Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I actually agree with you and I am sad you get branded as trolls.
Not saying Russia is a knight in shining armor but come on?? Everybody does it (if they are big enough) so the outrage is a little hypocritical

"Everyone does it so Russia should be allowed to invade Ukraine too!" Again, the fallacy of two wrongs somehow making a right - it's a fail.

Also, did the US remain in Iraq? No. And it was never the intention of the US to remain indefinitely. Given the rationalization of "well the US did it, so..." then tell me exactly when Russia plans to leave Ukraine, after invading? Because, Russia has EVERY intention of keeping Ukraine indefinitely. "Well, it's always been OUR Crimea" and "Well we need space between us and NATO" and worst of all, "Well, Ukraine was never really a country and Ukrainians are all just Russians so it's not really even an invasion to conquer it."

SO MUCH bullshit rhetoric from the Russia side, yet you want to sit there like it's all just some hypocritical manufactured outrage from Americans? Come on, man. You cannot be serious.

Wait wait don't tell me....are you admitting the invasion of Iraq was...drrrumm roll....wrong?

How are you going to atone? Give up your foreign assets? Disconnect yourself from SWIFT? Come on, I wanna see some self flagellation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I actually agree with you and I am sad you get branded as trolls.
Not saying Russia is a knight in shining armor but come on?? Everybody does it (if they are big enough) so the outrage is a little hypocritical

"Everyone does it so Russia should be allowed to invade Ukraine too!" Again, the fallacy of two wrongs somehow making a right - it's a fail.

Also, did the US remain in Iraq? No. And it was never the intention of the US to remain indefinitely. Given the rationalization of "well the US did it, so..." then tell me exactly when Russia plans to leave Ukraine, after invading? Because, Russia has EVERY intention of keeping Ukraine indefinitely. "Well, it's always been OUR Crimea" and "Well we need space between us and NATO" and worst of all, "Well, Ukraine was never really a country and Ukrainians are all just Russians so it's not really even an invasion to conquer it."

SO MUCH bullshit rhetoric from the Russia side, yet you want to sit there like it's all just some hypocritical manufactured outrage from Americans? Come on, man. You cannot be serious.

Ironically I think it would be better for Afghanistan for example if the US remained there indefinitely. Not saying it’s the same with Russia and Ukraine, but honestly I think it doesn’t matter, they are both post Soviet countries with a specific mindset

No shit Sherlock, with their lithium deposits, I bet someone at DOS is kicking themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I actually agree with you and I am sad you get branded as trolls.
Not saying Russia is a knight in shining armor but come on?? Everybody does it (if they are big enough) so the outrage is a little hypocritical

"Everyone does it so Russia should be allowed to invade Ukraine too!" Again, the fallacy of two wrongs somehow making a right - it's a fail.

Also, did the US remain in Iraq? No. And it was never the intention of the US to remain indefinitely. Given the rationalization of "well the US did it, so..." then tell me exactly when Russia plans to leave Ukraine, after invading? Because, Russia has EVERY intention of keeping Ukraine indefinitely. "Well, it's always been OUR Crimea" and "Well we need space between us and NATO" and worst of all, "Well, Ukraine was never really a country and Ukrainians are all just Russians so it's not really even an invasion to conquer it."

SO MUCH bullshit rhetoric from the Russia side, yet you want to sit there like it's all just some hypocritical manufactured outrage from Americans? Come on, man. You cannot be serious.

LOL as the Arabs say, the US is like a seagull - flies in, shits all over and flies away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I actually agree with you and I am sad you get branded as trolls.
Not saying Russia is a knight in shining armor but come on?? Everybody does it (if they are big enough) so the outrage is a little hypocritical

"Everyone does it so Russia should be allowed to invade Ukraine too!" Again, the fallacy of two wrongs somehow making a right - it's a fail.

Also, did the US remain in Iraq? No. And it was never the intention of the US to remain indefinitely. Given the rationalization of "well the US did it, so..." then tell me exactly when Russia plans to leave Ukraine, after invading? Because, Russia has EVERY intention of keeping Ukraine indefinitely. "Well, it's always been OUR Crimea" and "Well we need space between us and NATO" and worst of all, "Well, Ukraine was never really a country and Ukrainians are all just Russians so it's not really even an invasion to conquer it."

