Ukrainian victory over Russia is inevitable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US entered Syria several years after Syria Arab Spring uprisings fractured the country in a civil war, and the reason the US entered was as part of a multinational alliance to fight ISIS and protect people in areas that were well beyond the Assad regime's control.

Russia entered Syria to help their brutal dictator Assad slaughter dissident groups who did not want to be under his rule. Nearly 90% of Syria's civilian deaths were at the hands of Assad, supported by Russia and Iran. The next largest group of civilian casualties were inflicted by ISIS. It's crystal clear who the bad guys have been - Syria, Russia, Iran and ISIS.

ISIS is defeated so why is the US still there?

This has nothing to do with civilians, "brutal rule" or whatever. This is a battle over who gets to lord over which country.

The US is strangely averse to anyone else having "spheres of influence" on the planet. Only America is allowed to have influence.

Aww you jealous?

But yes, it DOES have to do with brutal rule and murder of civilians. I'll pick the lesser evil every time. And over history, hands down that's been the US over Russia and the Soviet Union.

Invasion of Iraq has been a lesser evil?

You're clearly an American who doesn't count dead brown non-Christian people.

Invasions are like abortions - only mine is a moral one.

Dead brown non-Christian people apparently don't matter to brown non-Christian people, because the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq were at the hands of terrorists and insurgents. So by your logic, if I don't care about them then I'm clearly not an American but instead, a brown non-Christian person.

Analysis of the Iraq War Logs dataset from Wikileaks reveals that the US was responsible for 5% of civilian deaths in Iraq. Compare that to 80% of civilian deaths being at the hands of Assad and Russia in Syria, followed by ISIS for most of the rest. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=jpur

THAT is a perfect example of why your "well the US does x so Russia should be allowed, too" logic is a complete failure.

LOL you must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel to cite a paper by an undergrad junior math major. Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US entered Syria several years after Syria Arab Spring uprisings fractured the country in a civil war, and the reason the US entered was as part of a multinational alliance to fight ISIS and protect people in areas that were well beyond the Assad regime's control.

Russia entered Syria to help their brutal dictator Assad slaughter dissident groups who did not want to be under his rule. Nearly 90% of Syria's civilian deaths were at the hands of Assad, supported by Russia and Iran. The next largest group of civilian casualties were inflicted by ISIS. It's crystal clear who the bad guys have been - Syria, Russia, Iran and ISIS.

ISIS is defeated so why is the US still there?

This has nothing to do with civilians, "brutal rule" or whatever. This is a battle over who gets to lord over which country.

The US is strangely averse to anyone else having "spheres of influence" on the planet. Only America is allowed to have influence.

Aww you jealous?

But yes, it DOES have to do with brutal rule and murder of civilians. I'll pick the lesser evil every time. And over history, hands down that's been the US over Russia and the Soviet Union.

Invasion of Iraq has been a lesser evil?

You're clearly an American who doesn't count dead brown non-Christian people.

Invasions are like abortions - only mine is a moral one.

Dead brown non-Christian people apparently don't matter to brown non-Christian people, because the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq were at the hands of terrorists and insurgents. So by your logic, if I don't care about them then I'm clearly not an American but instead, a brown non-Christian person.

Analysis of the Iraq War Logs dataset from Wikileaks reveals that the US was responsible for 5% of civilian deaths in Iraq. Compare that to 80% of civilian deaths being at the hands of Assad and Russia in Syria, followed by ISIS for most of the rest. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=jpur

THAT is a perfect example of why your "well the US does x so Russia should be allowed, too" logic is a complete failure.

As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004.

That's just one year. https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/ten-thousand/

Let's also not forget the decimation of Iraqi civilian infrastructure and healthcare, already weakened by years of sanctions. How many civilians have died because they couldn't get to the hospital, because there WAS no hospital or because the hospital had no relief to give them due to sanctions? How many life-saving medications were denied to the Iraqi civilians "because Saddam"?

But yeah. The only moral invasion is my invasion.

Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. Don't like sanctions? Then don't be an a-hole.

And for that death count, that "ten thousand in the first year alone" was out of 210,000. That's right - the remaining 200,000 civilian casualties were NOT inflicted by the US, and numerous analyses show this, including the paper above. The invasion took from March 20th 2003 to April 15th, 2003. After that, there were no more sanctions and the US spent billions upon billions building hospitals, providing supplies and rebuilding destroyed and failed infrastructure.

