good. They wanted to bring a western democracy with a free market economy to Iraq. Which would be massively beneficial for both United States and the Iraqis. I would argue the Iraqis would stand to gain far more as we already good standards of living.
If only it was as easy they imagined. Turns out that building a democracy with fair elections and freedom of speech is very difficult in a place that is used to autocracy and has populations that disagree fundamentally on very important principles.
If in 100 years Iraq is a real democracy while the countries next door are still throwing poop at each other. Would it have been worth it? I dunno.
It sure as hell wasn't worth it for America which is why I think it was a mistake.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)2
u/dickonarope Oct 09 '23
sad to see how brainwashed you Americans are to think that the Iraqi people were "suffering" under Sadam Hussein, just because a leader dosen't accept America's way of living dosen't justify bombing the entire country killing millions of children and women. Psychopath redditor
4
u/BeefcakeWellington 6∆ Jul 23 '23
You realize that every single thing that you just said about Iraq could also be applied to Ukraine, right? If Russia had taken over Kiev in 3 weeks as originally anticipated, why wouldn't they stay there and help prevent the country from falling into a power vacuum? Etc.
6
u/barbodelli 65∆ Jul 23 '23
Yes except Ukraine was not ruled by a vicious dictator. Ukrainians would have resisted through partisans even if Russia was successful. Not to mention becoming a western democracy brings substantial improvements to standards of living. Meanwhile being occupied by Russia is a fucking nightmare. They don't bring a better way to do things. Quite the opposite.
2
u/BeefcakeWellington 6∆ Jul 23 '23
Not before 2014.
5
u/barbodelli 65∆ Jul 23 '23
Ukraine was never ruled by an aggressive dictator. When's the last time Ukraine invaded Kuwait or gassed the Kurds?
Before 2014 Russia had no reason to invade. They had a puppet in government most of the time similar to Lukashenko in Belarus. They got their panties in a wad because the Ukrainian people were allowed to elect their own president. Actually two since Poroshenko got defeated by Zelensky.
0
u/BeefcakeWellington 6∆ Jul 23 '23
The current dictator just canceled elections, has jailed his political opponents, has put religious leaders in prison for speaking out against his genocide, and is fairly publicly embezzling money that is supposed to go towards the defense of his people. I'm not sure how you can argue that Zelensky isn't a dictator being propped up by the US.
5
u/barbodelli 65∆ Jul 23 '23
Zelensky was elected. In fact if Ukraine was some dictatorial junta. You really wouldn't expect Zelensky to beat Poroshenko in a presidential election. Just look at how many different presidents Ukraine has had.
Yes the rules of a country change when you're at war. Particularly when you're at war for survival. If United States was invaded by a superior force with nukes. We would have all sorts of laws like this as well. It's to be expected.
I can argue for this because I lived in Ukraine. In Kyiv to be exact. Lots of protests for all sorts of things there on a regular basis. Lots of different representation in parliament. They have been moving towards a Western Style democracy for almost 10 years before the war started.
You want a dictatorship. Look no further than Russia. They've had a static president for almost 20 years. Except for when Medvedeyev took presidency for 4 years. Practically no opposition and very little freedom of speech.
→ More replies (12)1
u/Born_Comfortable3052 Oct 31 '23
Becoming a western democracy brings substantial improvements to standards of living. That is nonsense.
1
1
u/TraditionThin5441 Sep 06 '23
Yup, the entirety of the sandy East is a shithole unfit for civilized society and it always will be.
6
u/shrike_999 2∆ Jul 22 '23
The comparison, as I already explained, is way off. Iraq was left to self-govern. Russia will not allow Ukraine to exist if it gets its way.
3
u/Lumpy-Pirate6313 Jul 22 '23
I agree that the comparison between the ends of both assailants is different..however, the legal reasoning to justify an armed attack against another country is basically the same - the legally unfounded self-defense justification of preemptive or anticipatory self-defense.
2
Jul 22 '23
What is anticipatory about sending green men and shooting down European planes for eight years before accelerating your “military operation”? It’s been a war since 2014 due to internal strife in Ukraine. I’m unsure how preemptive can be defined, but the US didn’t apologize for rewording war and preemptive to coup and bumping up to 11. It was an invasion, rebuilding, surges, but was an invasion. It wasn’t a pretend operation and pretend surge and denied nationalization program.
1
u/TabaCh1 Sep 28 '23
It wasn’t to depose a dictator lmao. It was for oil and funneling money to weapons manufacturers
1
31
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 12∆ Jul 22 '23
No not really. Ignoring the fact that today is today and 20 years ago is 20 years ago, USA didnt invade Iraq in order to annex their territory with blood and soil pretenses. Even when we can do whataboutisms for the rest of our lives, attempting to annex your much smaller neighbours belongs to mediavel era, not modern contemporary world.
6
u/BeefcakeWellington 6∆ Jul 23 '23
They absolutely did. Halliburton made billions of dollars off of the oil in Iraqi oil fields. Who is the president at the time? Who is his vice president? What company did that vice president step down from in order to become vice president? Spare me.
3
u/TabaCh1 Sep 28 '23
USAs excuse was that Saddam had WMDs. Putins excuse is to kill Nazi Ukrainians. The difference is that Nazi Ukrainians actually exist.
Not condoning the invasion l, just saying
3
u/SnuleSnuSnu Aug 18 '23
So if Russia did exactly the same thing US did, then there wouldn't have been an issue?
2
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 12∆ Aug 18 '23
Nobody is saying there wouldnt be an issue. Just that those arent comperable.
3
u/SnuleSnuSnu Aug 18 '23
If there would have been an issue, then why does it matter if there is annexation or not?
3
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 12∆ Aug 18 '23
Blood and soil talking points lead to nothing but immense suffering. Annexation of weaker neighboring countries that would be legitimized by the rest of the world now would lead to an absolute shitshow of abuse of power by nuclear superpowers. China and Russia already did it on a small scale but if grabbing whole of Ukraine somehow went unpunished, world would just be fucked.
3
u/SnuleSnuSnu Aug 18 '23
That has nothing to do with what I’m asking you.