SO MUCH bullshit rhetoric from the Russia side, yet you want to sit there like it's all just some hypocritical manufactured outrage from Americans? Come on, man. You cannot be serious.

Ironically I think it would be better for Afghanistan for example if the US remained there indefinitely. Not saying it’s the same with Russia and Ukraine, but honestly I think it doesn’t matter, they are both post Soviet countries with a specific mindset

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh poor thing, did you have to call in to the troll farm for backup? Because if there's "at least three of you" there's only one of me on this end, and all three of you are STILL LOSING the argument.

Well everyone loves their own brand, don't they? Even children don't agree when they lost the argument.

Btw no one argues Russia's invasions are "more moral". That's nonsense. The argument is, and has always been, that the US, as a habitual invader, has no business lecturing anyone or claiming the moral high ground.

There isn't a person alive, for instance, in Africa, LAC or the Middle East that doesn't roll his or her eyes when America launches into its "but democracy! sovereign borders! human rights!" schlock.

And you, staunch defender of Russia, has no business lecturing anyone about much of anything at all, nor launching into any of your "but America" schlock because Russia is demonstrably far worse on the world sphere. Yet here you are.

As for some of those other countries, I frankly feel sorry for some of them for buying into the mind-bending "Russia is anti-colonialist and stands up against imperialism" lies when currently, with its invasion of Ukraine in an attempt to expand its empire, Russia is the biggest colonizer on the planet. Not to mention its imperial history of colonizing a vast swath of Asia, and even to this day it still clings to most of its eastern colonies obtained in its past 300 years of expansionism, even as America, Europe and the rest of the "evil Western colonialists" have given most of their own colonies independence. But I guess that somehow doesn't count because it's not Africa or Latin America (eyeroll) - not that Russia hasn't tried to colonize those as well, trying to topple/control/create Soviet puppet states of Mozambique, Angola, Congo and others (not to mention the reason Wagner has been in Africa) - or Nicaragua, Cuba and other LAC countries, or of course the long history of the Soviets meddling in the Middle East as well (which is of course why they are still in Syria).

Well lol why don't you invade and set them straight? DOS can issue a $10B RFP for "winning the hearts and minds" after, and the likes of Hill and Knowlton will make a killing.

Anonymous wrote:Not that GDP is the be-all-end-all of economic health, but the IMF certainly doesn't see the Russian economy tanking in 2023, or 2024 for that matter.

https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2023/07/10/world-economic-outlook-update-july-2023

Germany on the other hand is looking at a negative growth 2023.

They don't even try to provide estimates for Ukraine in 2024 or further out. Wonder why that could be...

Hmm. The Churchlady says: "I wonder where the IMF figures originated from.. could it be from.. the Russian Central Bank?!!?"



As far as Russia getting kicked off of SWIFT, I think the only ones who got upset were Russian allies.. so, yes, that's sort-of the whole point?

Since we're on the topic of economics, I had to laugh that Russia is hosting the Russia-Africa summit. I'm sure the African delegates will have a swell time in Moscow!

“Living here in Russia is like living in hell on Earth,”
“They don’t like our color. Going out is a problem. Maybe if you go out, you might not return.”
https://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-russia-africans-20141102-story.html

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I actually agree with you and I am sad you get branded as trolls.
Not saying Russia is a knight in shining armor but come on?? Everybody does it (if they are big enough) so the outrage is a little hypocritical

"Everyone does it so Russia should be allowed to invade Ukraine too!" Again, the fallacy of two wrongs somehow making a right - it's a fail.

Also, did the US remain in Iraq? No. And it was never the intention of the US to remain indefinitely. Given the rationalization of "well the US did it, so..." then tell me exactly when Russia plans to leave Ukraine, after invading? Because, Russia has EVERY intention of keeping Ukraine indefinitely. "Well, it's always been OUR Crimea" and "Well we need space between us and NATO" and worst of all, "Well, Ukraine was never really a country and Ukrainians are all just Russians so it's not really even an invasion to conquer it."

SO MUCH bullshit rhetoric from the Russia side, yet you want to sit there like it's all just some hypocritical manufactured outrage from Americans? Come on, man. You cannot be serious.

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.

