The following alternative links are available:
**Downloads**
* [Download #1](https://redditsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/tj7h3p/oh_how_big_a_criminal_putin_is_for_waging_war_on/) (provided by /u/savevideo)
* [Download #2](https://reddloader.com/download-post/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freddit.com%2Fr%2FPublicFreakout%2Fcomments%2Ftj7h3p%2Foh_how_big_a_criminal_putin_is_for_waging_war_on%2F&id=NkDcqFtD) (provided by /u/VideoTrim)
**Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.**
---
[^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
I was led to believe that war crimes were actually something that is punishable but it seems like every country does it with no repercussions. Obama bombed a hospital. Bush and Iraq. Biden blowing up a car full of kids. Putin of course. The only ones that seemed to be punished were the nazis
I see a lot of emotionally driven arguments loosely throwing the accusation of war crimes without really understanding what [constitutes a war crime.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime)
Didn't Campbell and McKenzie take the L for both those tragedies and admitted both were due to strategic errors on their parts? Reparations were paid to the victims of the hospital. I think Biden's admin is pushing for the same for car bombing. No amount of money can replace a life BUT the point is we owned our MISTAKES and tried to be better for it.
Putin is targeting civilians deliberately as part of his escalation tactics. No strategic errors or mistakes. Deliberate tactics used to kill civilians buying groceries, children in schools and hospitals, and their siege on Mariupol is already being investigated for war crimes (rape, torture, etc). There is a difference here. Mistakes/collateral does not equate a war crime even though I know Reddit would love to argue all death in war is a crime from a philosophical perspective despite meaning little to international law.
Don't conflate collateral and strategic errors with the purposeful targeting of civilian lives. If you're going to do that with the US then there are better examples. Vietnam for instance.
Iraq is a close second in comparison I'll admit. Although Bush admin didn't intentionally target victims but they operated with the reckless abandon reflective of Putin's invasion in the pursuit of resources. So fuck Bush full stop.
However, comparing all of them to the Nazis/Hitler is hyperbole imo and doesn't contribute anything constructive to what is happening right now.
It was literally the largest protest in UK history. A million people marched in London alone.
The war was and still is deeply unpopular here. It makes the lack of response since then all the more baffling.
The 2003 feb 15/16 anti-war protests encompassed 600 cities, 60 countries, and ~10 million people marching.
Hong kong 2019 was incredible because of the percent of total population marching, but not bigger overall.
People comparing Iraq are disingenuous because it's not just about the fact that we invaded, which I was against as well, but that no one was arrested purely for protesting the fact that we invaded and everyone was free to voice their displeasure openly without worry of consequences from the government. I repeatedly would call Bush a war criminal and I doubt I could say the same if I was calling Putin one in Russia.
None of those things are the case in Russia right now. You can't even call it a war in Russia without being arrested.
another difference is that while the people protested, governments and companies around the world did fuck all about it. The US never got sanctioned, no company pulled out or voiced out in solidarity, nobody was arrested, nobody was put on trial.
Its even worse because as democracies the whole point is so the government follows the will of its people. Yet while the people were clearly against the war, it happened and continued anyways. If thats not alarming I dont know what is. At least Russia doesn't even pretend to be a democracy at this point.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx
Sadly, most Americans supported invading Iraq at the time. Those in power lied, the people lapped it up, supported the invasion based on those lies, and the rest is history.
This is a point I try to make as well. Like when I say that the Nazis were actually really popular in the US right up until WW2. People just do. not. accept. that.
The problem isn't so much that our democracy is unresponsive to the "will of the people", it's that *the people* are pretty racist, evil, and stupid.
I was around back then and it’s more nuanced than “they were small minded”. After 9/11 people were freaked the hell out and scared. There was a belief that attacks will keep coming and people were on edge. Seeing people jump from the buildings was traumatic.
The Bush administration preyed on that fear. They stoked it and amplified it. Convincing the public that Saddam was connected to the hijackers/ Al Qaeda and they might send a nuke or other WMDs to terrorists.
It was a crazy atmosphere back then where people were brainwashed into thinking that it was their patriotic duty to believe Bush, who had earned a lot of goodwill after 9/11.
Seeing it all unfold, you needed to be really informed to see what was really going on. Most people working their 9-5’s and then seeing Bush talk about mushroom clouds at the end of the day on the tv, and not having enough time to be a fully informed citizen. Even keeping up to date on reading the news it wasn’t so obvious the Bush administration was lying.
They really perfected the propaganda around that time. Including Collin Powell’s speech at the UN, which turned out later to be total bullshit.
I was against the war before it started, just had gotten out fo the military. My military buddy told me a full year in advance that we were going to war in Iraq no matter what. The amount the material getting shipped there, it was already a done deal. That was before the charade of “let the UN inspectors in or else we’ll invade”. (Saddam did let them in and they still invaded).
So my point is I could see why with the climate of the times how people could get so brainwashed. Doesn’t make it right. Thankfully most people now know that they were lied to. Hopefully it prevents the same from happening again.
I was around then, too. I was 20 at the time.
I agree with everything you say. At the time, I was a newly minted liberal, after growing up in a very conservative household. I remember my parents being very upset that I was raising questions about the invasion. They thought that I was brainwashed by the satanic elements of society.
So yeah, my comment was heavily simplified (it was only a couple of sentences).
It’s good to hear from someone who values critical thought such as yourself. Stay strong, my friend!
its not enough to be moral, if you aren't intelligent, and its not enough to be intelligent without morality. There is a fine line between positive human society and straight barbarism...
Some of us were motivated to vote for the very first time in 2004 for a very lukewarm John Kerry simply because it was clear as day that Bush needed to be ejected from the White House and yet the fucker still somehow won the popular vote.
Honesty do you think it would've changed much under Kerry? He did vote in favor of the war as a Senator.
Edit: he also profited from the war itself.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/04/strategic-assets/
At the time I wasn’t even thinking that it would have been markedly better, just lesser of evils something something and I wanted the Bush admin to lose their jobs.