And, the US didn't just run around shelling village after village, just because. That's Russia. The US wasn't responsible for most of the civilian casualties. That's Russia. The US didn't go around intentionally attacking hospitals, schools, residential buildings - that's Russia. Again, compare 80-90% of civilian casualties at the hands of Russia in their typical military operations to less than 5% at the hands of the US in their typical military operations. Night and day difference. Undeniable. Stop with the "both sides" and "yabut they did it too" on this because it's utterly ludicrous for you to do so and the data does not back you up.

So the other 200,000 deaths were caused by what then? Climate change? They would have died anyway if we didn't knock over their government and destroy all social order?

And have you forgot "Shock and Awe" so soon, and the way civilian infrastructure was systematically destroyed? I guess that was ok since it wasn't "random."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US entered Syria several years after Syria Arab Spring uprisings fractured the country in a civil war, and the reason the US entered was as part of a multinational alliance to fight ISIS and protect people in areas that were well beyond the Assad regime's control.

Russia entered Syria to help their brutal dictator Assad slaughter dissident groups who did not want to be under his rule. Nearly 90% of Syria's civilian deaths were at the hands of Assad, supported by Russia and Iran. The next largest group of civilian casualties were inflicted by ISIS. It's crystal clear who the bad guys have been - Syria, Russia, Iran and ISIS.

ISIS is defeated so why is the US still there?

This has nothing to do with civilians, "brutal rule" or whatever. This is a battle over who gets to lord over which country.

The US is strangely averse to anyone else having "spheres of influence" on the planet. Only America is allowed to have influence.

Aww you jealous?

But yes, it DOES have to do with brutal rule and murder of civilians. I'll pick the lesser evil every time. And over history, hands down that's been the US over Russia and the Soviet Union.

Invasion of Iraq has been a lesser evil?

You're clearly an American who doesn't count dead brown non-Christian people.

Invasions are like abortions - only mine is a moral one.

Dead brown non-Christian people apparently don't matter to brown non-Christian people, because the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq were at the hands of terrorists and insurgents. So by your logic, if I don't care about them then I'm clearly not an American but instead, a brown non-Christian person.

Analysis of the Iraq War Logs dataset from Wikileaks reveals that the US was responsible for 5% of civilian deaths in Iraq. Compare that to 80% of civilian deaths being at the hands of Assad and Russia in Syria, followed by ISIS for most of the rest. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=jpur

THAT is a perfect example of why your "well the US does x so Russia should be allowed, too" logic is a complete failure.

LOL you must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel to cite a paper by an undergrad junior math major. Really?

First search result that came up. But that said, don't worry, hon - there are dozens of other analyses that come up with the exact same answer, because... that's what's in the ACTUAL DATA.

You must be really scraping the bottom of the barrel to be complaining about the author.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This thread has to been taken over by a clownish pro-Russian troll who claims the most laughably fake stuff, and a pro-Ukrainian over-enthusiastic poster who goes crazy refuting them.

You two suck all the air out of the discussion, because no one else can get a word in when you bicker and clog up the thread.

The point of a discussion is that we can all contribute. It would be nice if you could both calm down and post less. Only one of you is a troll at the service of a dictator, but the other is honestly also getting pretty annoying.

Thank you for saying this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US entered Syria several years after Syria Arab Spring uprisings fractured the country in a civil war, and the reason the US entered was as part of a multinational alliance to fight ISIS and protect people in areas that were well beyond the Assad regime's control.

Russia entered Syria to help their brutal dictator Assad slaughter dissident groups who did not want to be under his rule. Nearly 90% of Syria's civilian deaths were at the hands of Assad, supported by Russia and Iran. The next largest group of civilian casualties were inflicted by ISIS. It's crystal clear who the bad guys have been - Syria, Russia, Iran and ISIS.

ISIS is defeated so why is the US still there?

This has nothing to do with civilians, "brutal rule" or whatever. This is a battle over who gets to lord over which country.

The US is strangely averse to anyone else having "spheres of influence" on the planet. Only America is allowed to have influence.

Aww you jealous?

But yes, it DOES have to do with brutal rule and murder of civilians. I'll pick the lesser evil every time. And over history, hands down that's been the US over Russia and the Soviet Union.

Invasion of Iraq has been a lesser evil?