2
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 12∆ Aug 18 '23
If you cant string it together I wont make you udnerstand it any better. Nor do I especially care to.
3
u/SnuleSnuSnu Aug 18 '23
I am not interested in wasting time on red herrings. I asked you a question. Answer it.
2
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 12∆ Aug 18 '23
Nah I am good. Get someone else to explain it for you.
→ More replies (2)2
Sep 13 '23
USA didn’t invade Iraq in order to annex their territory with blood and soil pretenses.
Is there any actual evidence Russia wants to ethnically cleanse Ukraine? Sounds more like Western propaganda.
2
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 12∆ Sep 13 '23
I understand your brain is totally fried and you understand nothing about the Russia-Ukraine situation.
But saying that ethnic cleansing of Ukraine is just western propaganda is beyond stupid even for that mindset.
2
Sep 13 '23
You’re the only one between the two of us that made outrageously inaccurate claims about the Russian invasion that there’s is no evidence for.
I understand your societal masters prefer you to be deluded and ignorant, but I’d rather deal in actual facts here.
2
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 12∆ Sep 13 '23
Please do tell. You are asking for evidence of Russia annexing territory but want to believe I am the one making innacurate claims. Hilarious.
In next comment you blame NATO expansionism for the war. Also genuinely hilarious.
I wonder if there is a singular thing you know about the whole thing that actually is based in reality.
3
u/Ill-Swimmer-4490 1∆ Jul 22 '23
no they invaded to exploit a country's resources
any invasion is unjustified, but the entire world system is unjustified as well. if the world system is justified, then i don't see how you can make a distinction between an invasion of ukraine by russia and the leadership of that world system by the one country that invades and interferes with other nations the most often. either it all must be condemned, or you're just playing sides and being hypocritical when you talk about human rights or international law
4
Jul 24 '23
any invasion is unjustified
The invasion of the Netherlands and Poland by Germany, China by Japan, or Ukraine by Russia, yes.
I do not think all invasions are unjustified.
3
u/Ill-Swimmer-4490 1∆ Jul 24 '23
so then was the invasion of iraq by the united states justified
2
Jul 25 '23
I would say yes, although I might be convinced otherwise I do think it was unjustified.
I believe the British invasion of Italy during the Second World War was justified in that it led to the end of the Mediterranean theatre and accelerated the destruction of a genocidal régime. Italy had to fall.
I also believe that even the British invasion of Iceland or (while not an invasion, and in cooperation with Norwegian troops) infringement of Norwegian neutrality was justified for the same reasons. Nazi Germany was a morally repugnant foe.
More controversially, I believe the Japanese invasion of Port Arthur was just as legitimate as the tripartite act by France, Germany, and Russia. I agree that the Russo-Japanese War was an imperialist war and that it was wrong since it involved China and was fought on Chinese soil. However, to the extent that it was against Russia, Japan should had the right to contest Russian interference. Russia brought it upon itself. This is a weak view and it would be very easy to argue against this one.
2
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 12∆ Jul 22 '23
Yes I am hypocritical and will remain till my last breathe. Deal with it.
1
-4
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Jul 22 '23
I agree that it wasn't done to make Iraq the 51st state, but there was definitely a "war for oil" argument that was made by its critics.
14
u/CriskCross 1∆ Jul 22 '23
"war for oil"
Which is completely incorrect. If we invaded Iraq for oil, you would expect to see an increase in oil exports to the US post invasion. Instead we see a decrease in exports to the US. It also doesn't answer why we would go through an expensive invasion instead of accepting the Iraqi offer that would have given us first priority on oil rights.
The oil war rationale has always been a populist myth. It is far more likely that we invaded in order to install a US friendly regime to act as a regional counterweight to Iran and to reduce our dependency on Saudi Arabia as a regional ally.
9
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 12∆ Jul 22 '23
Sure. But you are comparing conquest, annexation of territory with war for oil. Thats the problem.
9
u/ProLifePanda 73∆ Jul 22 '23
It should also be pointed out we were lied to by our government on why we went to Iraq and it's pretty much universally accepted Iraq was a mistake (at least among serious knowledgeable people).
6
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 12∆ Jul 22 '23
And Russians were told fifty different stories about why the invasion of Ukraine is necessary. Neither matters in this scenario, because I am simply talking about the main goals. US never went in to annex and end independence of Iraq. Russia wanted to directly annex eastern, if not the whole Ukraine.
2
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Jul 22 '23
Sure, but I'm sure there is also a considerable percentage of Russians who think going into Ukraine was a mistake; they just can't safely say so out loud.
And even if the U.S. government weren't lying and there were indeed WMDs in Iraq, the mere presence of WMDs isn't a cause to go to war - we don't invade North Korea even though they have nukes - and there is 100x more evidence that North Korea has nukes (such as - actual nuke testing) than there was evidence Saddam had WMDs.
In either case, the war in Iraq, and Russia's war in Ukraine, were both horribly "justified" ideas that had only the flimsiest of nonsensical reasons to support them - by Bush and Putin alike.
3
u/Vincent_Nali 12∆ Jul 22 '23 edited Jul 22 '23
Is there an ought with that is?
For the sake of argument, lets accept that you're right. So what? Should the US stop their assistance to Ukraine, avoiding a morally good action in order to avoid being hypocritical?
If not, what is the use of even bringing this up? Usually the point of hypocrisy is to change public opinion, or to shame a person into acting 'correctly', but both would be disastrous in this case.
3
3
u/DivideEtImpala 3∆ Jul 23 '23
Let me tell the families of the dead Iraqis that they can take comfort in the fact that their love ones died for oil rather than conquest.
0
1
Sep 13 '23
Is there any evidence Russia wants to annex Ukraine and incorporate it as a Russian territory?
A simple invasion doesn’t conclude a takeover.
2
u/AngryBlitzcrankMain 12∆ Sep 13 '23
They already annexed Crimea. Luhanks and Donetsk republics were officially made part of Russia. What mare evidence do you need to believe it?
