US has no good options in Ukraine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

We are the "good guys" the USSR was the "bad guys"? Thanks for such a sophisticated analysis. You basically proved my point.

Americans are convinced of their moral superiority, despite the many ugly chapters in our history, some of them quite recent.

It is probably not your history.

I'm an American, born and raised here. I disagree with the idea that the USA is the "good guys". I think that attitude of moral superiority is very dangerous.

And no, I'm not a Russian troll pretending to be an American, nor do I support Putin's actions in Ukraine. But I think his actions in Ukraine pale in comparison to what we did to Iraq.

They've only been in Ukraine for a couple weeks. We've been in Iraq for a couple of decades.

So killing 900K civilians over 20 years is fine because the annualized rate loss rate is, in your view, relatively low? Under 50K a year! Quite reasonable, given that we are the "good guys".

BTW, if you annualize the rate of civilian deaths thus far in Ukraine, it is actually quite a bit lower than the annualized rate of civilian deaths in Iraq. But perhaps the "good guys" are subject to different laws of mathematics, in addition to a different moral code.

Oh, please. You seem to think that, while it's not something to be celebrated, the unprovoked murder of pregnant Ukrainian women and children by Russia is at least acceptable because you're comparing apples to oranges withe the US's invasion of Iraq. And you're also using the invasion of Ukraine as an oppurtunity to swipe at the US, without any condemnation of Russia. FFS, you're even applauding the lower civilian murder rate!

I strongly condemned Russia earlier in this thread. I'm not applauding the civilian murder rate in Ukraine. I am horrified by what is happening.

My initial question was roughly this: to those of you who believe that Putin is a barbarian or "evil", do you share the same view of George W? If not, why not? And why wasn't the US treated as a pariah state when it invaded Iraq, while Russia is treated as a pariah now? I want to understand this asymmetric thinking.

Then you should start a new thread about George W. It just looks like whataboutism and minimization of Russia's atrocities by asking that in a thread about Ukraine. It's strange that you call it asymmetric thinking, or that you seem to think you're the only one who was against the Iraq war.

Lots of people were against the Iraq war. The difference is no one was punished for it.

Why do you think that is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in February, Biden said this:

“I will not send American servicemen to fight in Ukraine,” though he added that “if Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond forcefully.”

So, we have one dead American journalist and one injured.

I am awaiting this "forceful" response.

This was not just any American.

Putin’s military targeted and murdered a very prominent NYT reporter and member of the press corps.

You simply do not murder press without severe consequences.

There is now ample justification for, at a minimum, a full no-fly zone over Ukraine, if not full intervention by NATO forces.

No there isn't. Unfortunately journalists are injured and killed all the time in war zones. That isn't a cause for the US to get involved.

Once again. Biden said this: “I will not send American servicemen to fight in Ukraine,” though he added that “if Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond forcefully.”

So, we should be expecting a forceful response.
Or, does he not abide by what he says?

Lead the way. You first.

Look.... it was BIDEN who said it. Nobody forced him to say these words. He said them.
So, what is he going to do? Just spout empty words? Or, is he going to take action?

Biden is really good about telling Russia what he ISN'T going to do. And, in doing so.... he is basically giving Russia permission to run roughshod over Ukraine.

I would like to hear Biden say, "All options are on the table." I would also like Biden and crew to stop saying what he won't do. I would also like Biden and crew to stop with the public negotiation regarding the jets from Poland and just get the damn jets to Ukraine.

He said that that the US would respond forcefully if Americans were targeted in Ukraine. Well, it has happened. And, we have a dead American.
If he does nothing, he will look weak. Weaker than he already appears.
Time for action.

DP. And I agree completely.

Besides, a no-fly zone is not a war. We are not doing anything at all so long as Russian warplanes stay out of Ukraine’s airspace.

Moreover, NO ONE is saying this is a war! It’s not. Russia has said repeatedly its a “special operation,” and that’s not a war. And we have said “a minor incursion” is not a war.

So a no-fly zone over a nation WHICH IS NOT AT WAR, is a simple matter, and it should be imposed immediately. Besides,

- Zelinski invited us. What’s wrong with US planes accepting the invitation of a sovereign nation?

Logic dictates we impose a no-fly zone to protect US journalists. It’s only logical.

Sweet summer child. How do you think no fly zones are enforced? How do you think Russia responds - the country that’s literally attacking and obliterating a sovereign nation, bombing schools and hospitals, and dangling nuclear weapons on “high alert”?

This is “check”. Unless the west wants WWIII, there’s no no fly zones.

DP here. I think far too many of us are in denial that the opening volleys of WWIII have already been lobbed. I don't personally want to advocate for a no-fly zone, and I've never been happier not to be responsible for such a decision, but I also think that this doesn't end at the Ukrainian border. The question is really when do we want to get into the fight.

And why were didthe WWIII not start when the U.S. invaded Iraq? You do see a hypocrosy here We are to die for Ukraine and cause the world to die, but we "liberated" Iraq?

Iraq = / = Russia in terms of military might. Period. Not sure what you’re suggesting is hypocrisy. If it’s the fact that we are treating Putin as a dangerous invader who must be stopped but also carries nuclear might and missiles aimed at the US and other targets, but didn’t take that same approach with Iraq, you’re right. But that’s fact not hypocrisy.