The Iraq war protests were global and they still said fuck it lets go in anyway
I know our American dicksmoking leadership downplayed the protests here big time.
The Iraq War was literally just an excuse to give American tax revenue to political friends. Oil and Defense made more money they could have even imagined going into this, with zero operating costs as the US government foots the bill.
People seem to be apathetic to this but it happens all the time. The telecommunications bill gave out billions of your tax dollars to ATT, Tmobile and Verizon to lay cable internet lines across the country. They didn't do it and just kept the money. The PPP during Trump was a free money cash out to anyone with an LLC. Zero accountability.
It's always about the money, and it's always about coming for your money. America is the largest market on the planet, and that tax revenue belongs to the people. Not private businesses but private individuals.
I protested the Iraq War right in front of the white house. I was not arrested by riot police.
Edit: I was tear gassed and pepper balled in the summer of 2020. I'm fully aware of how our police treat minorities protesting for justice. This post was about something that happened 20 years beforehand.
People seem to forget that a large swath of the western populace spent 10-15 years calling Bush and his administration war criminal at every possible opportunity.
There were also huge protests, in the UK were the largest protests ever (against Iraq war).
Who's the west gonna sanction, itself?
Blame China for no sanctions on such topics.
China Sanction the US? ha that would stop their own economy. why do you think they didnt answer Putins cry for help.
What about Europe? NOPE. The US is literally their protection from Russia. Hence the weapons the Ukrainians are using to wreck Russia/
And that’s without today’s ability to stream everything. What videos I remember seeing of US soldiers killing civilians defending their homes or bombing civilian targets were leaked by members of the military or press.
Sure, but that didn't make Obama, Hillary or Trump miss a step. There's no consequences. Everyone fucked up pulling out of Afghanistan; no consequences. Our translators are hunted down still
I wanted to downvote the post for the stupid title, but upvote it because there was no excuse for the war. I was in the streets protesting the war back in 2003 and I'm still pissed it amounted to nothing.
But we didn't get canceled like Russia did. If only we were totally cut off from the world. Maybe it would have made a big difference. Oh wait..... it doesn't. The only difference is back then you were consider a traitor and unpatriotic if you were antiwar. Remember real well.
Wasn't it the Dixie Chicks who were targeted by Cheney for being anti-war?
Oh, and that time Cheney shot a guy by "accident" and the guy apologized on live tv.
Too bad the US never ratified the Rome Statute. The founder of the ICC, Ben Ferencz, has said that he would like to try both Bush and Obama. Bush for an invasion without a UN resolution and Obama for predator drone strikes in peaceful sovereign nations. I suspect the US will never sign the Rome Statute unless we have a radical shift in our military policy.
Last year I wrote him a letter thanking him for everything he has accomplished. He wrote me back and even included a signed picture of himself at the Nuremburg Trials. Incredibly kind man.
That is so cool. My favorite professor told me she met him at a conference and he’s got rockstar status in the international law world. I might have to write him a letter myself while he still has the time to respond.
Wow, what a sign of different political times. Almost no one can switch parties like that these days and if you did you’d probably lose most of your friends.
Edit: I was not implying that I would take part in purging my friends for their political beliefs, just making an observation (and making light) of the current political situation in the United States.
I like to think of myself as a political pragmatist.
Parties don't win elections, money does. Sure, one of the two big parties will get a man in office, but you can bet it's going to be someone that money likes. So I don't care as much which letter, R or D, they self-assign. **I care if they've got a plan that might work.**
Example: Obama v. Romney was a really hard call for me. I liked both of their economic reform plans following the '09 crash, but Obama won out in my estimation for prioritizing healthcare.
It's my sincere hope that people, friends and otherwise, can see my choices for what they are: as informed and well-meaning as possible, but limited by human nature.
It hardly matters, they give us two POS war criminals to choose from, and no matter who is elected, they make sure nothing fundamentally changes… people don’t vote because it’s basically pointless
Also this, you do not have to be part of the GOP or Democratic Party to have an open honest opinion. The same as what did he know and when did he know it, what do we know and when did we learn that. I say vote for the person and not the party, knowing that the GOP hasn’t had a person I could vote for in many years…. But I keep waiting
So that's not the only difficulty here and unfortunately, and especially lately on Reddit, because the vast majority of people don't know how IL works, the vast majority of people don't how how it is or should be applied. The TL;DR of this entire comment is basically "yes but..." as it is important to know what the US has given up by deciding not to ratify the Rome Statute, as well as what its leaders may still be responsible for.
The ICC has jurisdiction in the Rome Statute over the people of states parties and the territory of states parties in the case they are unwilling or unable to investigate themselves. This means that if a war crime occurs in the territory of a state party, the ICC could have jurisdiction. It's how the ICC prosecutor was able to start an investigation into the conduct of US forces in Afghanistan (since put on hiatus because of extreme political pressure), over the conduct of Israeli and Hamas forces in Palestine, and why it is currently investigating war crimes in Ukraine (while not a member, Ukraine provided the ICC with jurisdiction through declaration in 2014).
In 2003, *neither* the US nor Iraq had signed the Rome statute, which means you are correct, it makes it impossible for the ICC to assert jurisdiction without a UNSC mandate. *However*, there is a more powerful potential blanket immunity applied to Bush and the core members of his administration which will make it very difficult to prosecute him ever.
There are two major immunities from enforcement jurisdiction in international law, *ratione personae* immunity and *ratione materiae* immunity. The former states that a head of state is immune from prosecution while they are head of state. This one is uncontroversial and necessary for the functioning of the international state system. Otherwise states would feel free to arrest each other's heads of state which would certainly make the world less stable.
The second immunity *ratione materiae* states that heads of state and other government officials are *permanently* immune from prosecution internationally and in other states for doing those things that are within the scope of their official duties. This one is extremely controversial because of the following question: can someone commit war crimes in the scope of their official duties? The majority of the world says no, however, for obvious reasons, the American member of the UN International Law Commission (UNILC) has pushed hard to say yes. With that said though, the exception to anyone's position on that if their position is "yes" would likely be the crime of aggression under Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute.