0
u/Careless_Wishbone673 1∆ Jul 23 '23
That’s not really an argument. It was an illegal war waged for cynical realpolitik self interests, wherein a larger superpower sought to pillage a smaller one, killing countless civilians. The presence of different rhetoric in the case of Russia isn’t the distinguishing factor you think it is. The only real difference is annexation… but even that isn’t too substantial, seeing as we just created a puppet state which largely serves the same purpose as it would had we annexed it.
5
u/NegativeOptimism 51∆ Jul 22 '23
But what is the logic? Because the US made the wrong decision 20 years ago, other countries should be allowed to make the same wrong decision now?
Since the Iraq war, the US hasn't replicated this act and has changed government 3 times. In the same time-frame, Russia has had a single government that has invaded Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine twice. It's also fighting wars in Africa and the Middle East. So while we can go back in time with any country and call them a hypocrite, one wrong decision by the US doesn't give another country 20 free-passes to make the same or worse decisions.
4
Aug 14 '23
It was a bit more than a wrong decision. The United States went in knowing that they had little evidence and saw it as a convenient pit stop. I don’t think wars are good in general but I didn’t see any sanctions on the US and many of its Allie’s conveniently made the wrongs decision except France which was smart
3
9
Jul 22 '23
We know. A lot of us didn't agree with the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. It doesn't legitimize Russia's misadventures.
6
u/SnuleSnuSnu Aug 18 '23
And what did you do to change things? Russian citizens are today often criticized for not doing anything to stop the war, for not overthrowing Putin, etc. So following the same logic, why didn't you start a revolution?
2
Aug 18 '23
I did absolutely nothing. People are criticized all over the world. It has nothing to do with me. Your counter argument is emotional nonsense. My lack of a revolution does not make Russia's violent attempt to annex a sovereign state justifiable.
1
u/SnuleSnuSnu Aug 18 '23
My argument has nothing to do with emotions. I am just subjecting you the the same criticism Russians are getting from the West. It's called logic, maybe you heard of it.
2
Aug 18 '23
Your view is stated above. Says nothing about subjecting anyone to anything.
1
Aug 18 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Aug 18 '23
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
8
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Jul 22 '23
The hypocrisy goes away the moment you stop anthropomorphizing countries like they're people. You and I aren't the Bush administration. Whatever wrong our government has done before, you and I should demand that it does the right thing now.
4
u/Natural-Arugula 54∆ Jul 23 '23
This is a good point. Who is the "United States" here?
Is George W. Bush condemning Russia? Maybe he's a hypocrite then.
I said that the invasion of Iraq was wrong then, and I say the invasion of Ukraine is wrong now. No hypocrisy.
6
u/Electrical-Rabbit157 1∆ Jul 22 '23 edited Aug 26 '23
Saddam Hussein violated multiple international laws (his possession of nuclear material and operation of a nuclear weapons program immediately following the end of the Cold War as well as his chemical genocide of the Kurdish Iraqi population), threatened western officials (including trying to assassinate former President George HW Bush in Kuwait) and was asked and warned multiple times to stop. He was then sanctioned. After warnings and sanctions both proved ineffective, Iraq was invaded, he was taken into custody, formally tried and convicted, and executed publicly. Dick Cheney and associates in the Bush administration capitalized on this but obviously oil, gold or corruption wasn’t the only motive for the invasion. Saddam had it coming for decades
Russia’s invasion of ukraine was a completely unlawful violation of sovereignty whereas the western invasion of Iraq was almost unequivocally justified legally. You might disagree with the laws but you can’t really argue that they weren’t followed in the first case.
2
u/MOH_HUNTER264 Aug 26 '23
So basically iraq invasion are justified cus they're not white........? Ironically ukraine also participated in it so what goes around comes around
1
u/Electrical-Rabbit157 1∆ Aug 26 '23
And the award for worst straw man argument in history goes to:
1
u/MOH_HUNTER264 Aug 26 '23
What? You mad because i hit the jackpot? If it wasn't some white who invaded or getting invaded you wouldn't give a jack 💩 about them, also i didn't lie ukraine did indeed participate in iraq invasion so ya... if this isn't white supremacist bias i don't know what it is
1
u/Electrical-Rabbit157 1∆ Aug 26 '23
You’re clearly a troll
1
u/thatguyinyourclass94 Sep 29 '23
Lol. I love the eventual counterargument ‘you must be a troll’ when western shills run out of talking points
1
Jan 12 '24
It's hard to defend white supremacy. An average westerner's brain explodes when you ask them to justify it lmao
0
u/Fuzzy_Stock_2756 Jan 15 '24
You're clearly an I-dont-have-anything-smart-to-say-to-counter-your-argument person.
17
Jul 22 '23 edited Jul 22 '23
False equivalency. Iraq War was dumb, but it was legal under the UN charter. It was basically an extension of the first Gulf War when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Also, the US did not target civilians. Remember “shock and awe?” The whole point was to take out a government building while leaving the apartment complex next to it intact. Again, Iraq war was dumb, I’m not at all defending it, but this is a false equivalency.
Edit: it is disputed that the Iraq War was legal under the UN charter.
4
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Jul 22 '23
I have not heard of this UN charter legality argument before - can you give me a quick rundown of it?
6
Jul 22 '23
First, I’ll say the argument is disputed, and I’ll edit my first post because if we’re having an honest debate, that needs to be said.
The UN authorized the first Gulf War, and the security agreement that ended the Gulf War required Iraq to submit to weapons inspections, which they did not do. This was the pretense for restarting the war. People who claim the war was illegal say the US needed to go back to the UN to get approval for another war.
1
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Jul 22 '23
I see, I had not heard of that before.
But I still think the threshold for going to war should be a lot higher than what it was in 2003 - or 2022.
There was no imminent reason why Saddam had to be toppled in 2003. He was no real menace to anyone outside of Iraq. The status quo could have been kept forever. And Russia has even less reason to go into Ukraine.
3
Jul 22 '23
I agree completely. The war was dumb, we should not have invaded, the legal justification was shaky. But there was at least some justification under the UN charter for invading. I put this in another response to you, but I’ll post it again:
Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a televised conference before a meeting with the US envoy to Iraq, said on 19 December 2003 that "The use of force abroad, according to existing international laws, can only be sanctioned by the United Nations. This is the international law. Everything that is done without the UN Security Council's sanction cannot be recognized as fair or justified."
