Anonymous wrote:I would caution that April 1st is around the corner. Keep an eye on people heading out of town or unusual Russian movements.

Russian propagandists on the motherland front seem to be only discussing nuclear war.

I would be very careful at this point - especially this Friday (April Fool's Day), that has symbolism to the Russian government (who often label Westerners as fools and naive).

The new Kremlin take seems to be deflect, distract, detract attention in the West. Iraq seems to be the theme (and the only theme) the Russians can push across the isle, and it's working to tie up congress with frivolous matters - evidenced by the Russian propaganda troll blogging the Iraq theme here.

Russian propaganda troll = someone saying things I disagree with but can't effectively refute.

I would caution that April 1st is around the corner. Keep an eye on people heading out of town or unusual Russian movements.

Russian propagandists on the motherland front seem to be only discussing nuclear war.

I would be very careful at this point - especially this Friday (April Fool's Day), that has symbolism to the Russian government (who often label Westerners as fools and naive).

The new Kremlin take seems to be deflect, distract, detract attention in the West. Iraq seems to be the theme (and the only theme) the Russians can push across the isle, and it's working to tie up congress with frivolous matters - evidenced by the Russian propaganda troll blogging the Iraq theme here.

Anonymous wrote:
Ukraine is not Iraq. Iraq was not occupied by the US for 300 years, during which Arabic was banned and English was only language in universities, government administration, etc.

I didn't realize that you were looking for identical twin situations or that two invaded countries have to be identical in every sense for both to be viewed as sinful. But that's not a good reason to let your lies go unchallenged.

Not only wasn't Ukrainian banned, the Moscow government has in fact embarked on a policy of forced Ukrainization as early as in 1920s. Behold:



Here is a BBC blog with more details. Use Google translate https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/blogs-russian-45028831

Here is a translated quote from a Ukrainian blog:
The maximum circulation of books in the Ukrainian language was published in 1974 - 104,795 thousand books. Since 1974, a steady decline in the circulation of books in Ukrainian began until 1987, when the perestroika began.
https://www.istpravda.com.ua/articles/2010/11/9/3586/

Here is a Ukrainian blog that lists all the anti-Ukrainian language actions, whilst making it painfully obvious that the USSR was way, way kinder and inclusive than the Russian empire toward the Ukrainian language:
https://learning.ua/blog/202111/yak-borolysia-z-ukrainskoiu-movoiu-ta-kulturoiu-protiahom-xvi-xx-stolit-chastyna-1/ru/

Here is 2 seconds of worth of googling for "USSR publishing in Ukraine"

Anonymous wrote:The US did not return to occupy Iraq 30 years after Iraq gained independence, announcing that they are “brotherly nations” and have a “long common history”. The US did not ban Arabic as the first thing that they did.

It would be super weird if the US declared itself a brotherly nation to Iraq. Especially after long-term sanctions that crippled Iraq's healthcare and tech development.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html

"As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

The study also found steeply rising malnutrition among the young, suggesting that more children will be at risk in the coming years...

In 1991, after the war ended, Dr. Fawzi and other researchers found that mortality rates for children under five had tripled during the war and its immediate aftermath. By this year, the rate had increased fivefold.

Deaths related to diarrheal diseases have tripled in an increasingly unhealthy environment, the study says. Water and sanitation systems have deteriorated, hospitals are functioning at 40 percent of capacity, food prices are high and many people are living on Government rations that provide only 1,000 calories a day."

Thank you, Security Council, these dead children definitely helped to bring Saddam down oh wait they didn't they just died for no major reason.

Anonymous wrote:Ukraine did not have a war with its neighbor countries and no Ukrainian president used chemical weapons against its minorities, Ukraine also did not invade Kuwait or any other neighboring country. If drawing parallels, then draw the parallel of Iraq invading Kuwait in 1990, to Russia invading Ukraine in 2022.

Do any of these things have to happen for the Iraq invasion not to count? I mean other than your deep-seated inclination to weep for the blue-eyed and the fair-skinned more than for the brown and the Muslim?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did NATO with UN authorization intervene in Bosnia?
https://www.icty.org/en/cases/judgement-list

To whataboutski: what's the difference between an intervention and an invasion? If intervention is so bad then why is invasion good? Ethnic cleansing, rape as an instrument of war, and targeting civilians is very bad stuff. Arguing that it's ok, which to be clear is exactly what you are doing, because the US negligently unleashed a sectarian civil war in Iraq is despicable.

