why is russia friendly with belarus but not ukraine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing Saddam to Putin probably isn’t the winning argument you seem to think.

I'm not comparing Putin to Saddam. I'm comparing a falsehood-inspired hysteria against Saddam and the terrible consequences it visited upon Iraq to the current discourse about Putin.

But you probably think the war in Iraq is a forgivable indiscretion because it's not like the bomb came down on your own house. Half a million dead brown people, meh, who cares. Let's weep for the blue-eyed instead.

The war in iraq was wrong. but you obviously know two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the United States has done bad things doesn't mean that Putin isn't an idiot who should have known better and who is obviously in the wrong.

That may all be true but what would you respond to Putin saying - hey, your president, too, invaded another country, that doesn't even share a border with you, for stupid made-up reasons, killed half a million people, and nothing really bad happened to him or your country. So why do you say I'm not allowed to do the same?

jeesh... I'd say exactly the same thing I said to you. Two wrongs don't make a right, and why on earth would you punish Ukraine for something the US did? and anyway he is not invading Ukraine in retaliation for Iraq, he is invading Ukraine because he is a greedy sob.

Well we don’t really know why the US invaded Iraq, but there is no good answer to the question of why some countries are allowed to invade others and some are not. The invasion of Iraq was a lot more gruesome with a much higher body count, yet nothing happened to the government that led the invasion of the people of its country. In fact, I’m sure you’d be bubbling with rage if anyone suggested that American people ought to be denied visas or bank accounts due to the actions of their government. Why is that ? Are Iraqis less sympathetic ? Less relatable? Legitimate prey? Why did the world not weep for Iraqis the way it wept for Ukrainians? Because their invader is more powerful?

This line of thought is just so odd to me. Thing A was really bad and I'm upset about it so therefore Thing B that is really bad is ok? If you cared about Iraq then you should care about Ukraine. If you were upset about Iraq then you should be upset about Ukraine.

I’m upset about Ukraine. I’m upset about the hypocrisy too. No one here was upset about the dead Iraqis either.

The more accurate representation would be “the guy who got away scot free after doing Thing A is now lecturing the world about the evil of Thing B, which is a smaller version of Thing A but done but someone else.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing Saddam to Putin probably isn’t the winning argument you seem to think.

I'm not comparing Putin to Saddam. I'm comparing a falsehood-inspired hysteria against Saddam and the terrible consequences it visited upon Iraq to the current discourse about Putin.

But you probably think the war in Iraq is a forgivable indiscretion because it's not like the bomb came down on your own house. Half a million dead brown people, meh, who cares. Let's weep for the blue-eyed instead.

The war in iraq was wrong. but you obviously know two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the United States has done bad things doesn't mean that Putin isn't an idiot who should have known better and who is obviously in the wrong.

That may all be true but what would you respond to Putin saying - hey, your president, too, invaded another country, that doesn't even share a border with you, for stupid made-up reasons, killed half a million people, and nothing really bad happened to him or your country. So why do you say I'm not allowed to do the same?

jeesh... I'd say exactly the same thing I said to you. Two wrongs don't make a right, and why on earth would you punish Ukraine for something the US did? and anyway he is not invading Ukraine in retaliation for Iraq, he is invading Ukraine because he is a greedy sob.

Well we don’t really know why the US invaded Iraq, but there is no good answer to the question of why some countries are allowed to invade others and some are not. The invasion of Iraq was a lot more gruesome with a much higher body count, yet nothing happened to the government that led the invasion of the people of its country. In fact, I’m sure you’d be bubbling with rage if anyone suggested that American people ought to be denied visas or bank accounts due to the actions of their government. Why is that ? Are Iraqis less sympathetic ? Less relatable? Legitimate prey? Why did the world not weep for Iraqis the way it wept for Ukrainians? Because their invader is more powerful?

This line of thought is just so odd to me. Thing A was really bad and I'm upset about it so therefore Thing B that is really bad is ok? If you cared about Iraq then you should care about Ukraine. If you were upset about Iraq then you should be upset about Ukraine.

I’m upset about Ukraine. I’m upset about the hypocrisy too. No one here was upset about the dead Iraqis either.

The more accurate representation would be “the guy who got away scot free after doing Thing A is now lecturing the world about the evil of Thing B, which is a smaller version of Thing A but done but someone else.”

Who knew there were so many defenders of Saddam Hussein posting to a mommy board in DC? Any Hans Blix superfans here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putin loves when his goons resort to zelyonkin attacks on critics: Navalny, Kasyanov, Metrokhin

Keep your white supremacist, Russia-is-for-Russians Navalny, thank you.

So you acknowledge what Putin has done? Great.

[Anonymous]

So can someone remind me…
When the US went into Iraq, did we bomb all of their infrastructure and rape their children? Did we just destroy the place and roll out?
Can’t recall

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing Saddam to Putin probably isn’t the winning argument you seem to think.