How is that not a hypocrisy? Why did Russia and the world not punish us for that act?

Why are you equating Iraq with Ukraine? As in, what is the parallel and equivalence you are drawing?

Why should I not equate it?

Oh, and at least Russia has some connection to Ukraine, historical that is. U.S. had no such thing with Iraq.

Oh, Russia had some historical connection to Ukraine, so that makes it OK for them to kill pregnants Ukrainian women and their children?

It doesn't make it OK. But the point is that USA hasn't exactly provided a great example to the world, have we, with respect to how we treat smaller, less powerful countries? We seem to view Putin as a barbarian -- but, so far, he has less blood on his hands that George Bush Jr, and perhaps a couple other presidents as well. 900K dead in Iraq. That is a staggering number. We pretend to have some kind of moral authority -- yet we don't hold ourselves to the same standard that we hold others.

You get it. You might be the one of the few people on dcum that actually knows things and is rational. Thank you for being here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A fire started near a nuclear power plant means that Putin is a barbarian, while 900K Iraqi deaths mean nothing at all, in your view?

DP. I don't understand your main point. You're saying that US invading Iraq is the same as and as bad as Russia invading Ukraine.

Either you're disingenuos or you really don't know what's going on. Russia is not invading Ukraine on any real-or-fictitious pretext. They are trying to expand their country. Whatever theory of "we're taking their oil", the US never intended to make Iraq the 51st state.

We don't fuss about internal disorder (China and the Ughyrs). That won't start WWIII. A land war of expansion in Europe? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ooh child you’re saying there’s bad invasions and, like, virtuous invasions? When we invade, it ain’t all bad?

Why are you trying to make Russia's invasion of Ukraine about us?

Because America is the wrong country to lecture about the evils of invading other countries and changing their regimes by force.

The condemnation of Putin has been universal except for those who are his potential allies and those who need Russia's help. No need for U.S. to sit this one out.
If you have a thing about America because of Iraq, too bad. No one is listening to you.

DP. A thing about America because of our totally unnecessary invasion of Iraq, in which we killed women and children.

Yes, we did that. To our shame.

That doesn't' mean we should not react when other countries act wrongly. We are still the (other? only?) superpower. And whether we want to be isolationist or should be, for decades we've played a large part in dictating what countries should or should not do, around the world. We can't sit this one out, we aren't sitting this one out.

As far as Zelensky is concerned, we are.

We trained their army and supplied/are continuing to supply their weapons. We have heavily sanctioned Russia. How is that sitting this one out?

Zelensky has repeatedly asked for fighter jets and a no-fly zone.

It is his job to defend his country and ask for as much as he could, publicly, to put pressure on US and EU politicians. It is not his job to avoid WW3. However other countries have to consider.

The jets should already be there. But, they aren't. The article says the pentagon rejected the deal. Other reports say it was Biden.
The calls for sending the planes is bipartisan.


A growing number of Republican and Democratic lawmakers are urging the Biden administration to facilitate a deal with Poland to send MiG-29 planes to Ukraine for additional air support as Russia continues its multi-front war on the country.

The Pentagon last week rejected Poland’s proposal for the U.S. and NATO to deliver MiG-29 planes to the Ukrainian military, arguing that the move could be mistaken as "escalatory" and could result in "significant Russian reaction" that could increase the prospects of a military escalation with NATO.

The letter to Biden was signed by Republicans and Democrats, including Reps. Jared Golden, D-Maine, Jason Crow, D-Colo., Don Bacon, R-Neb., Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., James Baird, R-Ind., John Katko, R-N.Y., Bill Johnson, R-N.C., Conor Lamb, D-Pa., Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., Chris Pappas, D-N.H., Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., Michael Waltz, R-Fla., Jim Costa, D-Calif., and Kaiali’i Kahele, D-Hawaii.

Meanwhile, their letter to Biden comes after 58 members of the Problem Solvers Caucus — which includes both Republicans and Democrats — urged the U.S. to provide additional defense material — including MiGs — to Ukraine.

Poland surprised the U.S. last week by offering to give its entire fleet of MiG-29 fighter jets to the U.S. in exchange for a chance to buy American F-16s as part of a deal to bolster the Ukrainian air force while upgrading the Poles with NATO aircraft.

The Pentagon, the following day, pushed back on the move and said it raised concerns regarding the deployment of warplanes from a U.S. base in a NATO-allied nation to combat Russian forces.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/russia-ukraine-bipartisan-lawmakers-urge-biden-to-work-with-poland-to-provide-mig-29s-to-ukraine

The answer to you disguising Fox new quote is that we have a competent president that is trying to avoid declaring war on Russia which would result in the destruction of most of the world's population.
That is why Kamala went to Poland, to tell them to stop their BS.

It's not just Fox News reporting this.
In truth, we have a cowardly president who is letting Putin set the timing and the actions in this conflict. Weakness creates opportunity. And, Putin has seized on that.
Sending migs is not going to escalate a war that has already been escalated by Putin.
And, as for Kamala..... please. Are you her spokesperson? There has been no reporting that this was the purpose of her disastrous trip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in February, Biden said this:

“I will not send American servicemen to fight in Ukraine,” though he added that “if Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond forcefully.”