You're clearly an American who doesn't count dead brown non-Christian people.

Invasions are like abortions - only mine is a moral one.

Dead brown non-Christian people apparently don't matter to brown non-Christian people, because the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq were at the hands of terrorists and insurgents. So by your logic, if I don't care about them then I'm clearly not an American but instead, a brown non-Christian person.

Analysis of the Iraq War Logs dataset from Wikileaks reveals that the US was responsible for 5% of civilian deaths in Iraq. Compare that to 80% of civilian deaths being at the hands of Assad and Russia in Syria, followed by ISIS for most of the rest. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=jpur

THAT is a perfect example of why your "well the US does x so Russia should be allowed, too" logic is a complete failure.

As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004.

That's just one year. https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/ten-thousand/

Let's also not forget the decimation of Iraqi civilian infrastructure and healthcare, already weakened by years of sanctions. How many civilians have died because they couldn't get to the hospital, because there WAS no hospital or because the hospital had no relief to give them due to sanctions? How many life-saving medications were denied to the Iraqi civilians "because Saddam"?

But yeah. The only moral invasion is my invasion.

Are you actually trying to claim Russia's invasion is somehow moral?

Its more moral than Iraq, or Syria, or Afghanistan, or Vietnam, or half a dozen other lesser invasions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US entered Syria several years after Syria Arab Spring uprisings fractured the country in a civil war, and the reason the US entered was as part of a multinational alliance to fight ISIS and protect people in areas that were well beyond the Assad regime's control.

Russia entered Syria to help their brutal dictator Assad slaughter dissident groups who did not want to be under his rule. Nearly 90% of Syria's civilian deaths were at the hands of Assad, supported by Russia and Iran. The next largest group of civilian casualties were inflicted by ISIS. It's crystal clear who the bad guys have been - Syria, Russia, Iran and ISIS.

ISIS is defeated so why is the US still there?

This has nothing to do with civilians, "brutal rule" or whatever. This is a battle over who gets to lord over which country.

The US is strangely averse to anyone else having "spheres of influence" on the planet. Only America is allowed to have influence.

Aww you jealous?

But yes, it DOES have to do with brutal rule and murder of civilians. I'll pick the lesser evil every time. And over history, hands down that's been the US over Russia and the Soviet Union.

Invasion of Iraq has been a lesser evil?

You're clearly an American who doesn't count dead brown non-Christian people.

Invasions are like abortions - only mine is a moral one.

Dead brown non-Christian people apparently don't matter to brown non-Christian people, because the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq were at the hands of terrorists and insurgents. So by your logic, if I don't care about them then I'm clearly not an American but instead, a brown non-Christian person.

Analysis of the Iraq War Logs dataset from Wikileaks reveals that the US was responsible for 5% of civilian deaths in Iraq. Compare that to 80% of civilian deaths being at the hands of Assad and Russia in Syria, followed by ISIS for most of the rest. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=jpur

THAT is a perfect example of why your "well the US does x so Russia should be allowed, too" logic is a complete failure.

As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004.

That's just one year. https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/ten-thousand/

Let's also not forget the decimation of Iraqi civilian infrastructure and healthcare, already weakened by years of sanctions. How many civilians have died because they couldn't get to the hospital, because there WAS no hospital or because the hospital had no relief to give them due to sanctions? How many life-saving medications were denied to the Iraqi civilians "because Saddam"?

But yeah. The only moral invasion is my invasion.

Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. Don't like sanctions? Then don't be an a-hole.

And for that death count, that "ten thousand in the first year alone" was out of 210,000. That's right - the remaining 200,000 civilian casualties were NOT inflicted by the US, and numerous analyses show this, including the paper above. The invasion took from March 20th 2003 to April 15th, 2003. After that, there were no more sanctions and the US spent billions upon billions building hospitals, providing supplies and rebuilding destroyed and failed infrastructure.

And, the US didn't just run around shelling village after village, just because. That's Russia. The US wasn't responsible for most of the civilian casualties. That's Russia. The US didn't go around intentionally attacking hospitals, schools, residential buildings - that's Russia. Again, compare 80-90% of civilian casualties at the hands of Russia in their typical military operations to less than 5% at the hands of the US in their typical military operations. Night and day difference. Undeniable. Stop with the "both sides" and "yabut they did it too" on this because it's utterly ludicrous for you to do so and the data does not back you up.