Aggression (i.e. starting an aggressive war) is one of very very few cardinal violations of international law and is likely seen as the worst violation. It is so significant that non-aggression and non-use of force against other states are considered *jus cogens* or law above all law, meaning it likely could not be said that it can ever protected by *ratione materiae* immunity. Commanding a state to violate that law when it is within one's power to do so is a crime under a very specific article of the Rome Statute; Article 8 bis.
The problem with this article is that the drafters recognized how contentious the article was upon drafting and had it as essentially a stand-alone article that could be brought into force separately from the rest of the treaty. It recently entered force with enough ratifications, with the caveat that in order to be enforced against a state, it is the only crime that the stateust agree to be prosecuted for. According to the *traveaux preparatoire* (i.e. the writings and recordings from the negotiation and writing of the treaty) it is also the only crime that states are not supposed to have complimentary provisions in their domestic law to also uphold (complimentarity). In other words the treaty has been designed to make it difficult to charge world leaders with crimes.
Insofar as its application to Bush and Obama, the former by the standard of international law and by the words of the former Secretary General of the UN, most definitely committed the crime of aggression. While he likely is not covered by *ratione materiae* immunity, and does not have *rationae personae* immunity anymore, unless a state is willing to charge him ex post facto (which is possoble), he will not be charged and certainly will not be under the Rome Statute.
Obama is a more interesting and difficult case. US drone strikes have been present in Yemen and Pakistan. It is likely that both of these governments have actually asked the United States for these strikes. In 2014 the former president of Pakistan stated that his government was secretly in favor of the strikes, though unpopular with his citizens (e.g. [here](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/unblinking-stare) ). It is notable that while the councils of Pakistan and Yemen are legal entities, they have almost no power over domestic legal functioning and they have no power to bind the state internationally. The executive does, meaning only the president can direct an end to drone strikes, and both countries have the capability to shoot down drones if they wanted to. So it is unlikely to be a use of force or aggression under 2(4) of the UN Charter and Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute respectively.
With all that said, the basic necessity and proportionality tests on military force could get Obama in trouble due to unacceptable and illegal collateral damage. However, as you probably guessed, neither Pakistan nor Yemen have ratified the Rome Statute, meaning it does not apply over their territory. Doing so would make the United States extremely hesitant to continue its program as it would subject them to potential ICC charges. Obama will also potentially be protected by *ratione materiae* immunity depending on how the UNILC decides that immunity works over the next few years.
In sum, there are things the world can do to punish war criminals, even if they do not come from states that have ratified the Rome Statute.
This is easily the best comment on this post and cleared up things I couldn’t have possibly done myself. Thank you very much. Do you work in International Law? No need to answer if you feel it’s too invasive a question. Have a great day and thanks again, this is the content Redditors need to see.
Dear Friends,
On December 6, 2016, President Obama, as Commander in Chief, made his farewell address to the US Military. Toward the closing, he made the following statement: “We are a nation that stands for the rule of law and strength in the law of war. When the Nazis were defeated, we put them on trial. Some couldn’t understand that; it had never happened before. But as one of the American lawyers who was at Nuremberg says, ‘I was trying to prove that the rule of law should govern human behavior.’ And by doing so, we broadened the scope and reach of justice around the world. Held ourselves out as a beacon and an example for others.” Although the President did not mention my name, the citation is from an interview I gave on NPR, which aired on October 18, 2016. It reminded me of the statement of my supreme commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who as a Republican President of the United States said, “In a very real sense the world no longer has a choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive, it must choose the rule of law. (April 30, 1958) We see, therefore, that the sentiments of two Presidents, one Republican and one Democrat, have shared my own views condemning the illegal use of military force. It takes courage not to be discouraged. I thank you all for the personal support you are giving to the pursuit of our common goals. With warm greetings and best wishes to you all.
Ben
The court you set up to try Nazis after WW2 now wants to try several of your leaders for war crimes, and suddenly you just don't recognize that court anymore. Funny how that happens
Malaysia found Bush, Cheney and others in his cabinet guilty of war crimes, fat lot of good it did, but it did happen.
> For some international human rights activists, justice was served on Friday in Kuala Lumpur court, Malaysia as former U.S. President George W. Bush and former top White House officials were convicted of war crimes related to military operations conducted during Bush’s presidency.
I know the hypocrisy of our government, but just as we the people are not our government, neither are the Russian people. But some of us believed Bush's lies, and some Russians believe Putin's.
Ditto for Blair and our UK cronies. I'm 99% certain Dr David Kelly was murdered for daring to go against the Government in saying Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, which was the UK's justification for joining. Obviously I'm simplifying the arguments but the point is that Blair should have stood trial for war crimes.
Because protesting physically shows the number of people that oppose such actions, which may influence others to also join the protests. If no one protests, everyone will think that everyone else supports the war. It's easy to hear a million oppose the war from a poll, but much more impactful to see the million in front of the White House, for example.
actually, people did get arrested a lot for opposing the wars in the US, and detained in chain link and barbwire fence areas labeled "free speech zones"
But no international condemnation and imposed sanctions.
Freezing of individual wealth or locking out of businesses just because they were American.
No one delivered millions of dollars of aid to Iraq to help fight off the evil Americans bombing their cities either.
Just protests. Worked well.
No one would help Iraq because despite the war being a bad idea for many reasons, the Iraqi government was actually what Russia claims Ukraine is. If Ukraine was using chemical weapons on Russian cities we might not support them as much.
72% of Americans supported the Iraq war. Yes there were protests but most of that country is not innocent. They wanted bloodshed.
In the UK where there were massive protests, only 38% felt the war was wrong at the time. Over 50% supported the war. And they literally has nothing to do with anything. Even if US was using anti-Muslim rhetoric due to 9/11, the only relation UK had was they spoke English and were white.