So, we have one dead American journalist and one injured.

I am awaiting this "forceful" response.

This was not just any American.

Putin’s military targeted and murdered a very prominent NYT reporter and member of the press corps.

You simply do not murder press without severe consequences.

There is now ample justification for, at a minimum, a full no-fly zone over Ukraine, if not full intervention by NATO forces.

No there isn't. Unfortunately journalists are injured and killed all the time in war zones. That isn't a cause for the US to get involved.

Once again. Biden said this: “I will not send American servicemen to fight in Ukraine,” though he added that “if Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond forcefully.”

So, we should be expecting a forceful response.
Or, does he not abide by what he says?

Lead the way. You first.

Look.... it was BIDEN who said it. Nobody forced him to say these words. He said them.
So, what is he going to do? Just spout empty words? Or, is he going to take action?

Biden is really good about telling Russia what he ISN'T going to do. And, in doing so.... he is basically giving Russia permission to run roughshod over Ukraine.

I would like to hear Biden say, "All options are on the table." I would also like Biden and crew to stop saying what he won't do. I would also like Biden and crew to stop with the public negotiation regarding the jets from Poland and just get the damn jets to Ukraine.

He said that that the US would respond forcefully if Americans were targeted in Ukraine. Well, it has happened. And, we have a dead American.
If he does nothing, he will look weak. Weaker than he already appears.
Time for action.

DP. And I agree completely.

Besides, a no-fly zone is not a war. We are not doing anything at all so long as Russian warplanes stay out of Ukraine’s airspace.

Moreover, NO ONE is saying this is a war! It’s not. Russia has said repeatedly its a “special operation,” and that’s not a war. And we have said “a minor incursion” is not a war.

So a no-fly zone over a nation WHICH IS NOT AT WAR, is a simple matter, and it should be imposed immediately. Besides,

- Zelinski invited us. What’s wrong with US planes accepting the invitation of a sovereign nation?

Logic dictates we impose a no-fly zone to protect US journalists. It’s only logical.

Sweet summer child. How do you think no fly zones are enforced? How do you think Russia responds - the country that’s literally attacking and obliterating a sovereign nation, bombing schools and hospitals, and dangling nuclear weapons on “high alert”?

This is “check”. Unless the west wants WWIII, there’s no no fly zones.

DP here. I think far too many of us are in denial that the opening volleys of WWIII have already been lobbed. I don't personally want to advocate for a no-fly zone, and I've never been happier not to be responsible for such a decision, but I also think that this doesn't end at the Ukrainian border. The question is really when do we want to get into the fight.

And why were didthe WWIII not start when the U.S. invaded Iraq? You do see a hypocrosy here We are to die for Ukraine and cause the world to die, but we "liberated" Iraq?

Iraq = / = Russia in terms of military might. Period. Not sure what you’re suggesting is hypocrisy. If it’s the fact that we are treating Putin as a dangerous invader who must be stopped but also carries nuclear might and missiles aimed at the US and other targets, but didn’t take that same approach with Iraq, you’re right. But that’s fact not hypocrisy.

How is that not a hypocrisy? Why did Russia and the world not punish us for that act?

Why are you equating Iraq with Ukraine? As in, what is the parallel and equivalence you are drawing?

Why should I not equate it?

Oh, and at least Russia has some connection to Ukraine, historical that is. U.S. had no such thing with Iraq.

Oh, Russia had some historical connection to Ukraine, so that makes it OK for them to kill pregnants Ukrainian women and their children?

It doesn't make it OK. But the point is that USA hasn't exactly provided a great example to the world, have we, with respect to how we treat smaller, less powerful countries? We seem to view Putin as a barbarian -- but, so far, he has less blood on his hands that George Bush Jr, and perhaps a couple other presidents as well. 900K dead in Iraq. That is a staggering number. We pretend to have some kind of moral authority -- yet we don't hold ourselves to the same standard that we hold others.

You get it. You might be the one of the few people on dcum that actually knows things and is rational. Thank you for being here.

Get what? So we should not impose economic sanctions on Russia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

We are the "good guys" the USSR was the "bad guys"? Thanks for such a sophisticated analysis. You basically proved my point.

Americans are convinced of their moral superiority, despite the many ugly chapters in our history, some of them quite recent.

It is probably not your history.

I'm an American, born and raised here. I disagree with the idea that the USA is the "good guys". I think that attitude of moral superiority is very dangerous.

And no, I'm not a Russian troll pretending to be an American, nor do I support Putin's actions in Ukraine. But I think his actions in Ukraine pale in comparison to what we did to Iraq.

They've only been in Ukraine for a couple weeks. We've been in Iraq for a couple of decades.

So killing 900K civilians over 20 years is fine because the annualized rate loss rate is, in your view, relatively low? Under 50K a year! Quite reasonable, given that we are the "good guys".

BTW, if you annualize the rate of civilian deaths thus far in Ukraine, it is actually quite a bit lower than the annualized rate of civilian deaths in Iraq. But perhaps the "good guys" are subject to different laws of mathematics, in addition to a different moral code.