So the other 200,000 deaths were caused by what then? Climate change? They would have died anyway if we didn't knock over their government and destroy all social order?

And have you forgot "Shock and Awe" so soon, and the way civilian infrastructure was systematically destroyed? I guess that was ok since it wasn't "random."

The majority of the remaining 200,000 deaths were caused by insurgents, many of them former Baathist police and military - the former so-called "law and order" of Iraq who wanted nothing to do with a peaceful, new and productive future of Iraq after Saddam. So much for any decency or morality, so much for any genuine interest in law and order, or any concern whatsoever for their fellow Iraqi on their part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US entered Syria several years after Syria Arab Spring uprisings fractured the country in a civil war, and the reason the US entered was as part of a multinational alliance to fight ISIS and protect people in areas that were well beyond the Assad regime's control.

Russia entered Syria to help their brutal dictator Assad slaughter dissident groups who did not want to be under his rule. Nearly 90% of Syria's civilian deaths were at the hands of Assad, supported by Russia and Iran. The next largest group of civilian casualties were inflicted by ISIS. It's crystal clear who the bad guys have been - Syria, Russia, Iran and ISIS.

ISIS is defeated so why is the US still there?

This has nothing to do with civilians, "brutal rule" or whatever. This is a battle over who gets to lord over which country.

The US is strangely averse to anyone else having "spheres of influence" on the planet. Only America is allowed to have influence.

Aww you jealous?

But yes, it DOES have to do with brutal rule and murder of civilians. I'll pick the lesser evil every time. And over history, hands down that's been the US over Russia and the Soviet Union.

Invasion of Iraq has been a lesser evil?

You're clearly an American who doesn't count dead brown non-Christian people.

Invasions are like abortions - only mine is a moral one.

Dead brown non-Christian people apparently don't matter to brown non-Christian people, because the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq were at the hands of terrorists and insurgents. So by your logic, if I don't care about them then I'm clearly not an American but instead, a brown non-Christian person.

Analysis of the Iraq War Logs dataset from Wikileaks reveals that the US was responsible for 5% of civilian deaths in Iraq. Compare that to 80% of civilian deaths being at the hands of Assad and Russia in Syria, followed by ISIS for most of the rest. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=jpur

THAT is a perfect example of why your "well the US does x so Russia should be allowed, too" logic is a complete failure.

As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004.

That's just one year. https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/ten-thousand/

Let's also not forget the decimation of Iraqi civilian infrastructure and healthcare, already weakened by years of sanctions. How many civilians have died because they couldn't get to the hospital, because there WAS no hospital or because the hospital had no relief to give them due to sanctions? How many life-saving medications were denied to the Iraqi civilians "because Saddam"?

But yeah. The only moral invasion is my invasion.

Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. Don't like sanctions? Then don't be an a-hole.

And for that death count, that "ten thousand in the first year alone" was out of 210,000. That's right - the remaining 200,000 civilian casualties were NOT inflicted by the US, and numerous analyses show this, including the paper above. The invasion took from March 20th 2003 to April 15th, 2003. After that, there were no more sanctions and the US spent billions upon billions building hospitals, providing supplies and rebuilding destroyed and failed infrastructure.

And, the US didn't just run around shelling village after village, just because. That's Russia. The US wasn't responsible for most of the civilian casualties. That's Russia. The US didn't go around intentionally attacking hospitals, schools, residential buildings - that's Russia. Again, compare 80-90% of civilian casualties at the hands of Russia in their typical military operations to less than 5% at the hands of the US in their typical military operations. Night and day difference. Undeniable. Stop with the "both sides" and "yabut they did it too" on this because it's utterly ludicrous for you to do so and the data does not back you up.

LOL have you seen Baghdad today? It doesn't look like a rebuilt anything. But I don't doubt the US spent "billions upon billions" - hey, these xmas bonuses to Raytheon and other death merchants don't pay themselves you know.

I am not going to condescend to arguing with you on the merits of a paper produced by an undergraduate math major. That's not the level of sources I look at. Suffice to say that you don't understand how the dead are counted in wars.

LOL the US doesn't "target" civilian facilities. They just end up bombed somehow but totally without intent. Just like these drone attacks in Afghanistan that targeted "Al Qaeda" fighters but instead rained death on weddings and villages. Want to know why Americans were hated in Afghanistan? That. Utter disregard to civilian casualties.