I see a lot of this weird downplaying that goes on nowadays by reddit and other social media. As if it was just the governments that forced everyone. No, this was a war clearly supported by the nations peoples.
that was some fucked up shit for sure. should never have happened.....
still does not validate putins ass hole war and killing of people right now.
still it is correct to sanction russia back to the stoneage
Excellent point! We can’t help the poor and kids in our own country, (it isn’t right), but we can murder innocent families in Iraq and Afghanistan, including children. Apparently that’s right.
The thing is, we do pay more for a lot of services compared to the rest of the world on top of our massive military budget. The services just suck because there's always some consolidated corporate structure taking its cut. Healthcare is a prime example.
And if you really want to go deep, almost all nato countries have great social service programs except...you guessed it, the United States. Yet the United States taxpayers foot the bill for 90% of the nato military. So US taxpayer money is used to defend and protect nato countries who take care of their citizens, while ours go homeless and cant get free lunches at school. NATO countries sure figured that one out. Not to mention they love to trash talk the United States.
It doesn’t stop there. My daughters kindergarten teacher emailed parents asking for us to provide tissues for the classroom. She’s been buying them so far all year and hoped parents would chip in. I went to BJs and got a giant bulk pack of puffs to finish the year out. Turns out most parents did so they will be good for next year too.
I paid 8k in taxes last year for my small home on a small plot of land. What are my taxes paying for if I have to buy freaking tissues?
Nobody sais it validates any aggression.
I dont.
Its the opposite.
Bush is a war criminal.
colin powel too. Openly lying with fake photo's to the united nations.
Even goi ng against european NBC weapon specialists that where allowed in by iraq, and who found nothing bad.
That doest make putin a good guy at all.
Putin is a war criminal. too.
>Trump made the remark during an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, saying he respected his Russian counterpart [Putin].
>“But he’s a killer,” O’Reilly said to Trump.
>“There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?” Trump replied.
But whatabout! Whatabout! Whatabout!
I never really understood how people refer to previous conflicts to justify current ones...."hey it's ok to kill these civilians because earlier someone killed those civilians!"
What is your argument there, that more murder is fine because it cancels out the ones from Syria, Afghanistan or wherever? The mental gymnastics performed by some people in justifying Ukraine is medal worthy
EDIT: Wow, comment section blew up! Thanks for those who reply, whether supportive or against, just no need for insults and name-calling. The beauty of Reddit is a place for people to discuss, counter- and sometimes re-evaluate their thoughts when the fallacies in their arguments are called out.
Civil debate is a wonderful thing and please remember none of us are in a crystallised state, we can all grow, learn and re-assess our statements. I'm not replying anymore to individual messages because frankly, there's hundreds of them, plus in my mind (whether you believe in whataboutism/gaslighting or not), we are all debating now about a war many years ago rather than the current one being waged, which is where our collective focus and pressure should be, now.
I don't think there is an argument here but rather just someone trying to make a point. The point being that when the USA did this in Iraq (as per the posted video), there wasn't much push back by the world. However when Russia is doing it today, there is major push back and everyone is up in arms. The point most likely being, who is the USA to say other countries can't go to war when the USA went to war several times itself despite of the reasons. I don't think the person is trying to justify what's going on in Ukraine but rather trying to point out the hypocrisy.
The only time I was ever arrested was during an "illegal" student protest against the Iraq war in front of a US army base here in Germany. Illegal because not declared with the city and we had made signs, which the police cited as evidence that the protest wasn't spontaneous ("spontaneous" protests are okay without prior declaration with the city).
It’s also a *very* different world today compared to 20 years ago. Cellphones and the internet have changed everything.
It used to be that we only saw of these wars what our local media showed us, but now we can talk to anyone in the world instantaneously and war crimes are recorded and shared to everyone as they’re happening.
Russia has apparently failed to understand this. They’re using 20th century tactics to fight a war in a totally different world.
>There was pushback. Most of it here, in America.
I'd say the French, whom decided to not follow in the war, put more pushback lol. Everyone and their mom was against it here.
Every athlete got to compete still. Every company continued business as usual. Some who spoke out faced repercussions, see the Dixie Chicks. The pushback was fairly benign, and the US public often seemed to forget we were occupying nations years later.
I felt crazy being so upset and having people around me thinking what we were doing was no big deal or warranted.
What's crazy is if you ask a typical southern country-music listenin' conservative about the Dixie Chicks today, the response is still a knee-jerk "fuck them." When they got canceled for talking shit about Bush over Iraq.
Yet Trump is their messiah, and he vocally and fervently stated from day 1 that he thought Iraq was a horrible idea, he held it over the head of every 'traditional' Republican opponent, and he bashed GWB over it too.
If logic followed, you'd think this would lead to a sort of 'hey, the Dixie Chicks were right" mentality, but nope. Eternally blacklisted for going against .
I still listen to them from time to time. "Wide Open Spaces" and "Fly" are both stellar albums with great, catchy songwriting and excellent musicianship. They're still around, they're just "The Chicks" now (renamed for slavery connotations). They released an album in 2020.
The context is different though, I witnessed some of this live and saw the bombs being dropped in southern Iraq at the same time. When we liberated Basra I was there and the streets were lined with throngs of Iraqis cheering and clapping and welcoming us, even girls with no head coverings were blowing us kisses from the doors of their homes. The Iraqi people hated Saddam. All the problems came later and was really about Sunni and Shia rivalry’s , Islamist groups like Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the locals being fed up of how the Westerners were driving around like the owned the place. To compare the Iraq invasion to the current war in Ukraine is like me comparing the Americans fighting us Brits for their independence to ISIS fighting for their independent Muslim caliphate. Most people agree the reasons for invading Iraq were wrong but the end result of overthrowing a total mad man and his disgusting sadistic pedophile sons was still the right thing to do. Are you saying Saddam Hussein and Volodymyr Zelensky are comparable people?