Oh, please. You seem to think that, while it's not something to be celebrated, the unprovoked murder of pregnant Ukrainian women and children by Russia is at least acceptable because you're comparing apples to oranges withe the US's invasion of Iraq. And you're also using the invasion of Ukraine as an oppurtunity to swipe at the US, without any condemnation of Russia. FFS, you're even applauding the lower civilian murder rate!

I strongly condemned Russia earlier in this thread. I'm not applauding the civilian murder rate in Ukraine. I am horrified by what is happening.

My initial question was roughly this: to those of you who believe that Putin is a barbarian or "evil", do you share the same view of George W? If not, why not? And why wasn't the US treated as a pariah state when it invaded Iraq, while Russia is treated as a pariah now? I want to understand this asymmetric thinking.

Then you should start a new thread about George W. It just looks like whataboutism and minimization of Russia's atrocities by asking that in a thread about Ukraine. It's strange that you call it asymmetric thinking, or that you seem to think you're the only one who was against the Iraq war.

-----------------------------------
I know plenty of Americans were against the war in Iraq. But it doesn't seem to affect our view of our country. We think of the Iraq war an isolated mistake, rather than a reflection of our national character.

On the flip side, we are quick to characterize others who commit similar atrocities as "evil". This can lead to additional foreign policy mistakes on our part. Is Putin really a mad-man who is set on domination of Eastern Europe? Of course plenty of Americans think that. But we could be wrong. Putin could simply have made a calculated decision that unless he up-ended Ukraine, then he could be stuck with a 1500 mile border with a country that will ultimately join NATO ... and this, in the eyes of the Russian government, is an unacceptable security risk. Isn't this also a plausible explanation for Putin's behavior? Why are we so convinced that he is a crazy lunatic? A good assessment of his line-of-reasoning is, I think, an important factor for how best to respond to him.

Yes, I know Putin has often indicated that he thinks of Russia and Ukraine as a single people, but that doesn't mean his motivation for invading Ukraine was to absorb the country into Russia. Absorbing Ukraine would be a huge headache for Putin. Much more effective to simply push Ukraine into an agreement in which NATO stays clear of Ukraine's territory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in February, Biden said this:

“I will not send American servicemen to fight in Ukraine,” though he added that “if Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond forcefully.”

So, we have one dead American journalist and one injured.

I am awaiting this "forceful" response.

This was not just any American.

Putin’s military targeted and murdered a very prominent NYT reporter and member of the press corps.

You simply do not murder press without severe consequences.

There is now ample justification for, at a minimum, a full no-fly zone over Ukraine, if not full intervention by NATO forces.

No there isn't. Unfortunately journalists are injured and killed all the time in war zones. That isn't a cause for the US to get involved.

Once again. Biden said this: “I will not send American servicemen to fight in Ukraine,” though he added that “if Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond forcefully.”

So, we should be expecting a forceful response.
Or, does he not abide by what he says?

Lead the way. You first.

Look.... it was BIDEN who said it. Nobody forced him to say these words. He said them.
So, what is he going to do? Just spout empty words? Or, is he going to take action?

Biden is really good about telling Russia what he ISN'T going to do. And, in doing so.... he is basically giving Russia permission to run roughshod over Ukraine.

I would like to hear Biden say, "All options are on the table." I would also like Biden and crew to stop saying what he won't do. I would also like Biden and crew to stop with the public negotiation regarding the jets from Poland and just get the damn jets to Ukraine.

He said that that the US would respond forcefully if Americans were targeted in Ukraine. Well, it has happened. And, we have a dead American.
If he does nothing, he will look weak. Weaker than he already appears.
Time for action.

DP. And I agree completely.

Besides, a no-fly zone is not a war. We are not doing anything at all so long as Russian warplanes stay out of Ukraine’s airspace.

Moreover, NO ONE is saying this is a war! It’s not. Russia has said repeatedly its a “special operation,” and that’s not a war. And we have said “a minor incursion” is not a war.

So a no-fly zone over a nation WHICH IS NOT AT WAR, is a simple matter, and it should be imposed immediately. Besides,

- Zelinski invited us. What’s wrong with US planes accepting the invitation of a sovereign nation?

Logic dictates we impose a no-fly zone to protect US journalists. It’s only logical.

Sweet summer child. How do you think no fly zones are enforced? How do you think Russia responds - the country that’s literally attacking and obliterating a sovereign nation, bombing schools and hospitals, and dangling nuclear weapons on “high alert”?

This is “check”. Unless the west wants WWIII, there’s no no fly zones.

DP here. I think far too many of us are in denial that the opening volleys of WWIII have already been lobbed. I don't personally want to advocate for a no-fly zone, and I've never been happier not to be responsible for such a decision, but I also think that this doesn't end at the Ukrainian border. The question is really when do we want to get into the fight.

And why were didthe WWIII not start when the U.S. invaded Iraq? You do see a hypocrosy here We are to die for Ukraine and cause the world to die, but we "liberated" Iraq?

Iraq = / = Russia in terms of military might. Period. Not sure what you’re suggesting is hypocrisy. If it’s the fact that we are treating Putin as a dangerous invader who must be stopped but also carries nuclear might and missiles aimed at the US and other targets, but didn’t take that same approach with Iraq, you’re right. But that’s fact not hypocrisy.

How is that not a hypocrisy? Why did Russia and the world not punish us for that act?