But sorry I forgot: invasions are like abortions. The only good ones are yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US entered Syria several years after Syria Arab Spring uprisings fractured the country in a civil war, and the reason the US entered was as part of a multinational alliance to fight ISIS and protect people in areas that were well beyond the Assad regime's control.

Russia entered Syria to help their brutal dictator Assad slaughter dissident groups who did not want to be under his rule. Nearly 90% of Syria's civilian deaths were at the hands of Assad, supported by Russia and Iran. The next largest group of civilian casualties were inflicted by ISIS. It's crystal clear who the bad guys have been - Syria, Russia, Iran and ISIS.

ISIS is defeated so why is the US still there?

This has nothing to do with civilians, "brutal rule" or whatever. This is a battle over who gets to lord over which country.

The US is strangely averse to anyone else having "spheres of influence" on the planet. Only America is allowed to have influence.

Aww you jealous?

But yes, it DOES have to do with brutal rule and murder of civilians. I'll pick the lesser evil every time. And over history, hands down that's been the US over Russia and the Soviet Union.

Invasion of Iraq has been a lesser evil?

You're clearly an American who doesn't count dead brown non-Christian people.

Invasions are like abortions - only mine is a moral one.

Dead brown non-Christian people apparently don't matter to brown non-Christian people, because the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq were at the hands of terrorists and insurgents. So by your logic, if I don't care about them then I'm clearly not an American but instead, a brown non-Christian person.

Analysis of the Iraq War Logs dataset from Wikileaks reveals that the US was responsible for 5% of civilian deaths in Iraq. Compare that to 80% of civilian deaths being at the hands of Assad and Russia in Syria, followed by ISIS for most of the rest. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=jpur

THAT is a perfect example of why your "well the US does x so Russia should be allowed, too" logic is a complete failure.

As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004.

That's just one year. https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/ten-thousand/

Let's also not forget the decimation of Iraqi civilian infrastructure and healthcare, already weakened by years of sanctions. How many civilians have died because they couldn't get to the hospital, because there WAS no hospital or because the hospital had no relief to give them due to sanctions? How many life-saving medications were denied to the Iraqi civilians "because Saddam"?

But yeah. The only moral invasion is my invasion.

Are you actually trying to claim Russia's invasion is somehow moral?

Its more moral than Iraq, or Syria, or Afghanistan, or Vietnam, or half a dozen other lesser invasions.

You are utterly delusional. Also, by the way your Russian friends are who ruined Afghanistan and Vietnam before the US ever even got there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US entered Syria several years after Syria Arab Spring uprisings fractured the country in a civil war, and the reason the US entered was as part of a multinational alliance to fight ISIS and protect people in areas that were well beyond the Assad regime's control.

Russia entered Syria to help their brutal dictator Assad slaughter dissident groups who did not want to be under his rule. Nearly 90% of Syria's civilian deaths were at the hands of Assad, supported by Russia and Iran. The next largest group of civilian casualties were inflicted by ISIS. It's crystal clear who the bad guys have been - Syria, Russia, Iran and ISIS.

ISIS is defeated so why is the US still there?

This has nothing to do with civilians, "brutal rule" or whatever. This is a battle over who gets to lord over which country.

The US is strangely averse to anyone else having "spheres of influence" on the planet. Only America is allowed to have influence.

Aww you jealous?

But yes, it DOES have to do with brutal rule and murder of civilians. I'll pick the lesser evil every time. And over history, hands down that's been the US over Russia and the Soviet Union.

Invasion of Iraq has been a lesser evil?

You're clearly an American who doesn't count dead brown non-Christian people.

Invasions are like abortions - only mine is a moral one.

Dead brown non-Christian people apparently don't matter to brown non-Christian people, because the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq were at the hands of terrorists and insurgents. So by your logic, if I don't care about them then I'm clearly not an American but instead, a brown non-Christian person.

Analysis of the Iraq War Logs dataset from Wikileaks reveals that the US was responsible for 5% of civilian deaths in Iraq. Compare that to 80% of civilian deaths being at the hands of Assad and Russia in Syria, followed by ISIS for most of the rest. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=jpur

THAT is a perfect example of why your "well the US does x so Russia should be allowed, too" logic is a complete failure.

As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004.