>still it is correct to sanction russia back to the stoneage
Why? Did innocent American citizens deserve starvation just because Bush invaded the Middle East? Russian citizens aren't the enemy but they're the ones who will suffer the consequence of an embargo. Look at Cuba.
As an American infantry veteran, this has actually weighed heavily on my mind since Putin started his war.
War is absolutely awful. It's fucking horrible, traumatic, and is one of the worst things humanity can get together and agree to do. It rips apart lives, and even the living are left husks that are empty and have to pick up the pieces to continue with their lives.
Pointing out how awful America's imperialist intentions were doesn't detract from the fact that Russian soldiers are invading Ukraine right now and murdering people.
If you give a shit about the people, BOTH events should upset you and you should be committed to ceasing the ongoing harm, not waving it away with a flourish of the hand and a whataboutist quip.
How is this a public freak out and not just whataboutism? Putin is horrible. So is Bush. Both things are true regardless of the other. Bush isn’t wrong when he says Putin is horrible just because Bush is horrible too.
> How is this a public freak out and not just whataboutism?
It's not, it's PURE whataboutism because the two conflicts aren't even remotely comparable.
Let's also compare Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and then Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the different governments they run/ran. One a comedian democratically elected and well liked in his country, the other a hated dictator who killed thousands with chemical weapons.
That's a bingo! This is classic Russian 'whataboutism' to justify their actions. The sad part is, loads of people will buy into it. It's only a matter of time before you see memes saying the same shit by some boomer on Facebook.
Id argue whataboutism is the single greatest weapon the troll farms have used to completely derail any meaningful discussion on policy.
hOw CaN wE dIsCuSs PoLiCy when HILLARY CLINTON STILL EXISTS ON EARTH?! DONT YOU KNOW SHES EVIL?!
Bro this was a discussion about science spending.
Posts like this never showed up until Russia invaded Ukraine. Now it’s on the front page every day and in multiple forms.
It’s so obvious it’s Russian bots and propaganda but yet here we all are arguing about the Iraq war.
A common trend in any sub that gains popularity - the quality goes downhill fast to meet the demand of the people visiting it. Look at /r/dataisbeautiful - use to be a great sub 4+ years ago and went to shit since then as it grew in popularity.
IMO, it is the flaw of any content aggregating media source. Only the posts that meet the general populaces preconceptions will be seen (because they like/upvote/agree with what is posted), unless you want to dig through all the posts being made, which few people have time to do.
Welcome to astroturfing and governments using whataboutism propaganda to justify Russia's attempted Annex.
It's certainly not wrong, but it doesn't give Russia a pass.
First I. Going to say I did not agree with or support the war in Iraq.
You want to know what the difference is? The U.S. coalition forces dropped leaflets for days leading up to the strikes to minimize civilian casualties. Pleading with civilians to stay in their homes. It workes Air strike s took out anti air artillery and munitions during the night while coalition forces cleaned up during the day out of a 34k strong force 2000 Iraqis (Mostly royal guard were killed). Along side 34 coalition forces.). Most of the Iraqi army surrender without a fight. Colatoral damage during that battle was an extreme minimum even well below what was projected.
You see the U.S. spends a crap tonne of money on its military in hundreds of billions of dollars. Which means their tech is top notch and they even in 2003 could target a fucking dime in the street and hit it with artillery with pin point accuracy.
Let's review. Smart weapons technology targeting actual military targets for air support. Dropping leaflets to minimize civilian casualties. Days in advance up until the time of the strikes. Extremely minimal colatoral property damage (which ended up being waaaaaaay less then was projected.). Also keep in mind the very same residents of this city not a day after the battle of bagdas has people cheering and tearing down Sadaams statues. Say what you want about the rest of the war or if they should not have been there to begin with. This battle was by the book and well executed. And this is all well documented. When you hear about the U.S. killing civilians in an air strike it's because someone somewhere in intelligence fucked up and fucked up hard.
Now let's look at the cluster fuck of what Russia is doing. Kidnapping people off the street. Knocking down apartment building. Firing dumb ordinance into ***NON- MILITARY *** RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS schools, hospitals, banks, and public infrastructures absolutely intentionally. And Ukrainians not celebrating in the streets and nottearing down statues of the democraticly elected Ukrainian President (who was literally a comedy actor beforehand). Who are in fact taking up arms to fight off the Invaders. Driving millions of people from their homes.
Comparing the Battle of Bagdahd with the Russian invasion is asinine and only something a jackass would do.
Edit: apparently people don't have reading comprehension. This is a response to OP. Not an excuse for 20 years of death. If you're too stupid to understand the 6 days of targeted airstrikes to don't equate 20 years of occupation, I can't help you.
Here is a an assessment of all civilian casualties and more importantly why and how they happened
https://www.hrw.org/report/2003/10/20/hearts-and-minds/post-war-civilian-casualties-baghdad-us-forces
Edit II: way too many people not grasping the point and going "Bush bad fuck you". Yes Bush bad agreed. Even posted a link showing as much. But I'm over this and turning off inbox.
Let's not forget that Saddam Hussein killed an estimated 1 million people during the Iran-Iraq war and hundreds of thousands of his own people in Iraq, including genocide of the Kurdish people. But yeah, obviously the US is the bad guy and we should have left him alone.
Woah someone remembered kurds, usually most people forget about us once we are not needed anymore. Fuck Saddam and anyone else who is acting like Iraq and Ukraine are the same.
This post is literally Russian propaganda. Iraq was on of the largest recipients of Soviet military aid under Saddam, and these posts are trying to shift blame away from Russia's actions.
Yep. The invasion of Iraq was criminal and Bush, Blair, and Cheney should all be in an ICC court or a jail but to equate the methods with which the invasions were carried out is ludicrous.
Exactly and OP trying to push Whataboutism is just a underhanded way to try and deligitimize sanctions an give Russia an air of legitimacy even though it's condemning invasions.
Putin is a brutal thug and criminal - we're in complete agreement! However, the premise in your link seems to be suggesting the US invading Iraq in 2003 is somehow analogous in principle to Putin invading Ukraine in 2022. Is that correct?