I'm not comparing Putin to Saddam. I'm comparing a falsehood-inspired hysteria against Saddam and the terrible consequences it visited upon Iraq to the current discourse about Putin.

But you probably think the war in Iraq is a forgivable indiscretion because it's not like the bomb came down on your own house. Half a million dead brown people, meh, who cares. Let's weep for the blue-eyed instead.

The war in iraq was wrong. but you obviously know two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the United States has done bad things doesn't mean that Putin isn't an idiot who should have known better and who is obviously in the wrong.

That may all be true but what would you respond to Putin saying - hey, your president, too, invaded another country, that doesn't even share a border with you, for stupid made-up reasons, killed half a million people, and nothing really bad happened to him or your country. So why do you say I'm not allowed to do the same?

jeesh... I'd say exactly the same thing I said to you. Two wrongs don't make a right, and why on earth would you punish Ukraine for something the US did? and anyway he is not invading Ukraine in retaliation for Iraq, he is invading Ukraine because he is a greedy sob.

Well we don’t really know why the US invaded Iraq, but there is no good answer to the question of why some countries are allowed to invade others and some are not. The invasion of Iraq was a lot more gruesome with a much higher body count, yet nothing happened to the government that led the invasion of the people of its country. In fact, I’m sure you’d be bubbling with rage if anyone suggested that American people ought to be denied visas or bank accounts due to the actions of their government. Why is that ? Are Iraqis less sympathetic ? Less relatable? Legitimate prey? Why did the world not weep for Iraqis the way it wept for Ukrainians? Because their invader is more powerful?

This line of thought is just so odd to me. Thing A was really bad and I'm upset about it so therefore Thing B that is really bad is ok? If you cared about Iraq then you should care about Ukraine. If you were upset about Iraq then you should be upset about Ukraine.

I’m upset about Ukraine. I’m upset about the hypocrisy too. No one here was upset about the dead Iraqis either.

The more accurate representation would be “the guy who got away scot free after doing Thing A is now lecturing the world about the evil of Thing B, which is a smaller version of Thing A but done but someone else.”

You're defending Russia. So no you do not care about Ulraine. You probably don't care about Iraq either to tell the truth. This isn't about the United States in any way. It's just strange that you're trying to claim that what Russia is doing to Ukraine is good because the United States is bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing Saddam to Putin probably isn’t the winning argument you seem to think.

I'm not comparing Putin to Saddam. I'm comparing a falsehood-inspired hysteria against Saddam and the terrible consequences it visited upon Iraq to the current discourse about Putin.

But you probably think the war in Iraq is a forgivable indiscretion because it's not like the bomb came down on your own house. Half a million dead brown people, meh, who cares. Let's weep for the blue-eyed instead.

The war in iraq was wrong. but you obviously know two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the United States has done bad things doesn't mean that Putin isn't an idiot who should have known better and who is obviously in the wrong.

That may all be true but what would you respond to Putin saying - hey, your president, too, invaded another country, that doesn't even share a border with you, for stupid made-up reasons, killed half a million people, and nothing really bad happened to him or your country. So why do you say I'm not allowed to do the same?

jeesh... I'd say exactly the same thing I said to you. Two wrongs don't make a right, and why on earth would you punish Ukraine for something the US did? and anyway he is not invading Ukraine in retaliation for Iraq, he is invading Ukraine because he is a greedy sob.

Well we don’t really know why the US invaded Iraq, but there is no good answer to the question of why some countries are allowed to invade others and some are not. The invasion of Iraq was a lot more gruesome with a much higher body count, yet nothing happened to the government that led the invasion of the people of its country. In fact, I’m sure you’d be bubbling with rage if anyone suggested that American people ought to be denied visas or bank accounts due to the actions of their government. Why is that ? Are Iraqis less sympathetic ? Less relatable? Legitimate prey? Why did the world not weep for Iraqis the way it wept for Ukrainians? Because their invader is more powerful?

This line of thought is just so odd to me. Thing A was really bad and I'm upset about it so therefore Thing B that is really bad is ok? If you cared about Iraq then you should care about Ukraine. If you were upset about Iraq then you should be upset about Ukraine.

I’m upset about Ukraine. I’m upset about the hypocrisy too. No one here was upset about the dead Iraqis either.

The more accurate representation would be “the guy who got away scot free after doing Thing A is now lecturing the world about the evil of Thing B, which is a smaller version of Thing A but done but someone else.”

Such American parochialism and self indulgence. You want to centre this conflict about being about the US but the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not taking place in America and its greatest impact is on people far beyond American shores. I'm from Europe and, as you are well aware, the vast majority of European countries did not support the invasion of Iraq. In fact, millions across Europe demonstrated against the Iraq invasion. We weren't happy about dead Iraqis. You can self-flagellate over your hypocrisy but people right now are starving due to wheat shortages across north Africa. And many of those same Europeans who did not support the invasion of Iraq face a pretty dismal winter. Please get over your hypocrisy and just learn from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So can someone remind me…
When the US went into Iraq, did we bomb all of their infrastructure and rape their children? Did we just destroy the place and roll out?
Can’t recall

Oh, the lady wants reminders. OK...