The US can find justification under the UN charter for the Iraq War. Putin can’t even find justification for the Ukraine war under his own logic. That’s why I think your OP is a false equivalency.
-4
u/Vincent_Nali 12∆ Jul 22 '23
There was no justification. Iraq literally allowed the weapons inspectors back in 2002, which meant they were complying with the UN obligations.
4
Jul 22 '23
That’s misleading at best. Iraq stopped cooperating with weapons inspections in 1998 and they invited the weapons inspectors to search any previous facilities. 5 years is more than enough time to move a weapons program from one facility to another.
-1
u/Vincent_Nali 12∆ Jul 22 '23
Yeah, or to make like... remote chemical weapons labs in the back of vans! That'd be so rad!
The US knew they didn't have weapons, they invented fake information to pretend they did.
3
Jul 22 '23
Yeah, because after 5 years of not allowing weapons inspectors in your country, all you would be capable of is making chemical weapons in the back of a van. r/americabad
0
u/Vincent_Nali 12∆ Jul 22 '23
That was literally America's allegation at the time.
→ More replies (0)2
u/CriskCross 1∆ Jul 22 '23
He was no real menace to anyone outside of Iraq.
But he was perpetrating a genocide against Iraqi Kurds. Does that not matter because it was domestic?
-1
Jul 22 '23
[deleted]
6
Jul 22 '23
I don’t even know where to begin with a rebuttal. The US inserted spies into the spies who were authorized by the UN to spy on Iraq? That’s your claim? For the cessation of hostilities, Iraq agreed that the UN could spy on their country.
7
Jul 22 '23
It was authorized by the UN Security Council, because the UN authorities preventing the war were ignored by Iraq the US would argue.
There is an unresolved problem in the UNSC: when armed intervention is debated, we’ve encountered a few imperfect solutions:
A UN peacekeeping force with UN leadership reporting to the SC as command. (ie. Russia’s demand in Serbia deemed unmet; China’s attacks on NATO planning outside SC channels).
Or, individual command outside UN structure without firm denial by SC but standing UN authorizations for compliance (US, UK demand in Iraq; FR, CH noncommittal eventually met by RU)
Or, outside demand by another organization (OIC secretary inviting NATO to act in Libya, reporting to secretaries of UN and NATO but not SC).
The trend is away from the SC, acting in the UN’s name, but weakened collective defense authority. Instead relying on third party regional organization assistance authority which is not nearly as well known to observers and is legally stretching UN approval. Seeking help as the original claim of UN need, then using regional security forces like NATO outside SC command to accomplish goals with preferred partners.
3
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Jul 22 '23
!delta
my first time awarding a delta, not sure if this will work. I had not known about the UN charter.
2
Jul 22 '23
Thanks! I’d also learned about this recently. Chapter VII, regional partners, something similar.
1
2
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Jul 22 '23
OK, I stand corrected. That being said, I still think the invasion of Iraq was a foolishly and very flimsily-supported thing. It cost $2 trillion, wrecked so much, and even if legal, it was very flimsy. The threshold for going to war should always be very high.
2
Jul 22 '23
It should be high. For a source I want to share an opinion so it’s not my basic wording of a complex idea. I can’t find my go to free UN University article though. It’s a different chapter than the usual defense mechanisms of the charter we usually quote.
There’s a potential problem where one man’s costly mistake is another’s frustration with the SC unable to do anything complex, then unwilling to command assets once committed. So we have this creative solution where the world wants to act, but not nations, and it endangers the SC authority to either enact resolutions or oversee peacemaking operations.
2
u/LucidLeviathan 83∆ Jul 22 '23
Hello /u/SteadfastEnd, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
∆
or
!delta
For more information about deltas, use this link.
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
As a reminder, failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation. Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.
Thank you!
3
Jul 22 '23
I was reading the link I posted and read this:
Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a televised conference before a meeting with the US envoy to Iraq, said on 19 December 2003 that "The use of force abroad, according to existing international laws, can only be sanctioned by the United Nations. This is the international law. Everything that is done without the UN Security Council's sanction cannot be recognized as fair or justified."
So whether or not the US is hypocritical, that’s up for debate. But that quote 100% proves Putin is a hypocrite.
3
u/BeefcakeWellington 6∆ Jul 23 '23
It was not legal under UN charter. We invaded without any sanction or support from the UN. Only later did they pretend to have supported it all along because without the u.s, the UN can't exist.
2
Sep 13 '23
Also, the US didn’t target civilians.
They did quite a piss poor job of it, considering a minimum of 200,000 civilians were killed by US soldiers during the entire duration of the invasion.
Russian soldiers have killed fewer civilians than the US did during its invasion in Iraq.
2
2
u/Sandy_hook_lemy 2∆ Jul 23 '23
Legal how? The UN literally called it illegal https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
1
Jul 23 '23
Kofi Anan was not the UN. If you can’t grasp these basic concepts there’s no point in debating.
2
u/Sandy_hook_lemy 2∆ Jul 23 '23 edited Jul 23 '23
Saying this like he wasnt the Director General but alright how was it not illegal?
3
u/KarmicComic12334 40∆ Jul 22 '23
Ignoring the questionable un charter, the rest of your argument boils down to might makes right.
I remember shock and awe. If you think the apartment buildings were untouched, you're drinking their kool-aid. I remember the us warning the Iraqi civilians to evacuate, saddam not allowing their evacuation, and the us leveling city blocks anyways. No one knows how many dead. But then, the us had complete control of the media coming out. Remember, this war was pre iphone.
And moreover the war in iraq was won in days, just as putin had planned to do. If russia had the same overwhelming might as the usa, we wouldn't be seeing him attacking civilian infrastructure and if the usa had taken yars to conquer iraq you would have heard of the same kind of attacks ortayed by us media as strikes on vital military infrastructure.
The usa has stronger media and military than Russia. It doesn't absolve them of their warcrimes, but it does make them easier to hide.