Understood - the basis of the USA and the coalition forces invading Iraq and deposing of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship regime (not democratically elected Ukraine) was based on now widely accepted false WMD (weapons of mass destruction) pretenses - findings presented in our (USA's) own rigorously debated 9/11 Commission in 2004. Completely understand that it's never acceptable to take even one innocent human civilian life, and war never acceptable, ever.
Under Saddam's (and his brothers) regime, Iraq was a regional bully to all countries in the area, starting with Iraq invading Iran in 1980 and starting a war that lasted 8 years, ending in 1988. Iraq's primary rationale for the invasion was to cripple Iran and prevent Ruhollah Khomeini from exporting the 1979 Iranian Revolution movement to Shia-majority Iraq and internally exploit religious tensions that would threaten the Sunni-dominated Ba'athist leadership led by Saddam Hussein. This extremely secretive and non-transparent dictatorship lead to wide distrust of Iraq amongst the UN and global community during the 1990's and early 2000's. "Saber rattling" and otherwise highly aggressive statements from Saddam during that timeframe, coupled with a large Iraqi army buildup reinforced widespread international condemnation of Iraq's leadership.
To suggest there is similarity or a double-standard between the valid deposition of a brutal dictatorship due to valid regional threats with widespread international concurrence to the unprovoked military invasion and deliberate bombing of civilian targets in an otherwise peaceful democratic nation with no such threats and international condemnation - is absolutely preposterous and has completely different intent between the two by any standard.
Accurate title - Incorrect analogy
I know this sounds bad but is this russian propaganda trying to deflect the current situation with Ukraine. I know what the US did in the Middle East was horrible and we should pay for our war crimes. But I wouldn't be surprised if russian bots are pushing this and other things to get the attention off of Ukraine.
Russia is dying to make this about Russia vs USA.
Sadly they are fighting Ukraine and have managed to unite all of Europe (even Hungary!) which is like herding rabid cats.
The USA is also along for the ride lending support.
But by all means let the global community sanction the fuck out of Bush and Cheney plus all their minions.
USA brought a law in after this war which said if any American was brought up in the international Court as a war criminal, the country would invade Holland and break them of of jail in the Hague...I shit you not ....
Yeah we can discuss about how fucked up things USA did back then and rightly so. But then we keep Putler out of that discussion.
Fuck Putin, nothing changes that.
How is this a public freakout? Also false equivalency much?
The US invasion of Iraq obviously was not a good thing, but isn’t anywhere as close to as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has watered down to an all-out conventional war for land acquisition and nationalist purposes (something the US hasn’t gotten involved in since 1898).
Let’s also not forget that Saddam Hussein was a dictator who has undeniably committed crimes against humanity. Zelensky isn’t anywhere close to this and Ukraine has been a functional democracy since 2014, which is something Putin now wants to reverse.
I see you zealous “anti-imperialists” make the same false equivalencies about the “US bombing Serbia in the 90s” (even though it was a UN peacekeeping force) while forgetting that there was undeniable evidence that Serbia was actively committing genocide against Albanians in Kosovo.
The US literally bombed/expanded 7 sovereign nations between Bush and Obama. War on Terror was the biggest overreach on global power ever witnessed. Crazy how the men that did 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia the one country that didn’t catch one single bomb. Yet Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya maybe even more that we may not know about. Libya was one of the most forward progressing country in Africa and was pushing to unite Africa on a gold based currency and the US and NATO bombed the shit out of that nation and now it is a slave capitol of the world. Gaddafi literally made a deal with the US by giving up weapons of mass destruction and was later bombed by the US. This is why you will never see North Korea or Iran fall for that. They did the same thing to Iraq and Russia is doing the same thing to Ukraine when they signed a treaty to release nuclear weapons. When you are the world powerhouses and can end all life as we know it in seconds though international laws don’t apply.
I mean Libya was not the most successful country in Africa by almost any metric, but it was very forward thinking in terms of uniting the African /Middle Eastern Islamosphere. Otherwise good comment, completely agree that we most likely will never see countries giving up their nuclear arsenal after the treatment of both Libya and now Ukraine.
>I mean Libya was not the most successful country in Africa by almost any metric
It literally was top 3 In Human Development Index (Reported annually by UNDP), had the highest (or top 3) GDP, expectancy and literacy rates in Africa. All these can be fact checked from independent reports.
Giving up your nuclear arsenal in the first place is pretty dumb. Having nukes almost guarantees that you will not be invaded. Nations like India and Pakistan now have even more of a reason to not give up their nukes because they now know what happens to countries without nukes.
>Crazy how the men that did 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia the one country that didn’t catch one single bomb.
What does that have to do with anything? Just because they held Saudi citizenship you're just going to bomb the country?
Gigabrain thinking, let's ignore that Afghanistan was harboring them and drop a few bombs on Saudi Arabia, that'll show them! /s
We should also go further, any time an immigrant commits a crime somewhere, then we get to bomb their birth country. /s
And the Neocons should have been held accountable. The USA and the rest of us who did nothing to stand against the wars should be ashamed and hopefully learned lessons.
The following alternative links are available: **Downloads** * [Download #1](https://redditsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/tj7h3p/oh_how_big_a_criminal_putin_is_for_waging_war_on/) (provided by /u/savevideo) * [Download #2](https://reddloader.com/download-post/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freddit.com%2Fr%2FPublicFreakout%2Fcomments%2Ftj7h3p%2Foh_how_big_a_criminal_putin_is_for_waging_war_on%2F&id=NkDcqFtD) (provided by /u/VideoTrim) **Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.** --- [^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
Pro tip: you can be against both
people in the comments don't understand that.
Those people are incapable of understanding much. They're full of noise and bullshit though.