LOL interventions and invasions are only bad when committed by not-America.

When committed by America, they are righteous. Or, at their worst, regrettable but innocent mistakes.

Well based on your own words they seem to all be bad but at the same time you are using those criticisms to claim an invasion for territorial gain characterized by ethnic cleansing, widespread strategic rape, and the intentional targeting of civilians by the aggressor is a good tbing. It's easy to see why one could get confused.

But anyway, as you point out, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has unleashed a lot of forces within Russia that will inevitably lead to its downfall. It has also unified Ukraine in opposition such that it could never be integrated or peacefully controlled. Using Iraq as an example, the ethnic divisions within Russia will become more pronounced and antagonistic while the normalization of mass violence will leave a legacy of sociopathy among the population such that normalcy cannot be returned to in the near term. If the best case scenario for post-war Russia is Iraq then what is the worst case?

No, I never claimed it's a good thing, are you insane? that's you talking to voices in your head.

Using Iraq as an example, Ukraine is Iraq, not Russia. Divisions within Iraq (other than Kurds) are religious, not ethnic.

Ukraine is not Iraq. Iraq was not occupied by the US for 300 years, during which Arabic was banned and English was only language in universities, government administration, etc. The US did not return to occupy Iraq 30 years after Iraq gained independence, announcing that they are “brotherly nations” and have a “long common history”. The US did not ban Arabic as the first thing that they did.

Ukraine did not have a war with its neighbor countries and no Ukrainian president used chemical weapons against its minorities, Ukraine also did not invade Kuwait or any other neighboring country. If drawing parallels, then draw the parallel of Iraq invading Kuwait in 1990, to Russia invading Ukraine in 2022.

Anonymous wrote:

Pack your bags, Ivan.

You are going home to Russia, very soon.

- and that does not even include the mighty M-1 Abrams main battle tank, which has a proven record of out-classing the Russian T-72 in every encounter.

The vapor-ware T-14 Armata will not fair any better against Western MBTs and western ATGMs.

Pack your bags, Ivan.

You are going home to Russia, very soon.

Exploit the weakest links:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
On the contrary. You're making stuff up trying to shore up your weak and feeble point. The US and Iraq were in a military conflict. My argument is that the US military does indeed neutralize it's targets; with as minimal civilian casualties as possible.

But the war was illegal and unjustified, remember? Iraq never attacked the US or did it any harm. Iraq and the US were NOT in a military conflict, the US decided to invade and attack the country, and here you are arguing it's a good thing somehow. The Iraqi soldiers it killed were innocent. The US always says this bit about "minimal civilian casualties" but then it's like let's go practice drones on weddings. The US sees resistance to invasions and occupations as criminal because it's "leadership" must not be questioned.

Anonymous wrote:
Again, your desperation to assign labels gives away your emotions and animosity. Your opinion is noted. Irrelevant, but noted.

Do you disagree that support for the invasion was near universal across the aisle? That the mainstream "liberal" media supported the war? Do you really need the list of links from, say, MSNBC?

Anonymous wrote:
Sadly, you do not acknowledge the NATO led de-mining operation in Bosnia? Or the fact the mines were used to stop the Serbians from committing genocide? Quite a myopic and one-sided argument, don't you think? You don't quote "Romeo or Juliet Bridge" or the snipers who shot civilians standing in line for water?
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/12/pdf/201204-sps-mine-clearance.pdf

Snipers don't pretend to be the beacons of democracy or to minimize civilian suffering. The US does. Out of two killers, I'd prefer the honest one.

Anonymous wrote:
I believe that you are possibly mentally disturbed. If you have not hurt someone already, I believe that you should seek mental help and counseling.

Yawn, DCUM is full of virtual diagnosticians and you all sing the same tune. Be different, recommend cyanide for variety's sake!

Ma’am, this is a Ukraine thread.

For real. Go ahead and start an Iraq thread elsewhere

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
On the contrary. You're making stuff up trying to shore up your weak and feeble point. The US and Iraq were in a military conflict. My argument is that the US military does indeed neutralize it's targets; with as minimal civilian casualties as possible.