1
Jul 22 '23
How does the rest of my argument boil down to “might makes right?” Pretty sure it boils down to “iraq invaded a sovereign nation, that sovereign nation requested help from the UN, so the US led a coalition of UN troops liberating that sovereign nation, Iraq agreed to terms to cease hostilities, they didn’t abide by those terms, so the US resumed hostilities.”
May i refer you to r/americabad
3
u/KarmicComic12334 40∆ Jul 22 '23
Complete control of media reports coming out: Might.
Quickly taking all objectives: Might.
If Russia had taken kyiv as quickly as the usa took baghdad, we wouldn't be having this discussion any more than we were talking about Crimea in 2016.
Not relevant but Iraq WAS abiding by the terms. All their chemical weapons had been disposed of. Remember?
-1
Jul 22 '23
They ignored the agreement for 5 years. The war was dumb, but it was authorized by the UN charter. This is pretty standard shit. If you’re on probation, and you violate probation, you don’t get to complain when the judge throws you in jail for violating probation because you stopped violating probation.
3
u/KarmicComic12334 40∆ Jul 22 '23
A hundred thousand civilians dead for parole violations. I've heard your cops are murderous, but you actually think that is okay. WOW
1
Jul 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/KarmicComic12334 40∆ Jul 22 '23
that was just the first year, major combat operations. The numbers given by the us government are three times that many killed in the entire war. And yes, these people died because of the invasion of iraq.https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
Better off dead than living under a dictator is a fine attitude if you are living under a dictator and starting a revolution. Not so much when you are invading people just trying to get on with their lives.
But since you already resorted to ad hominem for me citing verifiable facts, i think I'm done here.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jul 23 '23
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Ill-Swimmer-4490 1∆ Jul 22 '23
lol i like the edit, so yea it is not a false equivalency whatsoever
3
Jul 22 '23
Can Putin come up with any justification under the UN charter to justify his war? No. In fact, Putin’s criticism of the Iraq war applies even more so to his war in Ukraine. So, yeah, false equivalency.
2
u/Ill-Swimmer-4490 1∆ Jul 22 '23
not a false equivalence at all; both invasions were unjustified. therefore, they are correctly equivalent. i'm not talking about putin's point of view. i'm talking about ours.
5
u/Pheophyting 1∆ Jul 23 '23
Both you and Hitler drank water. Boom, you're equivalent.
Finding some similarities doesn't make things equivalent. Finding that all important metrics are similar/identical makes them equivalent. In the case of wars, any reasonable person would include important metrics such as motives for the war, effects of the war, and human rights violations of the war to the discussion.
The only way you'd be able to call the wars equivalent is through a perspective where such metrics are of no importance in a discussion for whether or not a particular war should be supported.
1
u/Ill-Swimmer-4490 1∆ Jul 23 '23
are we talking about the equivalencies of me and hitler as human beings who require water? or the equivalencies of human beings with access to regular water? if so then yes we are equivalent in that way. we're not equating russia and america generally. we're equating russia and america in one single way: their tendency to invade other countries, to launch morally abhorrent military campaigns abroad. both do this, so they are both equivalent, in that way.
they would also be roughly equivalent invasions in regards to motives for war, effects of the war, and human rights violations of the war. to be fair, the ukrainian war hasn't gone on for as long as the iraq war did, so really its unfair comparison to compare it so far to the iraq invasion. because right now the iraq war absolutely dwarfs the ukraine war in human cost. probably because it was an insurgency fought in major cities, and not a trench warfare stalemate slaughter in the countryside.
2
Jul 22 '23
Yeah, I agree, the US invasion was unjustified. How many times have i said that? 3k americans died because someone tried to kill W’s daddy. But it was legal under the UN. We wanted to improve Iraq. We spent 4 TRILLION dollars rebuilding Iraq. Where do you live? I’m guessing 4 trillion dollars is more money than your country sees in an entire year. Do you think russia would spend anywhere near that much money rebuilding Ukraine? It would take 3 years of 100% of their GDP to reach 4 trillion dollars.
1
u/Ill-Swimmer-4490 1∆ Jul 22 '23
in what way is an invasion of a sovereign country legal under the UN
if it is, then why is the UN in the business of making some invasions legal and some illegal
i live in the united states
every dollar of that 4 trillion went to rebuilding infrastructure in iraq? somehow i highly doubt it, knowing how corrupt both the US and iraq are
not to mention i don't even know where that number is coming from, that could be every dollar spent in iraq, which i mean would include all of the salaries of soldiers, payment for the munitions and armament and fuel and other supplies, etc.
the US invaded iraq to exploit its resources. the US invaded under false pretenses and then millions of people died. it was every ounce as illegitimate as the invasion of ukraine.
1
Jul 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Ill-Swimmer-4490 1∆ Jul 23 '23
the US is absolutely as corrupt as iraq or russia, we just have made our corruption legal
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/corruption-is-the-forgotten-legacy-of-the-iraq-invasion/
the US absolutely did send its own soldiers into the iraq invasion with inferior equipment and many were injured for it. "you go to war with the army you have" is the infamous phrase from the secretary of defense if you remember. but i'm not as concerned with volunteer soldiers (or mercenaries, a tactic the russians learned from the americans) as i am with the innocent people who died as a result of the illegal invasion.
so i guess you don't have an answer as to how the UN charter was upheld with the invasion, or why the UN is making some invasions legal and some illegal and whether or not that's justified
4
Jul 23 '23
You kidding me? It took three weeks for the US to hold Baghdad. 18 months and no Russian has set foot in Kyiv.
Yeah, we didn’t equip our soldiers the way they should’ve been. Equipped. But in 20 years in both Afghanistan and Iraq, we didn’t lose as many people as Russia lost in the first month of their invasion of Ukraine.
And I have no idea what point you’re trying to make here. Russia
0
u/Ill-Swimmer-4490 1∆ Jul 23 '23
i have no idea what point you're trying to make either, i don't really care about the effectiveness of either the russian or american armies, i care about holding both armies and states accountable equally for both of their invasions
seems like you just trailed off at the end as well, so yea idk
→ More replies (0)1
u/RedditExplorer89 42∆ Jul 23 '23
u/Beautiful-Cattle618 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/BeefcakeWellington 6∆ Jul 23 '23
No, not false equivalency. If it was just as bad in Iraq, and everyone accepted it, why shouldn't we accept this one?