Since 2003, congenital malformations have increased to account for 15% of all births in Fallujah, Iraq. Congenital heart defects have the highest incidence, followed by neural tube defects. Similar birth defects were reported in other populations exposed to war contaminants.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037062/

Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 live births. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. A yearly account of the occurrence and types of birth defects, between 2003 and 2011, in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital, was reported. Metal levels in hair, toenail, and tooth samples of residents of Al Basrah were also provided. The enamel portion of the deciduous tooth from a child with birth defects from Al Basrah (4.19 μg/g) had nearly three times higher lead than the whole teeth of children living in unimpacted areas. Lead was 1.4 times higher in the tooth enamel of parents of children with birth defects.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464374/

Civilian infrastructure, you say:

Former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, Denis Halliday, who resigned from the position in disgust in 1998, contends that epidemics of cholera, dysentery and hepatitis that have plagued Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War were the direct result of the US deliberately targeting Iraq’s infrastructure. He cites a recently released declassified US Defense Intelligence Agency document from the start of the conflict, pointing out Iraq’s vulnerable water situation. The document predicted that the shortage of pure drinking water resulting from the bombing of infrastructure could “lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease”.

“I think there’s no doubt whatsoever that the Americans had worked out the vulnerability of Iraq in terms of clean fresh water,” Halliday said. “So they set about destroying electrical power capacity, which is essential, of course, for the treatment and distribution of water.”

Halliday estimated that by 1999 the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure and UN sanctions had directly caused the deaths of 600,000 children and 500,000 adults through malnutrition and disease. Tens of thousands more people, military and civilian, were killed in the US-led military assault. What will be the cost in human suffering of Washington’s next criminal venture in the Gulf?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/11/iraq-n04.html

During the 2003-2017 period, Iraq Body Count recorded the killings of over 7,000 Iraqi children, among them 932 are attributed to the Islamic State, while twice as many were killed by the US-UK coalition. Estimates suggest that over 7,400 Iraqi children have been killed up to 2021, with over 1,000 deaths attributed to the Islamic State, and twice as many killed by the US-UK coalition.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/the-impact-of-the-war-on-terror-on-iraq-state-economy-and-civilian-deaths/
The mass killings of Iraqis commenced on 19 March 2003, with the ‘shock and awe’ bombing of Baghdad. Millions sat transfixed before their TV screens, watching as bombs and missiles exploded. The reports came with the warning that they contained flashing images. True enough, the sky over Baghdad flashed orange and golden, the sounds of war filling our ears. The narrative of terror that began that day was to last for years: terror from the sky, terror on the ground, terror from the foreign soldier, terror from one’s neighbour.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
Several times as many Iraqi civilians may have died as an indirect result of the war, due to damage to the systems that provide food, health care and clean drinking water, and as a result, illness, infectious diseases, and malnutrition that could otherwise have been avoided or treated. The war has compounded the ill effects of decades of harmful U.S. policy actions towards Iraq since the 1960s, including economic sanctions in the 1990s that were devastating for Iraqis.

I mean, really. Should I go on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing Saddam to Putin probably isn’t the winning argument you seem to think.

I'm not comparing Putin to Saddam. I'm comparing a falsehood-inspired hysteria against Saddam and the terrible consequences it visited upon Iraq to the current discourse about Putin.

But you probably think the war in Iraq is a forgivable indiscretion because it's not like the bomb came down on your own house. Half a million dead brown people, meh, who cares. Let's weep for the blue-eyed instead.

The war in iraq was wrong. but you obviously know two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the United States has done bad things doesn't mean that Putin isn't an idiot who should have known better and who is obviously in the wrong.

That may all be true but what would you respond to Putin saying - hey, your president, too, invaded another country, that doesn't even share a border with you, for stupid made-up reasons, killed half a million people, and nothing really bad happened to him or your country. So why do you say I'm not allowed to do the same?

jeesh... I'd say exactly the same thing I said to you. Two wrongs don't make a right, and why on earth would you punish Ukraine for something the US did? and anyway he is not invading Ukraine in retaliation for Iraq, he is invading Ukraine because he is a greedy sob.

Well we don’t really know why the US invaded Iraq, but there is no good answer to the question of why some countries are allowed to invade others and some are not. The invasion of Iraq was a lot more gruesome with a much higher body count, yet nothing happened to the government that led the invasion of the people of its country. In fact, I’m sure you’d be bubbling with rage if anyone suggested that American people ought to be denied visas or bank accounts due to the actions of their government. Why is that ? Are Iraqis less sympathetic ? Less relatable? Legitimate prey? Why did the world not weep for Iraqis the way it wept for Ukrainians? Because their invader is more powerful?