Why are you equating Iraq with Ukraine? As in, what is the parallel and equivalence you are drawing?

Why should I not equate it?

Oh, and at least Russia has some connection to Ukraine, historical that is. U.S. had no such thing with Iraq.

Oh, Russia had some historical connection to Ukraine, so that makes it OK for them to kill pregnants Ukrainian women and their children?

It doesn't make it OK. But the point is that USA hasn't exactly provided a great example to the world, have we, with respect to how we treat smaller, less powerful countries? We seem to view Putin as a barbarian -- but, so far, he has less blood on his hands that George Bush Jr, and perhaps a couple other presidents as well. 900K dead in Iraq. That is a staggering number. We pretend to have some kind of moral authority -- yet we don't hold ourselves to the same standard that we hold others.

You get it. You might be the one of the few people on dcum that actually knows things and is rational. Thank you for being here.

US is not even remotely responsible for all 900k dead in Iraq. 74% of those were perpetrated by insurgents, suicide bombers, extrajudicial killings etc. Another 12% was Iraq military and anti-coalition forces. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21358813

By the time you count up all of the people killed by Russian forces and Putin's proxies in Chechnya, Syria, Georgia, now Ukraine and elsewhere it's far more than the number killed by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

We are the "good guys" the USSR was the "bad guys"? Thanks for such a sophisticated analysis. You basically proved my point.

Americans are convinced of their moral superiority, despite the many ugly chapters in our history, some of them quite recent.

It is probably not your history.

I'm an American, born and raised here. I disagree with the idea that the USA is the "good guys". I think that attitude of moral superiority is very dangerous.

And no, I'm not a Russian troll pretending to be an American, nor do I support Putin's actions in Ukraine. But I think his actions in Ukraine pale in comparison to what we did to Iraq.

They've only been in Ukraine for a couple weeks. We've been in Iraq for a couple of decades.

So killing 900K civilians over 20 years is fine because the annualized rate loss rate is, in your view, relatively low? Under 50K a year! Quite reasonable, given that we are the "good guys".

BTW, if you annualize the rate of civilian deaths thus far in Ukraine, it is actually quite a bit lower than the annualized rate of civilian deaths in Iraq. But perhaps the "good guys" are subject to different laws of mathematics, in addition to a different moral code.

Oh, please. You seem to think that, while it's not something to be celebrated, the unprovoked murder of pregnant Ukrainian women and children by Russia is at least acceptable because you're comparing apples to oranges withe the US's invasion of Iraq. And you're also using the invasion of Ukraine as an oppurtunity to swipe at the US, without any condemnation of Russia. FFS, you're even applauding the lower civilian murder rate!

I strongly condemned Russia earlier in this thread. I'm not applauding the civilian murder rate in Ukraine. I am horrified by what is happening.

My initial question was roughly this: to those of you who believe that Putin is a barbarian or "evil", do you share the same view of George W? If not, why not? And why wasn't the US treated as a pariah state when it invaded Iraq, while Russia is treated as a pariah now? I want to understand this asymmetric thinking.

Then you should start a new thread about George W. It just looks like whataboutism and minimization of Russia's atrocities by asking that in a thread about Ukraine. It's strange that you call it asymmetric thinking, or that you seem to think you're the only one who was against the Iraq war.

-----------------------------------
I know plenty of Americans were against the war in Iraq. But it doesn't seem to affect our view of our country. We think of the Iraq war an isolated mistake, rather than a reflection of our national character.

On the flip side, we are quick to characterize others who commit similar atrocities as "evil". This can lead to additional foreign policy mistakes on our part. Is Putin really a mad-man who is set on domination of Eastern Europe? Of course plenty of Americans think that. But we could be wrong. Putin could simply have made a calculated decision that unless he up-ended Ukraine, then he could be stuck with a 1500 mile border with a country that will ultimately join NATO ... and this, in the eyes of the Russian government, is an unacceptable security risk. Isn't this also a plausible explanation for Putin's behavior? Why are we so convinced that he is a crazy lunatic? A good assessment of his line-of-reasoning is, I think, an important factor for how best to respond to him.

Yes, I know Putin has often indicated that he thinks of Russia and Ukraine as a single people, but that doesn't mean his motivation for invading Ukraine was to absorb the country into Russia. Absorbing Ukraine would be a huge headache for Putin. Much more effective to simply push Ukraine into an agreement in which NATO stays clear of Ukraine's territory.

You can only speak for yourself, or someone specific whose actions were demonstrable. You can't speak for me or "we", you don't know how I felt about Iraq then or now. Putin has murdered pregnant women and children who presented no threat to him. Maybe you don't think that's evil, but I sure as hell do. Also, Putin didn't seem to think absorbing Crimea was a headache, so your theory is really flimsy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

We are the "good guys" the USSR was the "bad guys"? Thanks for such a sophisticated analysis. You basically proved my point.

Americans are convinced of their moral superiority, despite the many ugly chapters in our history, some of them quite recent.

It is probably not your history.

I'm an American, born and raised here. I disagree with the idea that the USA is the "good guys". I think that attitude of moral superiority is very dangerous.

And no, I'm not a Russian troll pretending to be an American, nor do I support Putin's actions in Ukraine. But I think his actions in Ukraine pale in comparison to what we did to Iraq.