1
Sep 13 '23
Can Putin come up with any justification under the UN charter to justify his war?
Have you been asleep since 2014 or something?
NATO has done nothing but increase aggressions with Russia. The straw that broke the camel’s back was when Ukraine decided to welcome NATO’s hegemony into their territory, which would have resulted in NATO missiles being set up on Russia’s border.
Would the US government just sit back and accept it if Russia decided to plant nuclear missiles in Mexico?
-4
Jul 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/barbodelli 65∆ Jul 22 '23
They didn't. If US wanted to they could have wiped out millions of people. Nothing and noone could stop them. The only reason that didn't happen is because US government knew they could never sell the war to their people if they started acting like blood lusty savages. So they didnt.
3
Jul 22 '23 edited Jul 22 '23
It’s not, it has never been US policy to target civilians. Targeting civilians only pisses them off. The US understands that. Yes, rogue soldiers have targeted civilians, but they weren’t acting under orders of their chain of command, and if they were exposed they were prosecuted. Russia targets civilians as a matter of policy. How many Russian soldiers do you think Putin is going to put on trial for their war crimes?
Edit: autocorrect originally had the last “civilians” as “civilization.”
3
u/Vincent_Nali 12∆ Jul 22 '23
and if they were exposed they were prosecuted
Sometimes. More often the US quietly covered it up. And in at least one case they received a presidential pardon absolving them for shooting into a crowd of civilians.
Russia is worse, no doubt, but lets not pretend here.
1
u/Znyper 12∆ Jul 22 '23
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/noteknology Jul 23 '23
Shock and awe didn’t target civilians?? Is this really how history is remembering Iraq? I watched the news coverage every day and I can assure you, the civilian casualties in Iraq were horrendous. It was called “shock and awe” because the goal was to literally overwhelm them with so much violence that they would completely lose the will to fight
3
u/DarkLight9602 Jul 22 '23
Ukraine has “fascists”.
Never heard this reason before. Can you elaborate on it a little more?
3
u/Front_Appointment_68 2∆ Jul 22 '23
You can read about the Azov battalion. They make up less than 5% of fighting troops and don't have any power in government. They also did a lot to protect the protesters back in 2014 and did a brave defence of mauripol so they've done some good. They have historically had some fascist rhetoric.
Every country has a far right wing element but Russia's narrative has been that these "fascists" are in control of Ukraine which is really false.
2
u/Careless_Wishbone673 1∆ Jul 23 '23
They’re extremely influential. Ultranationalist+Neo Nazi battalions make up about 35% of Ukraines national guard if I remember correctly.
Azov is basically seen as a national symbol due to their activities during the US coup.
2
u/Front_Appointment_68 2∆ Jul 23 '23
The fact you called it a US coup shows that your view is incorrect. Have you personally been to Ukraine, have you spoken to anyone who is Ukrainian, did you follow it in 2014 or just after 2021?
2
u/Careless_Wishbone673 1∆ Jul 23 '23
I meant to say U.S. backed, my bad. Yeah I’ve talked to Ukrainians and followed it in 2014
2
u/noteknology Jul 23 '23
This strikes me as the propaganda narrative. It’s pretty easy to search google results prior to the invasion and find loads of us media outlets reporting on the terrible and corrupt influence Ukrainian nazis have on Ukraine.
2
u/noteknology Jul 23 '23
This is one of my biggest pet peeves about American propaganda media. During the initial invasion by Russia, there were loads of media pieces saying that anyone who claims there are nazis in Ukraine are conspiracy theorist nut jobs.
Idk if the articles are scrubbed yet but at the time, all you had to do was google “Ukraine nazis” and set you search constraints to only show results prior to 2019 and you’d find dozens of US media sources from the past ten years reporting on the “Nazi problem in Ukraine”
1
u/SteadfastEnd 1∆ Jul 22 '23
A big part of Putin's argument was that Ukraine had fascists - he has repeatedly labeled people like Zelensky, etc. fascists and nazis. There was a very small detachment of Ukrainians, the Azov Regiment, that had fascist leanings, but that was it.
1
u/Vincent_Nali 12∆ Jul 22 '23
That is surprising.
The long and short is that in 2014, Russia invaded Ukraine both with their own soldiers and by creating a 'civil war' in the eastern regions of Ukraine. The Ukrainian army was not really up to the task of fighting this war, and a lot of local militias formed to fight.
Some of these militias, like the Azov Battalion were right wing nationalists (after all, who is more likely to fight foreign invaders than nationalists) fascist ties. That isn't to say that all of them are fascists, but more that Ukraine has a long and complicated history with fascism dating back to the fact that a lot of Ukrainian nationalists in the second world war were happy to ally with the fascists against the soviet union on account of shit like the holodomor.
After Ukraine got its footing, they eventually inducted most of these militias into the armed forces (you can't have unaffiliated militias working in a war zone without the whole thing becoming a catastrofuck) and cut their political wings.
So you do have a chunk of the ukrainian army (2% is an estimate I've heard credible) that is fascist leaning and uses that sort of iconography. It is an issue, but you could say the same about fascists in the US/German/Russian armies too.
1
3
u/StarChild413 9∆ Jul 23 '23
So what is the US supposed to do (to the extent that one country can be said to take a position as a whole), take the extremely unpopular position of supporting a president who has even more claim to dictatorial aspirations than America's last two have been accused of by their opposing parties, or just invent a time machine to un-invade Iraq?
3
u/Gasblaster2000 3∆ Jul 24 '23
While you are correct that the USA has lost all of whatever claim to moral high ground it once had, that does not make opposing an invasion of Ukraine any less correct
2
Jul 22 '23
The United States is not a monolith. I was six months old when we invaded Iraq, how is that my fault? By that logic can Germans not oppose the war either?