This line of thought is just so odd to me. Thing A was really bad and I'm upset about it so therefore Thing B that is really bad is ok? If you cared about Iraq then you should care about Ukraine. If you were upset about Iraq then you should be upset about Ukraine.

I’m upset about Ukraine. I’m upset about the hypocrisy too. No one here was upset about the dead Iraqis either.

The more accurate representation would be “the guy who got away scot free after doing Thing A is now lecturing the world about the evil of Thing B, which is a smaller version of Thing A but done but someone else.”

Such American parochialism and self indulgence. You want to centre this conflict about being about the US but the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not taking place in America and its greatest impact is on people far beyond American shores. I'm from Europe and, as you are well aware, the vast majority of European countries did not support the invasion of Iraq. In fact, millions across Europe demonstrated against the Iraq invasion. We weren't happy about dead Iraqis. You can self-flagellate over your hypocrisy but people right now are starving due to wheat shortages across north Africa. And many of those same Europeans who did not support the invasion of Iraq face a pretty dismal winter. Please get over your hypocrisy and just learn from it.

Europe is facing a dismal winter due to sanctions, which were a choice. It's a bit much to take deliberate measures to hurt a country and expect no retaliation.

If people are dying from wheat shortages across North Africa, why did most grain shipments from Ukraine's ports went to places that weren't in Africa?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing Saddam to Putin probably isn’t the winning argument you seem to think.

I'm not comparing Putin to Saddam. I'm comparing a falsehood-inspired hysteria against Saddam and the terrible consequences it visited upon Iraq to the current discourse about Putin.

But you probably think the war in Iraq is a forgivable indiscretion because it's not like the bomb came down on your own house. Half a million dead brown people, meh, who cares. Let's weep for the blue-eyed instead.

The war in iraq was wrong. but you obviously know two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the United States has done bad things doesn't mean that Putin isn't an idiot who should have known better and who is obviously in the wrong.

That may all be true but what would you respond to Putin saying - hey, your president, too, invaded another country, that doesn't even share a border with you, for stupid made-up reasons, killed half a million people, and nothing really bad happened to him or your country. So why do you say I'm not allowed to do the same?

jeesh... I'd say exactly the same thing I said to you. Two wrongs don't make a right, and why on earth would you punish Ukraine for something the US did? and anyway he is not invading Ukraine in retaliation for Iraq, he is invading Ukraine because he is a greedy sob.

Well we don’t really know why the US invaded Iraq, but there is no good answer to the question of why some countries are allowed to invade others and some are not. The invasion of Iraq was a lot more gruesome with a much higher body count, yet nothing happened to the government that led the invasion of the people of its country. In fact, I’m sure you’d be bubbling with rage if anyone suggested that American people ought to be denied visas or bank accounts due to the actions of their government. Why is that ? Are Iraqis less sympathetic ? Less relatable? Legitimate prey? Why did the world not weep for Iraqis the way it wept for Ukrainians? Because their invader is more powerful?

This line of thought is just so odd to me. Thing A was really bad and I'm upset about it so therefore Thing B that is really bad is ok? If you cared about Iraq then you should care about Ukraine. If you were upset about Iraq then you should be upset about Ukraine.

I’m upset about Ukraine. I’m upset about the hypocrisy too. No one here was upset about the dead Iraqis either.

The more accurate representation would be “the guy who got away scot free after doing Thing A is now lecturing the world about the evil of Thing B, which is a smaller version of Thing A but done but someone else.”

You're defending Russia. So no you do not care about Ulraine. You probably don't care about Iraq either to tell the truth. This isn't about the United States in any way. It's just strange that you're trying to claim that what Russia is doing to Ukraine is good because the United States is bad.

I never defended Russia or said what it's doing to Ukraine is good. I simply pinpointed the amazing, show-stopping American hypocrisy and deliberate blindness to the much greater damage it caused elsewhere in a very similar scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So can someone remind me…
When the US went into Iraq, did we bomb all of their infrastructure and rape their children? Did we just destroy the place and roll out?
Can’t recall

Oh, the lady wants reminders. OK...

Since 2003, congenital malformations have increased to account for 15% of all births in Fallujah, Iraq. Congenital heart defects have the highest incidence, followed by neural tube defects. Similar birth defects were reported in other populations exposed to war contaminants.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037062/

Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 live births. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. A yearly account of the occurrence and types of birth defects, between 2003 and 2011, in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital, was reported. Metal levels in hair, toenail, and tooth samples of residents of Al Basrah were also provided. The enamel portion of the deciduous tooth from a child with birth defects from Al Basrah (4.19 μg/g) had nearly three times higher lead than the whole teeth of children living in unimpacted areas. Lead was 1.4 times higher in the tooth enamel of parents of children with birth defects.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464374/

Civilian infrastructure, you say:

Former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, Denis Halliday, who resigned from the position in disgust in 1998, contends that epidemics of cholera, dysentery and hepatitis that have plagued Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War were the direct result of the US deliberately targeting Iraq’s infrastructure. He cites a recently released declassified US Defense Intelligence Agency document from the start of the conflict, pointing out Iraq’s vulnerable water situation. The document predicted that the shortage of pure drinking water resulting from the bombing of infrastructure could “lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease”.