That's just one year. https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/ten-thousand/

Let's also not forget the decimation of Iraqi civilian infrastructure and healthcare, already weakened by years of sanctions. How many civilians have died because they couldn't get to the hospital, because there WAS no hospital or because the hospital had no relief to give them due to sanctions? How many life-saving medications were denied to the Iraqi civilians "because Saddam"?

But yeah. The only moral invasion is my invasion.

Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. Don't like sanctions? Then don't be an a-hole.

And for that death count, that "ten thousand in the first year alone" was out of 210,000. That's right - the remaining 200,000 civilian casualties were NOT inflicted by the US, and numerous analyses show this, including the paper above. The invasion took from March 20th 2003 to April 15th, 2003. After that, there were no more sanctions and the US spent billions upon billions building hospitals, providing supplies and rebuilding destroyed and failed infrastructure.

And, the US didn't just run around shelling village after village, just because. That's Russia. The US wasn't responsible for most of the civilian casualties. That's Russia. The US didn't go around intentionally attacking hospitals, schools, residential buildings - that's Russia. Again, compare 80-90% of civilian casualties at the hands of Russia in their typical military operations to less than 5% at the hands of the US in their typical military operations. Night and day difference. Undeniable. Stop with the "both sides" and "yabut they did it too" on this because it's utterly ludicrous for you to do so and the data does not back you up.

So the other 200,000 deaths were caused by what then? Climate change? They would have died anyway if we didn't knock over their government and destroy all social order?

And have you forgot "Shock and Awe" so soon, and the way civilian infrastructure was systematically destroyed? I guess that was ok since it wasn't "random."

The majority of the remaining 200,000 deaths were caused by insurgents, many of them former Baathist police and military - the former so-called "law and order" of Iraq who wanted nothing to do with a peaceful, new and productive future of Iraq after Saddam. So much for any decency or morality, so much for any genuine interest in law and order, or any concern whatsoever for their fellow Iraqi on their part.

I don't understand that this particularly weird American notion that fighting invaders is somehow sinful. There wouldn't be an insurgency if America didn't invade. "Peaceful, new and productive future of Iraq" sounds like the talking points produced by the administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US entered Syria several years after Syria Arab Spring uprisings fractured the country in a civil war, and the reason the US entered was as part of a multinational alliance to fight ISIS and protect people in areas that were well beyond the Assad regime's control.

Russia entered Syria to help their brutal dictator Assad slaughter dissident groups who did not want to be under his rule. Nearly 90% of Syria's civilian deaths were at the hands of Assad, supported by Russia and Iran. The next largest group of civilian casualties were inflicted by ISIS. It's crystal clear who the bad guys have been - Syria, Russia, Iran and ISIS.

ISIS is defeated so why is the US still there?

This has nothing to do with civilians, "brutal rule" or whatever. This is a battle over who gets to lord over which country.

The US is strangely averse to anyone else having "spheres of influence" on the planet. Only America is allowed to have influence.

Aww you jealous?

But yes, it DOES have to do with brutal rule and murder of civilians. I'll pick the lesser evil every time. And over history, hands down that's been the US over Russia and the Soviet Union.

Invasion of Iraq has been a lesser evil?

You're clearly an American who doesn't count dead brown non-Christian people.

Invasions are like abortions - only mine is a moral one.

Dead brown non-Christian people apparently don't matter to brown non-Christian people, because the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq were at the hands of terrorists and insurgents. So by your logic, if I don't care about them then I'm clearly not an American but instead, a brown non-Christian person.

Analysis of the Iraq War Logs dataset from Wikileaks reveals that the US was responsible for 5% of civilian deaths in Iraq. Compare that to 80% of civilian deaths being at the hands of Assad and Russia in Syria, followed by ISIS for most of the rest. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=jpur

THAT is a perfect example of why your "well the US does x so Russia should be allowed, too" logic is a complete failure.

As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004.

That's just one year. https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/ten-thousand/

Let's also not forget the decimation of Iraqi civilian infrastructure and healthcare, already weakened by years of sanctions. How many civilians have died because they couldn't get to the hospital, because there WAS no hospital or because the hospital had no relief to give them due to sanctions? How many life-saving medications were denied to the Iraqi civilians "because Saddam"?

But yeah. The only moral invasion is my invasion.

Are you actually trying to claim Russia's invasion is somehow moral?

Its more moral than Iraq, or Syria, or Afghanistan, or Vietnam, or half a dozen other lesser invasions.