They've only been in Ukraine for a couple weeks. We've been in Iraq for a couple of decades.

So killing 900K civilians over 20 years is fine because the annualized rate loss rate is, in your view, relatively low? Under 50K a year! Quite reasonable, given that we are the "good guys".

BTW, if you annualize the rate of civilian deaths thus far in Ukraine, it is actually quite a bit lower than the annualized rate of civilian deaths in Iraq. But perhaps the "good guys" are subject to different laws of mathematics, in addition to a different moral code.

Oh, please. You seem to think that, while it's not something to be celebrated, the unprovoked murder of pregnant Ukrainian women and children by Russia is at least acceptable because you're comparing apples to oranges withe the US's invasion of Iraq. And you're also using the invasion of Ukraine as an oppurtunity to swipe at the US, without any condemnation of Russia. FFS, you're even applauding the lower civilian murder rate!

I strongly condemned Russia earlier in this thread. I'm not applauding the civilian murder rate in Ukraine. I am horrified by what is happening.

My initial question was roughly this: to those of you who believe that Putin is a barbarian or "evil", do you share the same view of George W? If not, why not? And why wasn't the US treated as a pariah state when it invaded Iraq, while Russia is treated as a pariah now? I want to understand this asymmetric thinking.

Then you should start a new thread about George W. It just looks like whataboutism and minimization of Russia's atrocities by asking that in a thread about Ukraine. It's strange that you call it asymmetric thinking, or that you seem to think you're the only one who was against the Iraq war.

Lots of people were against the Iraq war. The difference is no one was punished for it.

Why do you think that is?

Because in the current global order the West decides who’s guilty and who’s innocent, and it will never punish itself. It’s governing by force.

[Anonymous]

US is not even remotely responsible for all 900k dead in Iraq. 74% of those were perpetrated by insurgents, suicide bombers, extrajudicial killings etc. Another 12% was Iraq military and anti-coalition forces. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21358813

By the time you count up all of the people killed by Russian forces and Putin's proxies in Chechnya, Syria, Georgia, now Ukraine and elsewhere it's far more than the number killed by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those 900K deaths would not have occurred were it not for our hubris.

We overthrew the government of Iraq. We are responsible for any unexpected impact that had.

Of course, we should have known better. We should have recognized that you can't just toss out an entire government without the risk of unleashing complete chaos.

We had no right to destroy another country's government -- yes, even an autocratic government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

We are the "good guys" the USSR was the "bad guys"? Thanks for such a sophisticated analysis. You basically proved my point.

Americans are convinced of their moral superiority, despite the many ugly chapters in our history, some of them quite recent.

It is probably not your history.

I'm an American, born and raised here. I disagree with the idea that the USA is the "good guys". I think that attitude of moral superiority is very dangerous.

And no, I'm not a Russian troll pretending to be an American, nor do I support Putin's actions in Ukraine. But I think his actions in Ukraine pale in comparison to what we did to Iraq.

They've only been in Ukraine for a couple weeks. We've been in Iraq for a couple of decades.

So killing 900K civilians over 20 years is fine because the annualized rate loss rate is, in your view, relatively low? Under 50K a year! Quite reasonable, given that we are the "good guys".

BTW, if you annualize the rate of civilian deaths thus far in Ukraine, it is actually quite a bit lower than the annualized rate of civilian deaths in Iraq. But perhaps the "good guys" are subject to different laws of mathematics, in addition to a different moral code.

Oh, please. You seem to think that, while it's not something to be celebrated, the unprovoked murder of pregnant Ukrainian women and children by Russia is at least acceptable because you're comparing apples to oranges withe the US's invasion of Iraq. And you're also using the invasion of Ukraine as an oppurtunity to swipe at the US, without any condemnation of Russia. FFS, you're even applauding the lower civilian murder rate!

I strongly condemned Russia earlier in this thread. I'm not applauding the civilian murder rate in Ukraine. I am horrified by what is happening.

My initial question was roughly this: to those of you who believe that Putin is a barbarian or "evil", do you share the same view of George W? If not, why not? And why wasn't the US treated as a pariah state when it invaded Iraq, while Russia is treated as a pariah now? I want to understand this asymmetric thinking.

Then you should start a new thread about George W. It just looks like whataboutism and minimization of Russia's atrocities by asking that in a thread about Ukraine. It's strange that you call it asymmetric thinking, or that you seem to think you're the only one who was against the Iraq war.

-----------------------------------
I know plenty of Americans were against the war in Iraq. But it doesn't seem to affect our view of our country. We think of the Iraq war an isolated mistake, rather than a reflection of our national character.

On the flip side, we are quick to characterize others who commit similar atrocities as "evil". This can lead to additional foreign policy mistakes on our part. Is Putin really a mad-man who is set on domination of Eastern Europe? Of course plenty of Americans think that. But we could be wrong. Putin could simply have made a calculated decision that unless he up-ended Ukraine, then he could be stuck with a 1500 mile border with a country that will ultimately join NATO ... and this, in the eyes of the Russian government, is an unacceptable security risk. Isn't this also a plausible explanation for Putin's behavior? Why are we so convinced that he is a crazy lunatic? A good assessment of his line-of-reasoning is, I think, an important factor for how best to respond to him.