“I think there’s no doubt whatsoever that the Americans had worked out the vulnerability of Iraq in terms of clean fresh water,” Halliday said. “So they set about destroying electrical power capacity, which is essential, of course, for the treatment and distribution of water.”

Halliday estimated that by 1999 the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure and UN sanctions had directly caused the deaths of 600,000 children and 500,000 adults through malnutrition and disease. Tens of thousands more people, military and civilian, were killed in the US-led military assault. What will be the cost in human suffering of Washington’s next criminal venture in the Gulf?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/11/iraq-n04.html

During the 2003-2017 period, Iraq Body Count recorded the killings of over 7,000 Iraqi children, among them 932 are attributed to the Islamic State, while twice as many were killed by the US-UK coalition. Estimates suggest that over 7,400 Iraqi children have been killed up to 2021, with over 1,000 deaths attributed to the Islamic State, and twice as many killed by the US-UK coalition.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/the-impact-of-the-war-on-terror-on-iraq-state-economy-and-civilian-deaths/
The mass killings of Iraqis commenced on 19 March 2003, with the ‘shock and awe’ bombing of Baghdad. Millions sat transfixed before their TV screens, watching as bombs and missiles exploded. The reports came with the warning that they contained flashing images. True enough, the sky over Baghdad flashed orange and golden, the sounds of war filling our ears. The narrative of terror that began that day was to last for years: terror from the sky, terror on the ground, terror from the foreign soldier, terror from one’s neighbour.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
Several times as many Iraqi civilians may have died as an indirect result of the war, due to damage to the systems that provide food, health care and clean drinking water, and as a result, illness, infectious diseases, and malnutrition that could otherwise have been avoided or treated. The war has compounded the ill effects of decades of harmful U.S. policy actions towards Iraq since the 1960s, including economic sanctions in the 1990s that were devastating for Iraqis.

I mean, really. Should I go on?

So the US targeted infrastructure during the first war, when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Yeah that’s tough. Don’t invade your neighbor I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So can someone remind me…
When the US went into Iraq, did we bomb all of their infrastructure and rape their children? Did we just destroy the place and roll out?
Can’t recall

Oh, the lady wants reminders. OK...

Since 2003, congenital malformations have increased to account for 15% of all births in Fallujah, Iraq. Congenital heart defects have the highest incidence, followed by neural tube defects. Similar birth defects were reported in other populations exposed to war contaminants.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037062/

Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 live births. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. A yearly account of the occurrence and types of birth defects, between 2003 and 2011, in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital, was reported. Metal levels in hair, toenail, and tooth samples of residents of Al Basrah were also provided. The enamel portion of the deciduous tooth from a child with birth defects from Al Basrah (4.19 μg/g) had nearly three times higher lead than the whole teeth of children living in unimpacted areas. Lead was 1.4 times higher in the tooth enamel of parents of children with birth defects.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464374/

Civilian infrastructure, you say:

Former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, Denis Halliday, who resigned from the position in disgust in 1998, contends that epidemics of cholera, dysentery and hepatitis that have plagued Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War were the direct result of the US deliberately targeting Iraq’s infrastructure. He cites a recently released declassified US Defense Intelligence Agency document from the start of the conflict, pointing out Iraq’s vulnerable water situation. The document predicted that the shortage of pure drinking water resulting from the bombing of infrastructure could “lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease”.

“I think there’s no doubt whatsoever that the Americans had worked out the vulnerability of Iraq in terms of clean fresh water,” Halliday said. “So they set about destroying electrical power capacity, which is essential, of course, for the treatment and distribution of water.”

Halliday estimated that by 1999 the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure and UN sanctions had directly caused the deaths of 600,000 children and 500,000 adults through malnutrition and disease. Tens of thousands more people, military and civilian, were killed in the US-led military assault. What will be the cost in human suffering of Washington’s next criminal venture in the Gulf?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/11/iraq-n04.html

During the 2003-2017 period, Iraq Body Count recorded the killings of over 7,000 Iraqi children, among them 932 are attributed to the Islamic State, while twice as many were killed by the US-UK coalition. Estimates suggest that over 7,400 Iraqi children have been killed up to 2021, with over 1,000 deaths attributed to the Islamic State, and twice as many killed by the US-UK coalition.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/the-impact-of-the-war-on-terror-on-iraq-state-economy-and-civilian-deaths/
The mass killings of Iraqis commenced on 19 March 2003, with the ‘shock and awe’ bombing of Baghdad. Millions sat transfixed before their TV screens, watching as bombs and missiles exploded. The reports came with the warning that they contained flashing images. True enough, the sky over Baghdad flashed orange and golden, the sounds of war filling our ears. The narrative of terror that began that day was to last for years: terror from the sky, terror on the ground, terror from the foreign soldier, terror from one’s neighbour.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
Several times as many Iraqi civilians may have died as an indirect result of the war, due to damage to the systems that provide food, health care and clean drinking water, and as a result, illness, infectious diseases, and malnutrition that could otherwise have been avoided or treated. The war has compounded the ill effects of decades of harmful U.S. policy actions towards Iraq since the 1960s, including economic sanctions in the 1990s that were devastating for Iraqis.