You are utterly delusional. Also, by the way your Russian friends are who ruined Afghanistan and Vietnam before the US ever even got there.

The only moral invasions are yours. Just like abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you actually trying to claim Russia's invasion is somehow moral?

No. The claim is that everyone invades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US entered Syria several years after Syria Arab Spring uprisings fractured the country in a civil war, and the reason the US entered was as part of a multinational alliance to fight ISIS and protect people in areas that were well beyond the Assad regime's control.

Russia entered Syria to help their brutal dictator Assad slaughter dissident groups who did not want to be under his rule. Nearly 90% of Syria's civilian deaths were at the hands of Assad, supported by Russia and Iran. The next largest group of civilian casualties were inflicted by ISIS. It's crystal clear who the bad guys have been - Syria, Russia, Iran and ISIS.

ISIS is defeated so why is the US still there?

This has nothing to do with civilians, "brutal rule" or whatever. This is a battle over who gets to lord over which country.

The US is strangely averse to anyone else having "spheres of influence" on the planet. Only America is allowed to have influence.

Aww you jealous?

But yes, it DOES have to do with brutal rule and murder of civilians. I'll pick the lesser evil every time. And over history, hands down that's been the US over Russia and the Soviet Union.

Invasion of Iraq has been a lesser evil?

You're clearly an American who doesn't count dead brown non-Christian people.

Invasions are like abortions - only mine is a moral one.

Dead brown non-Christian people apparently don't matter to brown non-Christian people, because the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq were at the hands of terrorists and insurgents. So by your logic, if I don't care about them then I'm clearly not an American but instead, a brown non-Christian person.

Analysis of the Iraq War Logs dataset from Wikileaks reveals that the US was responsible for 5% of civilian deaths in Iraq. Compare that to 80% of civilian deaths being at the hands of Assad and Russia in Syria, followed by ISIS for most of the rest. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=jpur

THAT is a perfect example of why your "well the US does x so Russia should be allowed, too" logic is a complete failure.

As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004.

That's just one year. https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/ten-thousand/

Let's also not forget the decimation of Iraqi civilian infrastructure and healthcare, already weakened by years of sanctions. How many civilians have died because they couldn't get to the hospital, because there WAS no hospital or because the hospital had no relief to give them due to sanctions? How many life-saving medications were denied to the Iraqi civilians "because Saddam"?

But yeah. The only moral invasion is my invasion.

Are you actually trying to claim Russia's invasion is somehow moral?

Its more moral than Iraq, or Syria, or Afghanistan, or Vietnam, or half a dozen other lesser invasions.

This just makes no sense. Trying way too hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This thread has to been taken over by a clownish pro-Russian troll who claims the most laughably fake stuff, and a pro-Ukrainian over-enthusiastic poster who goes crazy refuting them.

You two suck all the air out of the discussion, because no one else can get a word in when you bicker and clog up the thread.

The point of a discussion is that we can all contribute. It would be nice if you could both calm down and post less. Only one of you is a troll at the service of a dictator, but the other is honestly also getting pretty annoying.

Thank you for saying this!

There are least three of us currently shoving back on the hypocrisy about Iraq and such. You can pick it up by writing styles and time-stamps if you know what to look for.

Call us stooges, trolls, bots or what have you, but you're hearing a chorus not a soloist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The US entered Syria several years after Syria Arab Spring uprisings fractured the country in a civil war, and the reason the US entered was as part of a multinational alliance to fight ISIS and protect people in areas that were well beyond the Assad regime's control.

Russia entered Syria to help their brutal dictator Assad slaughter dissident groups who did not want to be under his rule. Nearly 90% of Syria's civilian deaths were at the hands of Assad, supported by Russia and Iran. The next largest group of civilian casualties were inflicted by ISIS. It's crystal clear who the bad guys have been - Syria, Russia, Iran and ISIS.

ISIS is defeated so why is the US still there?

This has nothing to do with civilians, "brutal rule" or whatever. This is a battle over who gets to lord over which country.

The US is strangely averse to anyone else having "spheres of influence" on the planet. Only America is allowed to have influence.

Aww you jealous?

But yes, it DOES have to do with brutal rule and murder of civilians. I'll pick the lesser evil every time. And over history, hands down that's been the US over Russia and the Soviet Union.

Invasion of Iraq has been a lesser evil?