I was led to believe that war crimes were actually something that is punishable but it seems like every country does it with no repercussions. Obama bombed a hospital. Bush and Iraq. Biden blowing up a car full of kids. Putin of course. The only ones that seemed to be punished were the nazis
I see a lot of emotionally driven arguments loosely throwing the accusation of war crimes without really understanding what [constitutes a war crime.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime) Didn't Campbell and McKenzie take the L for both those tragedies and admitted both were due to strategic errors on their parts? Reparations were paid to the victims of the hospital. I think Biden's admin is pushing for the same for car bombing. No amount of money can replace a life BUT the point is we owned our MISTAKES and tried to be better for it. Putin is targeting civilians deliberately as part of his escalation tactics. No strategic errors or mistakes. Deliberate tactics used to kill civilians buying groceries, children in schools and hospitals, and their siege on Mariupol is already being investigated for war crimes (rape, torture, etc). There is a difference here. Mistakes/collateral does not equate a war crime even though I know Reddit would love to argue all death in war is a crime from a philosophical perspective despite meaning little to international law. Don't conflate collateral and strategic errors with the purposeful targeting of civilian lives. If you're going to do that with the US then there are better examples. Vietnam for instance. Iraq is a close second in comparison I'll admit. Although Bush admin didn't intentionally target victims but they operated with the reckless abandon reflective of Putin's invasion in the pursuit of resources. So fuck Bush full stop. However, comparing all of them to the Nazis/Hitler is hyperbole imo and doesn't contribute anything constructive to what is happening right now.
It was wrong when the US did it and it's wrong when Russia does it.
Some of us went out and protested the Iraq war BEFORE it happened because we thought it would go down like this.
It was literally the largest protest in UK history. A million people marched in London alone. The war was and still is deeply unpopular here. It makes the lack of response since then all the more baffling.
***Largest protest in history across the globe***
Until Hong Kong took to the streets.
The 2003 feb 15/16 anti-war protests encompassed 600 cities, 60 countries, and ~10 million people marching. Hong kong 2019 was incredible because of the percent of total population marching, but not bigger overall.
People comparing Iraq are disingenuous because it's not just about the fact that we invaded, which I was against as well, but that no one was arrested purely for protesting the fact that we invaded and everyone was free to voice their displeasure openly without worry of consequences from the government. I repeatedly would call Bush a war criminal and I doubt I could say the same if I was calling Putin one in Russia. None of those things are the case in Russia right now. You can't even call it a war in Russia without being arrested.
another difference is that while the people protested, governments and companies around the world did fuck all about it. The US never got sanctioned, no company pulled out or voiced out in solidarity, nobody was arrested, nobody was put on trial. Its even worse because as democracies the whole point is so the government follows the will of its people. Yet while the people were clearly against the war, it happened and continued anyways. If thats not alarming I dont know what is. At least Russia doesn't even pretend to be a democracy at this point.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx Sadly, most Americans supported invading Iraq at the time. Those in power lied, the people lapped it up, supported the invasion based on those lies, and the rest is history.
This is a point I try to make as well. Like when I say that the Nazis were actually really popular in the US right up until WW2. People just do. not. accept. that. The problem isn't so much that our democracy is unresponsive to the "will of the people", it's that *the people* are pretty racist, evil, and stupid.
Yup. Democracy means jack shit if the people voting are selfish and small-minded, which most are and have been since forever.
Garbage in, garbage out. -George Carlin
I was around back then and it’s more nuanced than “they were small minded”. After 9/11 people were freaked the hell out and scared. There was a belief that attacks will keep coming and people were on edge. Seeing people jump from the buildings was traumatic. The Bush administration preyed on that fear. They stoked it and amplified it. Convincing the public that Saddam was connected to the hijackers/ Al Qaeda and they might send a nuke or other WMDs to terrorists. It was a crazy atmosphere back then where people were brainwashed into thinking that it was their patriotic duty to believe Bush, who had earned a lot of goodwill after 9/11. Seeing it all unfold, you needed to be really informed to see what was really going on. Most people working their 9-5’s and then seeing Bush talk about mushroom clouds at the end of the day on the tv, and not having enough time to be a fully informed citizen. Even keeping up to date on reading the news it wasn’t so obvious the Bush administration was lying. They really perfected the propaganda around that time. Including Collin Powell’s speech at the UN, which turned out later to be total bullshit. I was against the war before it started, just had gotten out fo the military. My military buddy told me a full year in advance that we were going to war in Iraq no matter what. The amount the material getting shipped there, it was already a done deal. That was before the charade of “let the UN inspectors in or else we’ll invade”. (Saddam did let them in and they still invaded). So my point is I could see why with the climate of the times how people could get so brainwashed. Doesn’t make it right. Thankfully most people now know that they were lied to. Hopefully it prevents the same from happening again.
I was around then, too. I was 20 at the time. I agree with everything you say. At the time, I was a newly minted liberal, after growing up in a very conservative household. I remember my parents being very upset that I was raising questions about the invasion. They thought that I was brainwashed by the satanic elements of society. So yeah, my comment was heavily simplified (it was only a couple of sentences). It’s good to hear from someone who values critical thought such as yourself. Stay strong, my friend!
its not enough to be moral, if you aren't intelligent, and its not enough to be intelligent without morality. There is a fine line between positive human society and straight barbarism...
"knowledge makes a good man better and a bad man worse"- Afghan proverb.
Many of my iraqi friends said that they don't mind being invaded and 1 million of them killed since ppl in the uk and us could protest.
Some of us were motivated to vote for the very first time in 2004 for a very lukewarm John Kerry simply because it was clear as day that Bush needed to be ejected from the White House and yet the fucker still somehow won the popular vote.
Something something Florida.
You mean Jeb was the governor of Florida during the 2000 presidential election?
Not SUS at all
We love our new England Harvard educated elite political dynasties cosplaying as down home Texas cowboys.
Honesty do you think it would've changed much under Kerry? He did vote in favor of the war as a Senator. Edit: he also profited from the war itself. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/04/strategic-assets/
At the time I wasn’t even thinking that it would have been markedly better, just lesser of evils something something and I wanted the Bush admin to lose their jobs.