I mean, really. Should I go on?

They are civilian victims of an authoritarian state who didn't factor their wellbeing at all when they made bad decisions about attacking another country. Let's hope no one treats the Russian civilians like this.

And yes, I fully understand the USA's horrifying acts against Iraqi civilians. Just because someone else started first, it does not excuse American actions. Generations of terrorists have been trained on that destruction and suffering. We reap what we sow. Proportional responses are always important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So can someone remind me…
When the US went into Iraq, did we bomb all of their infrastructure and rape their children? Did we just destroy the place and roll out?
Can’t recall

Oh, the lady wants reminders. OK...

Since 2003, congenital malformations have increased to account for 15% of all births in Fallujah, Iraq. Congenital heart defects have the highest incidence, followed by neural tube defects. Similar birth defects were reported in other populations exposed to war contaminants.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037062/

Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 live births. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. A yearly account of the occurrence and types of birth defects, between 2003 and 2011, in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital, was reported. Metal levels in hair, toenail, and tooth samples of residents of Al Basrah were also provided. The enamel portion of the deciduous tooth from a child with birth defects from Al Basrah (4.19 μg/g) had nearly three times higher lead than the whole teeth of children living in unimpacted areas. Lead was 1.4 times higher in the tooth enamel of parents of children with birth defects.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464374/

Civilian infrastructure, you say:

Former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, Denis Halliday, who resigned from the position in disgust in 1998, contends that epidemics of cholera, dysentery and hepatitis that have plagued Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War were the direct result of the US deliberately targeting Iraq’s infrastructure. He cites a recently released declassified US Defense Intelligence Agency document from the start of the conflict, pointing out Iraq’s vulnerable water situation. The document predicted that the shortage of pure drinking water resulting from the bombing of infrastructure could “lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease”.

“I think there’s no doubt whatsoever that the Americans had worked out the vulnerability of Iraq in terms of clean fresh water,” Halliday said. “So they set about destroying electrical power capacity, which is essential, of course, for the treatment and distribution of water.”

Halliday estimated that by 1999 the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure and UN sanctions had directly caused the deaths of 600,000 children and 500,000 adults through malnutrition and disease. Tens of thousands more people, military and civilian, were killed in the US-led military assault. What will be the cost in human suffering of Washington’s next criminal venture in the Gulf?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/11/iraq-n04.html

During the 2003-2017 period, Iraq Body Count recorded the killings of over 7,000 Iraqi children, among them 932 are attributed to the Islamic State, while twice as many were killed by the US-UK coalition. Estimates suggest that over 7,400 Iraqi children have been killed up to 2021, with over 1,000 deaths attributed to the Islamic State, and twice as many killed by the US-UK coalition.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/the-impact-of-the-war-on-terror-on-iraq-state-economy-and-civilian-deaths/
The mass killings of Iraqis commenced on 19 March 2003, with the ‘shock and awe’ bombing of Baghdad. Millions sat transfixed before their TV screens, watching as bombs and missiles exploded. The reports came with the warning that they contained flashing images. True enough, the sky over Baghdad flashed orange and golden, the sounds of war filling our ears. The narrative of terror that began that day was to last for years: terror from the sky, terror on the ground, terror from the foreign soldier, terror from one’s neighbour.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
Several times as many Iraqi civilians may have died as an indirect result of the war, due to damage to the systems that provide food, health care and clean drinking water, and as a result, illness, infectious diseases, and malnutrition that could otherwise have been avoided or treated. The war has compounded the ill effects of decades of harmful U.S. policy actions towards Iraq since the 1960s, including economic sanctions in the 1990s that were devastating for Iraqis.

I mean, really. Should I go on?

So the US targeted infrastructure during the first war, when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Yeah that’s tough. Don’t invade your neighbor I guess.

I'm just gonna let it sit here that your response to:

"During the 2003-2017 period, Iraq Body Count recorded the killings of over 7,000 Iraqi children, among them 932 are attributed to the Islamic State, while twice as many were killed by the US-UK coalition. Estimates suggest that over 7,400 Iraqi children have been killed up to 2021, with over 1,000 deaths attributed to the Islamic State, and twice as many killed by the US-UK coalition."

was "yeah that's tough."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So can someone remind me…
When the US went into Iraq, did we bomb all of their infrastructure and rape their children? Did we just destroy the place and roll out?
Can’t recall

Oh, the lady wants reminders. OK...