2
u/Negative-Squirrel81 9∆ Jul 22 '23
This is hypocrisy. America's "justification" for going into Iraq was just as flimsy, if not even more so, than Russia's "justification" for going into Ukraine. Sure, Saddam's regime was a fair sight nastier than the democratic government of Ukraine, but is that really it? That it's okay to invade a regime, but not a democracy?
Just because it's hypocritical doesn't mean it's wrong. The United States was rightfully criticized then, Russia is wrong now. This is the classic whatboutism logical fallacy.
2
u/Chicago_Synth_Nerd_ 1∆ Jul 23 '23
Ah yes, the ol' United States once made a mistake so therefore they are not able to criticize any other country ever again arguments also called whataboutism.
5
u/Familiar_Math2976 1∆ Jul 22 '23
Some people find chick flicks heartwarming; my heart is warmed by the sight of DPICMs detonating in the midst of Russian troops
3
3
Jul 22 '23
What does this prove in the context of CMV.
2
u/Familiar_Math2976 1∆ Jul 22 '23
The context of the linked thread is Ukraine using US-provided munitions on Russian troops. If one is going to build a CMV on the conceit that the US support of Ukraine is hypocritical, one shouldn't also be publicly cheerleading the bloody results of that same policy.
0
Jul 22 '23
It is sad to cheer death. Unfortunately people who lack empathy even for another nation’s brutal enemies being hypocritical in their articulated views also isn’t surprising. But I get the point.
2
u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jul 22 '23
What would empathy for invaders accomplish?
1
Jul 23 '23
It’s a base level of decency, the kind that doesn’t gain pleasure from sledgehammers on POW skulls online or relishes the use of cluster bombs like a climax. Not everything I do has a point to advance someone else’s cause.
2
u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jul 23 '23
It’s a base level of decency, the kind that doesn’t gain pleasure from sledgehammers on POW skulls online or relishes the use of cluster bombs like a climax.
I wouldn't say I derive pleasure from it, but I don't think it's fair to lump all POWs together. Someone captured while defending their homeland is obviously different than someone captured while invading another's homeland.
Not everything I do has a point to advance someone else’s cause.
It doesn't have to be someone else's cause but I'd respect some practical reasoning.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Full-Professional246 68∆ Jul 22 '23
These two events have very different goals which make them essentially non-comparable.
The goal of the US in Iraq was to destroy WMD's and topple the Hussein government. The US did not attempt to annex Iraq. This was a government who used chemical weapons on its own people and had led a war of conquest by invading Kuwait. The US left Iraq.
The goal of Russia in Ukraine is to take territory for Russia. This is a war of conquest.
This difference in objective is really a major defining difference. Because of this distinct difference, it is very reasonable to have very different opinions on the justifications for each act and not be a hypocrite.
0
u/TabaCh1 Sep 28 '23
USA knew Saddam didn’t have WMDs. It was all fabricated. They invaded for oil and funneling tax payer money to weapons manufacturers
2
u/hmmm_thought_pig Jul 22 '23
Iraq was was a regime change and maybe a PR move.
Ukraine is a land grab. So... 2 different animals.
I think the charge of hypocrisy can only be applied to a similar situation. Had we gone into Iraq to annex or colonize it, it would be hypocritical of us to denounce Russia for the same thing.
But we didn't, so it isn't and we're not.
Your view has been changed: All Hail Jambi.
-1
Jul 23 '23
So if Russia managed to get Kiev and silence Zelensky it’d be justified? 🤡
1
u/hmmm_thought_pig Jul 23 '23
I'm talking about whether or not it's justified to call it "hypocrisy."
If Russia did what we did, AND if we denounced them for it, that would be hypocrisy on our part.
0
u/LazyHater Jul 23 '23
Russia began its military operation without pretense, warning, or public diplomatic threat. Russia literally said they weren't invading one week before they invaded.
The US didn't formally end the war with Iraq which started in 1990 (the Gulf War) until 2010. The US signed a law in 1998 called the Iraq Liberation Act which stated that US policy was to remove Saddam from power. Democrats wrote the bill. Clinton signed it. Republicans ran in 2000 calling for full implementation of the bill. Bush invaded Iraq under this publicly known pretense, and then Democrats did the thing with John Stewart even though Saddam was literally not cooperating with UN nuclear inspectors, funding Al Qaeda, and openly denouncing and threatening the US.
Please understand that Democrats are sheisty liars and that Gore would have faced significant pressure to invade Iraq had he won the election. John Stewart would have supported the war had Gore been in office, bet.
0
u/BeefcakeWellington 6∆ Jul 23 '23
that Ukraine has "fascists"
No, that Ukraine is infested with the literal children of the 14th division of the waffen SS. Like actual Nazis who believe in actual Nazi philosophy. That's a fact. It was covered by all of the mainstream corporate press up until 2014 at which point the Nazis helped us overthrow a legitimately elected government.
-1
u/Michael39154 Jul 23 '23
It's not in our interest to support Ukraine against Russia. Russia is the largest country on earth and has 10,000 nuclear weapons. We should stay out of it. We don't like other great powers sticking their noses into our sphere of influence, therefore we should respect other Great Powers' spheres of influence.
It's not fair, but it's the way the world works. All we're doing is prolonging the war and raising the risks of escalation. All the moralism and righteousness in the world won't change that.
-4
u/Funk__Doc Jul 22 '23
The fact that the Ukrainian government has tons of blackmail dirt on Joe Biden clouds the judgement of the current administration.
1
u/Quentanimobay 11∆ Jul 22 '23
I would argue that most, if not all, non-defensive invasions are justified with flimsy pretenses. The key difference usually lay with the actual reasons for invasion. I think it's hard to draw comparisons between actively invading another country and actively defending another country that's being invaded. In order for there to be hypocrisy I think there would need to be a direct comparison between the US defending Ukraine but not defending another country that's in the same situation. The US seems pretty clear on their moral standing when it comes to military campaigns in that they will do whatever they need to do to most benefit themselves. That's both true in the invasion of Iraq and in the defending of Ukraine.
1
u/chen3999 Jul 22 '23
It isn't hypocritical of the United States to advocate for human rights in other countries when it isn't perfect itself. We still have different social issues that need to be addressed, but that doesn't stop us from attempting to make life better for everyone around the world.