You're clearly an American who doesn't count dead brown non-Christian people.

Invasions are like abortions - only mine is a moral one.

Dead brown non-Christian people apparently don't matter to brown non-Christian people, because the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq were at the hands of terrorists and insurgents. So by your logic, if I don't care about them then I'm clearly not an American but instead, a brown non-Christian person.

Analysis of the Iraq War Logs dataset from Wikileaks reveals that the US was responsible for 5% of civilian deaths in Iraq. Compare that to 80% of civilian deaths being at the hands of Assad and Russia in Syria, followed by ISIS for most of the rest. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=jpur

THAT is a perfect example of why your "well the US does x so Russia should be allowed, too" logic is a complete failure.

As many as 10,000 non-combatant civilian deaths during 2003 have been reliably reported so far as a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq . These reports provide figures which range between a minimum of 8,235 and a maximum of 10,079 as of Saturday 7th February 2004.

That's just one year. https://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/beyond/ten-thousand/

Let's also not forget the decimation of Iraqi civilian infrastructure and healthcare, already weakened by years of sanctions. How many civilians have died because they couldn't get to the hospital, because there WAS no hospital or because the hospital had no relief to give them due to sanctions? How many life-saving medications were denied to the Iraqi civilians "because Saddam"?

But yeah. The only moral invasion is my invasion.

Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. Don't like sanctions? Then don't be an a-hole.

And for that death count, that "ten thousand in the first year alone" was out of 210,000. That's right - the remaining 200,000 civilian casualties were NOT inflicted by the US, and numerous analyses show this, including the paper above. The invasion took from March 20th 2003 to April 15th, 2003. After that, there were no more sanctions and the US spent billions upon billions building hospitals, providing supplies and rebuilding destroyed and failed infrastructure.

And, the US didn't just run around shelling village after village, just because. That's Russia. The US wasn't responsible for most of the civilian casualties. That's Russia. The US didn't go around intentionally attacking hospitals, schools, residential buildings - that's Russia. Again, compare 80-90% of civilian casualties at the hands of Russia in their typical military operations to less than 5% at the hands of the US in their typical military operations. Night and day difference. Undeniable. Stop with the "both sides" and "yabut they did it too" on this because it's utterly ludicrous for you to do so and the data does not back you up.

LOL have you seen Baghdad today? It doesn't look like a rebuilt anything. But I don't doubt the US spent "billions upon billions" - hey, these xmas bonuses to Raytheon and other death merchants don't pay themselves you know.

I am not going to condescend to arguing with you on the merits of a paper produced by an undergraduate math major. That's not the level of sources I look at. Suffice to say that you don't understand how the dead are counted in wars.

LOL the US doesn't "target" civilian facilities. They just end up bombed somehow but totally without intent. Just like these drone attacks in Afghanistan that targeted "Al Qaeda" fighters but instead rained death on weddings and villages. Want to know why Americans were hated in Afghanistan? That. Utter disregard to civilian casualties.

But sorry I forgot: invasions are like abortions. The only good ones are yours.

Doesn't look like they rebuilt anything?

"Didn't rebuild anything"

You're just a dishonest liar. Astounding that you pretend to care about civilian casualties when your Russian friends are inflicting far more. WILDLY claiming that the invasion of Ukraine was somehow "more moral" than anything the US has done.

Delusional, dishonest, and disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This thread has to been taken over by a clownish pro-Russian troll who claims the most laughably fake stuff, and a pro-Ukrainian over-enthusiastic poster who goes crazy refuting them.

You two suck all the air out of the discussion, because no one else can get a word in when you bicker and clog up the thread.

The point of a discussion is that we can all contribute. It would be nice if you could both calm down and post less. Only one of you is a troll at the service of a dictator, but the other is honestly also getting pretty annoying.

Thank you for saying this!

There are least three of us currently shoving back on the hypocrisy about Iraq and such. You can pick it up by writing styles and time-stamps if you know what to look for.

Call us stooges, trolls, bots or what have you, but you're hearing a chorus not a soloist.

And you know there are "at least three of you" exactly how...?

And how can you presume to claim "hypocrisy" of the US while defending Russia with 90% of civilian casualties and cities reduced to rubble at Russia's hands? HOW? Do you not even know how math works, or something? Do you not know what the meaning of hypocrisy is? Is something being lost in translation to Russian?