Since 2003, congenital malformations have increased to account for 15% of all births in Fallujah, Iraq. Congenital heart defects have the highest incidence, followed by neural tube defects. Similar birth defects were reported in other populations exposed to war contaminants.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3037062/

Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 live births. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital. A yearly account of the occurrence and types of birth defects, between 2003 and 2011, in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital, was reported. Metal levels in hair, toenail, and tooth samples of residents of Al Basrah were also provided. The enamel portion of the deciduous tooth from a child with birth defects from Al Basrah (4.19 μg/g) had nearly three times higher lead than the whole teeth of children living in unimpacted areas. Lead was 1.4 times higher in the tooth enamel of parents of children with birth defects.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3464374/

Civilian infrastructure, you say:

Former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, Denis Halliday, who resigned from the position in disgust in 1998, contends that epidemics of cholera, dysentery and hepatitis that have plagued Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War were the direct result of the US deliberately targeting Iraq’s infrastructure. He cites a recently released declassified US Defense Intelligence Agency document from the start of the conflict, pointing out Iraq’s vulnerable water situation. The document predicted that the shortage of pure drinking water resulting from the bombing of infrastructure could “lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease”.

“I think there’s no doubt whatsoever that the Americans had worked out the vulnerability of Iraq in terms of clean fresh water,” Halliday said. “So they set about destroying electrical power capacity, which is essential, of course, for the treatment and distribution of water.”

Halliday estimated that by 1999 the destruction of Iraq’s infrastructure and UN sanctions had directly caused the deaths of 600,000 children and 500,000 adults through malnutrition and disease. Tens of thousands more people, military and civilian, were killed in the US-led military assault. What will be the cost in human suffering of Washington’s next criminal venture in the Gulf?
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2002/11/iraq-n04.html

During the 2003-2017 period, Iraq Body Count recorded the killings of over 7,000 Iraqi children, among them 932 are attributed to the Islamic State, while twice as many were killed by the US-UK coalition. Estimates suggest that over 7,400 Iraqi children have been killed up to 2021, with over 1,000 deaths attributed to the Islamic State, and twice as many killed by the US-UK coalition.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/the-impact-of-the-war-on-terror-on-iraq-state-economy-and-civilian-deaths/
The mass killings of Iraqis commenced on 19 March 2003, with the ‘shock and awe’ bombing of Baghdad. Millions sat transfixed before their TV screens, watching as bombs and missiles exploded. The reports came with the warning that they contained flashing images. True enough, the sky over Baghdad flashed orange and golden, the sounds of war filling our ears. The narrative of terror that began that day was to last for years: terror from the sky, terror on the ground, terror from the foreign soldier, terror from one’s neighbour.

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
Several times as many Iraqi civilians may have died as an indirect result of the war, due to damage to the systems that provide food, health care and clean drinking water, and as a result, illness, infectious diseases, and malnutrition that could otherwise have been avoided or treated. The war has compounded the ill effects of decades of harmful U.S. policy actions towards Iraq since the 1960s, including economic sanctions in the 1990s that were devastating for Iraqis.

I mean, really. Should I go on?

They are civilian victims of an authoritarian state who didn't factor their wellbeing at all when they made bad decisions about attacking another country. Let's hope no one treats the Russian civilians like this.

And yes, I fully understand the USA's horrifying acts against Iraqi civilians. Just because someone else started first, it does not excuse American actions. Generations of terrorists have been trained on that destruction and suffering. We reap what we sow. Proportional responses are always important.

Who did Iraq attack in 2003?

Just to be clear: the damage to Iraqi medical and water treatment was a deliberate choice. It was not due to being a "civilian victim of an authoritarian state". It was due to the US deciding that Iraqis should not have access to X-ray machines and vaccinations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing Saddam to Putin probably isn’t the winning argument you seem to think.

I'm not comparing Putin to Saddam. I'm comparing a falsehood-inspired hysteria against Saddam and the terrible consequences it visited upon Iraq to the current discourse about Putin.

But you probably think the war in Iraq is a forgivable indiscretion because it's not like the bomb came down on your own house. Half a million dead brown people, meh, who cares. Let's weep for the blue-eyed instead.

The war in iraq was wrong. but you obviously know two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the United States has done bad things doesn't mean that Putin isn't an idiot who should have known better and who is obviously in the wrong.

That may all be true but what would you respond to Putin saying - hey, your president, too, invaded another country, that doesn't even share a border with you, for stupid made-up reasons, killed half a million people, and nothing really bad happened to him or your country. So why do you say I'm not allowed to do the same?

jeesh... I'd say exactly the same thing I said to you. Two wrongs don't make a right, and why on earth would you punish Ukraine for something the US did? and anyway he is not invading Ukraine in retaliation for Iraq, he is invading Ukraine because he is a greedy sob.