No, I actually agree with you and I am sad you get branded as trolls.
Not saying Russia is a knight in shining armor but come on?? Everybody does it (if they are big enough) so the outrage is a little hypocritical

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh poor thing, did you have to call in to the troll farm for backup? Because if there's "at least three of you" there's only one of me on this end, and all three of you are STILL LOSING the argument.

Well everyone loves their own brand, don't they? Even children don't agree when they lost the argument.

Btw no one argues Russia's invasions are "more moral". That's nonsense. The argument is, and has always been, that the US, as a habitual invader, has no business lecturing anyone or claiming the moral high ground.

There isn't a person alive, for instance, in Africa, LAC or the Middle East that doesn't roll his or her eyes when America launches into its "but democracy! sovereign borders! human rights!" schlock.

And you, staunch defender of Russia, has no business lecturing anyone about much of anything at all, nor launching into any of your "but America" schlock because Russia is demonstrably far worse on the world sphere. Yet here you are.

As for some of those other countries, I frankly feel sorry for some of them for buying into the mind-bending "Russia is anti-colonialist and stands up against imperialism" lies when currently, with its invasion of Ukraine in an attempt to expand its empire, Russia is the biggest colonizer on the planet. Not to mention its imperial history of colonizing a vast swath of Asia, and even to this day it still clings to most of its eastern colonies obtained in its past 300 years of expansionism, even as America, Europe and the rest of the "evil Western colonialists" have given most of their own colonies independence. But I guess that somehow doesn't count because it's not Africa or Latin America (eyeroll) - not that Russia hasn't tried to colonize those as well, trying to topple/control/create Soviet puppet states of Mozambique, Angola, Congo and others (not to mention the reason Wagner has been in Africa) - or Nicaragua, Cuba and other LAC countries, or of course the long history of the Soviets meddling in the Middle East as well (which is of course why they are still in Syria).

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

LOL is that from a DoS promo booklet?

LOL nope, that's Baghdad in 2023.

In fact: Baghdad is having a real estate and building boom right now. And, among other things, Iraq recently got an energy grid interconnect deal going with Jordan.

But... Aleppo is still bombed out rubble

And you're still delusional, dishonest, and disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh poor thing, did you have to call in to the troll farm for backup? Because if there's "at least three of you" there's only one of me on this end, and all three of you are STILL LOSING the argument.

Well everyone loves their own brand, don't they? Even children don't agree when they lost the argument.

Btw no one argues Russia's invasions are "more moral". That's nonsense. The argument is, and has always been, that the US, as a habitual invader, has no business lecturing anyone or claiming the moral high ground.

There isn't a person alive, for instance, in Africa, LAC or the Middle East that doesn't roll his or her eyes when America launches into its "but democracy! sovereign borders! human rights!" schlock.

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.

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.

LOL is that from a DoS promo booklet?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the Russian victory here?

Best case, they keep their gains in Donbas and Crimea. But no one on the planet recognizes it. Sanctions stay on forever. Russia is a pariah state. Their economy tanks. Russians become poorer. There will be endless local resistance. Most Russian soldiers will die one way or another. Much of the area will be uninhabitable for decades anyway because of mines. The entire planet loathes Russia. Europe moves on from Russian energy. They used to have Germany paying a premium. Now it's just India taking advantage of Russia's weakness.

Where is the Russian win?

I am not pro Russian but was surprised how much better they seem to fare under sanctions than expected.
Maybe it’s a matter of time though.
So far most stuff is replaced or imported through third countries. There is inflation and other problems relevant to war and human capital flight but I am not seeing anything catastrophic?

I was just catching up with a (multi-passported) friend who lives in Moscow and was in NYC visiting family.

She reports the only difference is that it takes longer to travel; otherwise, no difference. People are still buying apartments and putting Italian tile backsplash in them. No biggie.

I visit family often and it seems to be the case. Of course I am not privy to the macro level changes, but it seems like things are getting expensive, euro brands are sometimes replaced by Chinese or some franchises with weird names, but that’s it.

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.

This just makes no sense. Trying way too hard.

Agree. Good to see someone else also shoving back against the deranged and illogical pro-Russia nonsense being peddled here.

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.

Oh poor thing, did you have to call in to the troll farm for backup? Because if there's "at least three of you" there's only one of me on this end, and all three of you are STILL LOSING the argument.