But the war was illegal and unjustified, remember? Iraq never attacked the US or did it any harm. Iraq and the US were NOT in a military conflict, the US decided to invade and attack the country, and here you are arguing it's a good thing somehow. The Iraqi soldiers it killed were innocent. The US always says this bit about "minimal civilian casualties" but then it's like let's go practice drones on weddings. The US sees resistance to invasions and occupations as criminal because it's "leadership" must not be questioned.

Anonymous wrote:
Again, your desperation to assign labels gives away your emotions and animosity. Your opinion is noted. Irrelevant, but noted.

Do you disagree that support for the invasion was near universal across the aisle? That the mainstream "liberal" media supported the war? Do you really need the list of links from, say, MSNBC?

Anonymous wrote:
Sadly, you do not acknowledge the NATO led de-mining operation in Bosnia? Or the fact the mines were used to stop the Serbians from committing genocide? Quite a myopic and one-sided argument, don't you think? You don't quote "Romeo or Juliet Bridge" or the snipers who shot civilians standing in line for water?
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/12/pdf/201204-sps-mine-clearance.pdf

Snipers don't pretend to be the beacons of democracy or to minimize civilian suffering. The US does. Out of two killers, I'd prefer the honest one.

Anonymous wrote:
I believe that you are possibly mentally disturbed. If you have not hurt someone already, I believe that you should seek mental help and counseling.

Yawn, DCUM is full of virtual diagnosticians and you all sing the same tune. Be different, recommend cyanide for variety's sake!

Ma’am, this is a Ukraine thread.

Anonymous wrote:
On the contrary. You're making stuff up trying to shore up your weak and feeble point. The US and Iraq were in a military conflict. My argument is that the US military does indeed neutralize it's targets; with as minimal civilian casualties as possible.

But the war was illegal and unjustified, remember? Iraq never attacked the US or did it any harm. Iraq and the US were NOT in a military conflict, the US decided to invade and attack the country, and here you are arguing it's a good thing somehow. The Iraqi soldiers it killed were innocent. The US always says this bit about "minimal civilian casualties" but then it's like let's go practice drones on weddings. The US sees resistance to invasions and occupations as criminal because it's "leadership" must not be questioned.

Anonymous wrote:
Again, your desperation to assign labels gives away your emotions and animosity. Your opinion is noted. Irrelevant, but noted.

Do you disagree that support for the invasion was near universal across the aisle? That the mainstream "liberal" media supported the war? Do you really need the list of links from, say, MSNBC?

Anonymous wrote:
Sadly, you do not acknowledge the NATO led de-mining operation in Bosnia? Or the fact the mines were used to stop the Serbians from committing genocide? Quite a myopic and one-sided argument, don't you think? You don't quote "Romeo or Juliet Bridge" or the snipers who shot civilians standing in line for water?
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/12/pdf/201204-sps-mine-clearance.pdf

Snipers don't pretend to be the beacons of democracy or to minimize civilian suffering. The US does. Out of two killers, I'd prefer the honest one.

Anonymous wrote:
I believe that you are possibly mentally disturbed. If you have not hurt someone already, I believe that you should seek mental help and counseling.

Yawn, DCUM is full of virtual diagnosticians and you all sing the same tune. Be different, recommend cyanide for variety's sake!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poland announced its increasing artillery munition production by several hundred percent, with most of it going to Ukraine:

Russians: get out of Ukraine now, while you still can.

Eh; most western countries have pivoted to a war time production posture.

Lockheed went from 1 javelin a month to 30; general dynamics is gearing up to go from 15 tanks a year to 300….the industrial base takes a while to heat the fires under but in 12 month the US could be at 50% there; Europe could be there in 9 months if they need to be with lower tech weapons.

Russia has already gone to full war tine production. Unfortunately they are using it up as quick as they make it.

Anonymous wrote:Poland announced its increasing artillery munition production by several hundred percent, with most of it going to Ukraine:

Russians: get out of Ukraine now, while you still can.

Eh; most western countries have pivoted to a war time production posture.

Lockheed went from 1 javelin a month to 30; general dynamics is gearing up to go from 15 tanks a year to 300….the industrial base takes a while to heat the fires under but in 12 month the US could be at 50% there; Europe could be there in 9 months if they need to be with lower tech weapons.