Well we don’t really know why the US invaded Iraq, but there is no good answer to the question of why some countries are allowed to invade others and some are not. The invasion of Iraq was a lot more gruesome with a much higher body count, yet nothing happened to the government that led the invasion of the people of its country. In fact, I’m sure you’d be bubbling with rage if anyone suggested that American people ought to be denied visas or bank accounts due to the actions of their government. Why is that ? Are Iraqis less sympathetic ? Less relatable? Legitimate prey? Why did the world not weep for Iraqis the way it wept for Ukrainians? Because their invader is more powerful?

This line of thought is just so odd to me. Thing A was really bad and I'm upset about it so therefore Thing B that is really bad is ok? If you cared about Iraq then you should care about Ukraine. If you were upset about Iraq then you should be upset about Ukraine.

I’m upset about Ukraine. I’m upset about the hypocrisy too. No one here was upset about the dead Iraqis either.

The more accurate representation would be “the guy who got away scot free after doing Thing A is now lecturing the world about the evil of Thing B, which is a smaller version of Thing A but done but someone else.”

Such American parochialism and self indulgence. You want to centre this conflict about being about the US but the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not taking place in America and its greatest impact is on people far beyond American shores. I'm from Europe and, as you are well aware, the vast majority of European countries did not support the invasion of Iraq. In fact, millions across Europe demonstrated against the Iraq invasion. We weren't happy about dead Iraqis. You can self-flagellate over your hypocrisy but people right now are starving due to wheat shortages across north Africa. And many of those same Europeans who did not support the invasion of Iraq face a pretty dismal winter. Please get over your hypocrisy and just learn from it.

Europe is facing a dismal winter due to sanctions, which were a choice. It's a bit much to take deliberate measures to hurt a country and expect no retaliation.

If people are dying from wheat shortages across North Africa, why did most grain shipments from Ukraine's ports went to places that weren't in Africa?

Hypocrisy is alive and well if you are saying this about Europe’s willingness to sanction Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and do not think that it applies to Russia in the first analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing Saddam to Putin probably isn’t the winning argument you seem to think.

I'm not comparing Putin to Saddam. I'm comparing a falsehood-inspired hysteria against Saddam and the terrible consequences it visited upon Iraq to the current discourse about Putin.

But you probably think the war in Iraq is a forgivable indiscretion because it's not like the bomb came down on your own house. Half a million dead brown people, meh, who cares. Let's weep for the blue-eyed instead.

The war in iraq was wrong. but you obviously know two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the United States has done bad things doesn't mean that Putin isn't an idiot who should have known better and who is obviously in the wrong.

That may all be true but what would you respond to Putin saying - hey, your president, too, invaded another country, that doesn't even share a border with you, for stupid made-up reasons, killed half a million people, and nothing really bad happened to him or your country. So why do you say I'm not allowed to do the same?

jeesh... I'd say exactly the same thing I said to you. Two wrongs don't make a right, and why on earth would you punish Ukraine for something the US did? and anyway he is not invading Ukraine in retaliation for Iraq, he is invading Ukraine because he is a greedy sob.

Well we don’t really know why the US invaded Iraq, but there is no good answer to the question of why some countries are allowed to invade others and some are not. The invasion of Iraq was a lot more gruesome with a much higher body count, yet nothing happened to the government that led the invasion of the people of its country. In fact, I’m sure you’d be bubbling with rage if anyone suggested that American people ought to be denied visas or bank accounts due to the actions of their government. Why is that ? Are Iraqis less sympathetic ? Less relatable? Legitimate prey? Why did the world not weep for Iraqis the way it wept for Ukrainians? Because their invader is more powerful?

This line of thought is just so odd to me. Thing A was really bad and I'm upset about it so therefore Thing B that is really bad is ok? If you cared about Iraq then you should care about Ukraine. If you were upset about Iraq then you should be upset about Ukraine.

I’m upset about Ukraine. I’m upset about the hypocrisy too. No one here was upset about the dead Iraqis either.

The more accurate representation would be “the guy who got away scot free after doing Thing A is now lecturing the world about the evil of Thing B, which is a smaller version of Thing A but done but someone else.”

Such American parochialism and self indulgence. You want to centre this conflict about being about the US but the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not taking place in America and its greatest impact is on people far beyond American shores. I'm from Europe and, as you are well aware, the vast majority of European countries did not support the invasion of Iraq. In fact, millions across Europe demonstrated against the Iraq invasion. We weren't happy about dead Iraqis. You can self-flagellate over your hypocrisy but people right now are starving due to wheat shortages across north Africa. And many of those same Europeans who did not support the invasion of Iraq face a pretty dismal winter. Please get over your hypocrisy and just learn from it.

Europe is facing a dismal winter due to sanctions, which were a choice. It's a bit much to take deliberate measures to hurt a country and expect no retaliation.

If people are dying from wheat shortages across North Africa, why did most grain shipments from Ukraine's ports went to places that weren't in Africa?

Hypocrisy is alive and well if you are saying this about Europe’s willingness to sanction Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and do not think that it applies to Russia in the first analysis.

?

Europe decided it no longer wants Russian energy supplies. That was their choice.