Yes, I know Putin has often indicated that he thinks of Russia and Ukraine as a single people, but that doesn't mean his motivation for invading Ukraine was to absorb the country into Russia. Absorbing Ukraine would be a huge headache for Putin. Much more effective to simply push Ukraine into an agreement in which NATO stays clear of Ukraine's territory.

You can only speak for yourself, or someone specific whose actions were demonstrable. You can't speak for me or "we", you don't know how I felt about Iraq then or now. Putin has murdered pregnant women and children who presented no threat to him. Maybe you don't think that's evil, but I sure as hell do. Also, Putin didn't seem to think absorbing Crimea was a headache, so your theory is really flimsy.

Grow the F UP.

You want pregnant Italian women and babies killed, too? Because that’s the not even the midpoint of the road you want everyone to drive down, because you think people who want to slow down and not ramp up thoughtlessly want Ukranian. Aries dead?

You’re wasting your insights here, time to book a ticket the front or at least to start stalking NATO functionaries in Belgium. They need you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zelensky said today that he might be willing to abandon hopes for NATO membership. So as much as the Russian military has underperformed, they’ve potentially done enough to strongarm Zelensky into considering a major compromise.

This is the smart move to save his country.

It is a bitter pill to swallow -- having fought a brave fight and pushed back against Putin -- but if Ukraine fights this out to the bitter end there will be nothing left to fight for.

Abandoning NATO membership means he ultimately lost.

Lost what? They aren't NATO members now - they've been strategic military partners with NATO countries for years (and have the military prowess and defensive weaponry to show for it).

Umm … Ukraine has been desperately wanting NATO membership for over a decade. That’s kinda the entire reason this invasion happened in the first place.

Umm... no, it kinda isn't. The reason this invasion happened in the first place is because Putin thinks he's entitled to Ukraine, and that permits him to murder pregnant women and children. That is why Ukraine wants to be in NATO. If you think otherwise, then you must think those pregnant women and children deserved to die, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Me saying Ukraine wants NATO membership in no way implies I think Russia didn’t provoke this or that Ukrainian women and children deserve to die.

Do you need me to spell it out? Fine. Ukraine wants NATO membership because Russia is a provocative piece of shit.

And Putin wants Ukraine to remain outside of NATO because he doesn't trust the West -- and in particular, the United States -- to establish a purely "defensive" military arrangement in Ukraine. I don't think his goals in Ukraine are purely empire building. He is trying to establish a bulwark against Western encroachment. One can argue that this is motivated by pure paranoia -- but would we be nervous if Russia were to begin outfitting Mexico with "defensive" weapons? Some missile systems can be used for both to defend and to attack.

If we had lost the Cold War and Russia had placed missile systems in Mexico, we would be very nervous.

Somewhat maybe. The world is different though than it was in the 1960s with both sides having nuclear armed submarines roaming the oceans.

Would we invade Mexico under such a scenario? I doubt it very much.

The difference is the United States are the good guys - a capitalist democracy - and the Soviet Union/Russia are the bad guys - brutal, totalitarian dictatorships. So, no, we wouldn't let Mexico become the vassal of such a regime.

Your whataboutism is stupid.

We are the "good guys" the USSR was the "bad guys"? Thanks for such a sophisticated analysis. You basically proved my point.

Americans are convinced of their moral superiority, despite the many ugly chapters in our history, some of them quite recent.

It is probably not your history.

I'm an American, born and raised here. I disagree with the idea that the USA is the "good guys". I think that attitude of moral superiority is very dangerous.

And no, I'm not a Russian troll pretending to be an American, nor do I support Putin's actions in Ukraine. But I think his actions in Ukraine pale in comparison to what we did to Iraq.

They've only been in Ukraine for a couple weeks. We've been in Iraq for a couple of decades.

So killing 900K civilians over 20 years is fine because the annualized rate loss rate is, in your view, relatively low? Under 50K a year! Quite reasonable, given that we are the "good guys".

BTW, if you annualize the rate of civilian deaths thus far in Ukraine, it is actually quite a bit lower than the annualized rate of civilian deaths in Iraq. But perhaps the "good guys" are subject to different laws of mathematics, in addition to a different moral code.

Oh, please. You seem to think that, while it's not something to be celebrated, the unprovoked murder of pregnant Ukrainian women and children by Russia is at least acceptable because you're comparing apples to oranges withe the US's invasion of Iraq. And you're also using the invasion of Ukraine as an oppurtunity to swipe at the US, without any condemnation of Russia. FFS, you're even applauding the lower civilian murder rate!

I strongly condemned Russia earlier in this thread. I'm not applauding the civilian murder rate in Ukraine. I am horrified by what is happening.

My initial question was roughly this: to those of you who believe that Putin is a barbarian or "evil", do you share the same view of George W? If not, why not? And why wasn't the US treated as a pariah state when it invaded Iraq, while Russia is treated as a pariah now? I want to understand this asymmetric thinking.

Then you should start a new thread about George W. It just looks like whataboutism and minimization of Russia's atrocities by asking that in a thread about Ukraine. It's strange that you call it asymmetric thinking, or that you seem to think you're the only one who was against the Iraq war.

-----------------------------------
I know plenty of Americans were against the war in Iraq. But it doesn't seem to affect our view of our country. We think of the Iraq war an isolated mistake, rather than a reflection of our national character.

On the flip side, we are quick to characterize others who commit similar atrocities as "evil". This can lead to additional foreign policy mistakes on our part. Is Putin really a mad-man who is set on domination of Eastern Europe? Of course plenty of Americans think that. But we could be wrong. Putin could simply have made a calculated decision that unless he up-ended Ukraine, then he could be stuck with a 1500 mile border with a country that will ultimately join NATO ... and this, in the eyes of the Russian government, is an unacceptable security risk. Isn't this also a plausible explanation for Putin's behavior? Why are we so convinced that he is a crazy lunatic? A good assessment of his line-of-reasoning is, I think, an important factor for how best to respond to him.

Yes, I know Putin has often indicated that he thinks of Russia and Ukraine as a single people, but that doesn't mean his motivation for invading Ukraine was to absorb the country into Russia. Absorbing Ukraine would be a huge headache for Putin. Much more effective to simply push Ukraine into an agreement in which NATO stays clear of Ukraine's territory.

You can only speak for yourself, or someone specific whose actions were demonstrable. You can't speak for me or "we", you don't know how I felt about Iraq then or now. Putin has murdered pregnant women and children who presented no threat to him. Maybe you don't think that's evil, but I sure as hell do. Also, Putin didn't seem to think absorbing Crimea was a headache, so your theory is really flimsy.

Grow the F UP.

You want pregnant Italian women and babies killed, too? Because that’s the not even the midpoint of the road you want everyone to drive down, because you think people who want to slow down and not ramp up thoughtlessly want Ukranian. Aries dead?

You’re wasting your insights here, time to book a ticket the front or at least to start stalking NATO functionaries in Belgium. They need you.

JFC. No, I don't want any pregnant women or children to die, but you sure have no problem with threatening that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in February, Biden said this:

“I will not send American servicemen to fight in Ukraine,” though he added that “if Russia targets Americans in Ukraine, we will respond forcefully.”

So, we have one dead American journalist and one injured.

I am awaiting this "forceful" response.

This was not just any American.

Putin’s military targeted and murdered a very prominent NYT reporter and member of the press corps.

You simply do not murder press without severe consequences.

There is now ample justification for, at a minimum, a full no-fly zone over Ukraine, if not full intervention by NATO forces.

My son should fight to avenge a journalist that went willingly to a war zone to report and earn a buck? Since when do countries go to war over journalists covering wars around the world?

You son should fight because that's what he signed up for.

That's the thing, he didn't sing up for anything. But, if there is a World War he will be conscripted to fight.

Fight against who? Who is signing up to be on Russia's side in WWIII? China wouldn't. Existing NATO forces would blow through the rest of Putin's conventional military like used toilet paper. You don't need conscripted soldiers for a nuclear war.

Sounds like even Putin's closest ally Belarus has issues with the war. Though that isn't stopping them from letting Russia use Belarus as supply lines, military and air bases, and for launching missile strikes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

US is not even remotely responsible for all 900k dead in Iraq. 74% of those were perpetrated by insurgents, suicide bombers, extrajudicial killings etc. Another 12% was Iraq military and anti-coalition forces. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21358813

By the time you count up all of the people killed by Russian forces and Putin's proxies in Chechnya, Syria, Georgia, now Ukraine and elsewhere it's far more than the number killed by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those 900K deaths would not have occurred were it not for our hubris.

We overthrew the government of Iraq. We are responsible for any unexpected impact that had.

Of course, we should have known better. We should have recognized that you can't just toss out an entire government without the risk of unleashing complete chaos.

We had no right to destroy another country's government -- yes, even an autocratic government.

Anti-US whataboutism, a favorite of Russian provocateurs. Sorry, not interested in hearing it as the topic here is Ukraine.

Turn it around and declare that Russia has no right to declare Ukraine's government. And Ukraine is not even autocratic.

[Anonymous]

^no right to destroy Ukraine's government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know the difference between Putin and the American Presidents. Putin has a lock on being the leader of his country for as long as he wants it (Navalny anyone?)
That allows him a long time line to carry out his actions with very little (no) pushback. Ukraine and the other countries he's take are his master plan.

As of now (knock on wood), no one in the U.S. (President or otherwise) can remain in power indefinitely. Who came after Bush? Obama. You thing Bush and Obama collaborated about Afghanistan and Iraq? So far it is not possible. Your comparison of a U.S. President to Putin as of now is not an apt comparison.

Ask yourself why is Navalny being even allowed to cultivate the “opposition” image when others were murdered for much less. I also find it interesting that the channel 1 protester specially referenced navalny in his speech. Is navalny a “plan b” now for getting out of sanctions?

No surprises there, I guess.

Actually it’s hugely surprising and shows the Kremlin is in a weak position.

This contradicts with the narrative so far that the russians who are “mostly against the war” are not able to protest because of the harsh repressions - jail terms, etc. So, which is it?

Not sure about her case, maybe she has powerful families. However for ordinary Russians it is the mad queen: off their heads, all of them! This is the Chinese level

https://twitter.com/JamOladyi/status/1503133159264862216?s=20&t=D39qewrXCAO_wEjE4Pc6Tg