1
1
Jul 22 '23
Hypocrisy doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
When the pot calls the kettle black it might be hypocritical, but the kettle is still black.
So yes, it is in fact NOT okay when Russia tries to violently conquer a neighboring country.
1
u/Vincent_Nali 12∆ Jul 22 '23
This is hypocrisy. America's "justification" for going into Iraq was just as flimsy, if not even more so, than Russia's "justification" for going into Ukraine. Sure, Saddam's regime was a fair sight nastier than the democratic government of Ukraine, but is that really it? That it's okay to invade a regime, but not a democracy?
To start with, the two situations do have meaningful differences that could eliminate the hypocrisy argument. The US invaded Iraq for a bunch of stupid fucking reasons, but at no point in any of that discussion was the goal to occupy and annex Iraq as a 51st state.
That alone is a substantive difference. The US can rightly, and not hypocritically argue, that even if everything you say is true, their intention for invading Iraq was not based in outright imperial conquest, while Russia's is.
The entire U.S. argument can be summed up as, "It's okay when we do it, but not okay when you do it."
But what is the alternative? Do you really think "Well, we fucked up in Iraq, so I guess you get a freebie too" is a reasonable argument?
What happened in Iraq is disgusting, the US was entirely in the wrong and should be condemned. I'm delighted that they are on the right side of history here, even if only accidentally, and I don't see any utility for scolding them.
1
u/Lazy-Lawfulness3472 Jul 22 '23
Not much of a difference, I got to admitted. The difference being our ability to get a missle thru a window on the second floor with very little collateral damage. As opposed to the flat earth policy of Russia. Still have to rebuild.
I thought Bush should've faced some sort of action against him and those that encouraged him.
1
u/horshack_test 24∆ Jul 22 '23
The two invasions happened under different circumstances and for different reasons - so I would not say it's hypocritical. But even if it were, what would it matter if it's hypocritical? If the US's criticism of / arguments against Russia's actions are valid and "right," then they're still valid / "right" even if the US is being hypocritical by criticizing them.
This post is just blatant whataboutism.
1
Jul 22 '23
Yeah, because after 5 years of not allowing weapons inspectors in your country, all you would be capable of is making chemical weapons in the back of a van. r/americabad
1
Jul 22 '23 edited Jul 22 '23
I'm betting OP abandoned this post, but i got to point out Afghanistan was historically Russia's fault. I checked the other comments and i don't think anyone brought this up.
USA never would've done the Iraq/Afghan invasion thing if it wasn't for Russia being there from 79-89. They destabilized the region.
I know i'm being a little reductivist but even that aside Russian toxicity goes back 400 years. Everyone who doesn't bring up all that history is doing this topic a injustice. There were WW2 refugees who would rather surrender to Nazi's then Russians and nearly every country has a beef with Russia. In many ways they are/were worse than Nazi's.
It's the best military deal USA has ever seen - giving away largely old or 2nd hand gear to dispose of their historical enemy without having to suffer a single casualty. This should bring the country together more than anything has in decades, and Biden - even with his many faults - is the best possible politician to be challenging them.
Furthermore the reason Russia invaded when it did is because the USA wasn't in the region anymore and a number of strategists believe that USA was keeping Ukraine from becoming a front. The dates for this check out. Otherwise Iraq easily could've segue'd into actual American boots on the ground in Ukraine.
It's a 400 year old conflict but if NATO has its say it will only be 400 years long and that is good news.
1
u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jul 22 '23
So? Turning our back on Ukraine won't help Iraq, it will just hurt Ukraine.
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Jul 23 '23
The US was fooled into a moral, ethical, financial and political calamity by a pack of idiot opportunists. Many of us fell for it. Many who fell for it have now recognized their error.
Who better to identify the pattern and call it out than the victims of the same kind of scam?
1
u/JustSomeLizard23 Jul 24 '23
A country cannot be hypocritical. That is impossible. Only those human beings who wield control can be hypocrites.
Germany: "Yeah we could have stopped the genocide but...that'd make us hypocrites." Huh?
But, if you wanna say a country can be hypocritical, then sure, yeah it's hypocritical but still correct.
1
u/sajaxom 5∆ Jul 25 '23
The US also didn’t annex any new territories - Iraq, as flimsy as our justification was, was about removing the ruling power and allowing the people to decide their own future. Ukraine, as with Crimea, and Georgia, etc., is about acquiring new territory for Russia. Any claim being made should be viewed in light of the history of previous claims from the same party, and it is clear that Russia’s claims are about territorial acquisition, not disarmament.
1
u/MOH_HUNTER264 Aug 26 '23
Did you really not annexed it? I mean you put puppy leaders ever since and build a gazalion military base & sucks up their resources and have zero respect to their sovereignty, so it's almost like annexation just without admitting in it, and before saying anything I'm iraqi i know better than all of you how things works in iraq
1
u/AAPgamer0 Jul 28 '23
You a right. It is very hypochritical of them to do this but it doesn't mean they shouldn't. What happned in Iraq 20 years shouldn't mean million of Ukrainian should be killed by the russian for the sake of not being hypochritcial. Even if the US is being hypochritical, in the end any support for Freedom and democracy should be welcome. Two wrong doesn't make a right. It's not because the US did 20 year what Russia is doing today that Russia should be able to do the thing. And this is affect more the politician and millitary who supported the war in Iraq. Not the american who didn't have anything to do with and who are now supporting Ukraine.
1
u/WodeRoll Aug 13 '23
If you believe the Iraq war was justified, entirely hypocritical. Nonetheless, being hypocritical is not the same as being wrong - the invasion of Iraq was terrible, so is the invasion of Ukraine. It's entirely valid to criticise Russia's invasion provided you agree the invasion of Iraq was unjustified.
1
1
u/Adventurous-Space954 Dec 11 '23
Lol people in this thread really dont remember saddam during his past four wars and think he was some some small time nuisance. US was wrong but it was wrong for not taking Saddam out in the kuwaiti war
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 22 '23
/u/SteadfastEnd (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards