Just to be clear:
You can reject both, but compared to the invasion of Iraq the justification for the invasion of Ukraine is sound
Even if you ignore the worst US lies, both were justified with “national security” (what else is a military for after all)
Well one is the response to a hostile superpower inciting a nazi-powered coup + civil war on your border with the aim of eventually regime changing you.
And the other one is you being the hegemonic superpower devastating a country on the other side of the planet without any threat at all, on a whim (well imperialism actually)
Ofc both amounted to one country imposing their interests over another, but whose were more justified? What threatens “national security” more? A civil war on the border or peace in some far-away country?
Like I said: Oppose both: ok. But it needs pointing out, that people who justify the invasion of Iraq are categorically more bloodthirsty and warlike than those who justify the invasion if Ukraine.
Ofc I realize you didn’t justify the invasion of Iraq. But you also alluded to the US as a protective power while calling out Russia as belligerent, implying Russia would be more warlike than the West, the most murderous power structure humanity was ever doomed with.
The metaphysical need to isolate things (like the aspect of regime-change in Ukraine/Iraq) isn’t practical in discussions about geopolitics.
It only leads to ridiculously irrelevant discussions, as evidenced…
Your reply was much better than mine could ever be, thanks comrade.
Also yeah, it was a pretty bold move to ask if I’d support the invasion of Iraq, since, just like you pointed out, the circumstances were completely different. Russia invaded Ukraine after warning them (and the West) countless times and it’s in no way a war for Imperialism (or that benefits it). As for the invasion of Iraq, it was the complete opposite: An invasion under no threats for the sake of exporting the empire’s Capital.
Just to be clear: You can reject both, but compared to the invasion of Iraq the justification for the invasion of Ukraine is sound
Even if you ignore the worst US lies, both were justified with “national security” (what else is a military for after all)
Well one is the response to a hostile superpower inciting a nazi-powered coup + civil war on your border with the aim of eventually regime changing you.
And the other one is you being the hegemonic superpower devastating a country on the other side of the planet without any threat at all, on a whim (well imperialism actually)
Ofc both amounted to one country imposing their interests over another, but whose were more justified? What threatens “national security” more? A civil war on the border or peace in some far-away country?
Like I said: Oppose both: ok. But it needs pointing out, that people who justify the invasion of Iraq are categorically more bloodthirsty and warlike than those who justify the invasion if Ukraine.
Ofc I realize you didn’t justify the invasion of Iraq. But you also alluded to the US as a protective power while calling out Russia as belligerent, implying Russia would be more warlike than the West, the most murderous power structure humanity was ever doomed with.
The metaphysical need to isolate things (like the aspect of regime-change in Ukraine/Iraq) isn’t practical in discussions about geopolitics.
It only leads to ridiculously irrelevant discussions, as evidenced…
Your reply was much better than mine could ever be, thanks comrade.
Also yeah, it was a pretty bold move to ask if I’d support the invasion of Iraq, since, just like you pointed out, the circumstances were completely different. Russia invaded Ukraine after warning them (and the West) countless times and it’s in no way a war for Imperialism (or that benefits it). As for the invasion of Iraq, it was the complete opposite: An invasion under no threats for the sake of exporting the empire’s Capital.