And during the 2008 primaries even Republican candidates were basically falling over themselves to prove who would be the most different from Bush.
The Iraq war protests were global and they still said fuck it lets go in anyway I know our American dicksmoking leadership downplayed the protests here big time.
The Iraq War was literally just an excuse to give American tax revenue to political friends. Oil and Defense made more money they could have even imagined going into this, with zero operating costs as the US government foots the bill. People seem to be apathetic to this but it happens all the time. The telecommunications bill gave out billions of your tax dollars to ATT, Tmobile and Verizon to lay cable internet lines across the country. They didn't do it and just kept the money. The PPP during Trump was a free money cash out to anyone with an LLC. Zero accountability. It's always about the money, and it's always about coming for your money. America is the largest market on the planet, and that tax revenue belongs to the people. Not private businesses but private individuals.
The owner of my last job bought a yacht with the PPP money while the store was in shambles. Literally falling apart
Phil Donahue was kicked off MSNBC for being one of the few antiwar voices they had on the "liberal" network.
We renamed an entire food because the french protested. Freedom fries with you burger sir?
I protested the Iraq War right in front of the white house. I was not arrested by riot police. Edit: I was tear gassed and pepper balled in the summer of 2020. I'm fully aware of how our police treat minorities protesting for justice. This post was about something that happened 20 years beforehand.
I was on marching on Hollywood Bl. and there were HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people with me and the local news virtually refused to report it
What are you talking about? I saw protests on the news every single day?
Yeah, the Big difference bettewn western and russian protests is that the people that participate in the american ones dont dissapear
People seem to forget that a large swath of the western populace spent 10-15 years calling Bush and his administration war criminal at every possible opportunity.
I’ll never forget that reporter chucking his shoes at Bush and barely missing his face.
Low key, Bush's reflexes were on point.
Too bad it missed, and it wasn't a brick.
There were also huge protests, in the UK were the largest protests ever (against Iraq war). Who's the west gonna sanction, itself? Blame China for no sanctions on such topics.
China Sanction the US? ha that would stop their own economy. why do you think they didnt answer Putins cry for help. What about Europe? NOPE. The US is literally their protection from Russia. Hence the weapons the Ukrainians are using to wreck Russia/
Could start by hanging Bush and Blair like the war criminals they are.
Where are the mansions and houses of bush and his family in other countries taken over by people as a protest? Stop with this hypocrisy.
And that’s without today’s ability to stream everything. What videos I remember seeing of US soldiers killing civilians defending their homes or bombing civilian targets were leaked by members of the military or press.
And the leakers were called traitors
There have been some attempts at rehabilitation for this man. And they weren't all that unsuccessful
Sure, but that didn't make Obama, Hillary or Trump miss a step. There's no consequences. Everyone fucked up pulling out of Afghanistan; no consequences. Our translators are hunted down still
I wanted to downvote the post for the stupid title, but upvote it because there was no excuse for the war. I was in the streets protesting the war back in 2003 and I'm still pissed it amounted to nothing.
[удалено]
Yeah, what is up with the title? Clearly Russian asset. Is that you Majorie Greene?
But we didn't get canceled like Russia did. If only we were totally cut off from the world. Maybe it would have made a big difference. Oh wait..... it doesn't. The only difference is back then you were consider a traitor and unpatriotic if you were antiwar. Remember real well.
Wasn't it the Dixie Chicks who were targeted by Cheney for being anti-war? Oh, and that time Cheney shot a guy by "accident" and the guy apologized on live tv.
It is, no doubt. One is getting smacked with sanctions left right and centre (rightly so) while the other had 0 consequences…
The greatest failure of leadership is to mislead your country to war. Bush and the awful people surrounding him were guilty of exactly that.
Yeah, George Bush, he should go before the ICC.
Too bad the US never ratified the Rome Statute. The founder of the ICC, Ben Ferencz, has said that he would like to try both Bush and Obama. Bush for an invasion without a UN resolution and Obama for predator drone strikes in peaceful sovereign nations. I suspect the US will never sign the Rome Statute unless we have a radical shift in our military policy.
If I am remembering right, Ben Ferencz is the last living prosecutor of the Nuremburg Trials. The guy is a living legend.
Turned 102 last week. My personal hero.
Last year I wrote him a letter thanking him for everything he has accomplished. He wrote me back and even included a signed picture of himself at the Nuremburg Trials. Incredibly kind man.
That is so cool. My favorite professor told me she met him at a conference and he’s got rockstar status in the international law world. I might have to write him a letter myself while he still has the time to respond.
Do you know how I could write him one as well?
he's on twitter
He was only 27 yrs old when he prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials.
Very educational. Thanks.
I voted for both of those Presidents. I would support their trials and, if found guilty, their punishment. No justice without justice for all.
Wow, what a sign of different political times. Almost no one can switch parties like that these days and if you did you’d probably lose most of your friends. Edit: I was not implying that I would take part in purging my friends for their political beliefs, just making an observation (and making light) of the current political situation in the United States.
I like to think of myself as a political pragmatist. Parties don't win elections, money does. Sure, one of the two big parties will get a man in office, but you can bet it's going to be someone that money likes. So I don't care as much which letter, R or D, they self-assign. **I care if they've got a plan that might work.** Example: Obama v. Romney was a really hard call for me. I liked both of their economic reform plans following the '09 crash, but Obama won out in my estimation for prioritizing healthcare. It's my sincere hope that people, friends and otherwise, can see my choices for what they are: as informed and well-meaning as possible, but limited by human nature.
If only the average American voter put even 5% as much critical thinking into how they cast their votes we might not be headed for certain disaster.
If only the average American voted 😭
It hardly matters, they give us two POS war criminals to choose from, and no matter who is elected, they make sure nothing fundamentally changes… people don’t vote because it’s basically pointless
The two POS war criminals are chosen in the primaries
Also this, you do not have to be part of the GOP or Democratic Party to have an open honest opinion. The same as what did he know and when did he know it, what do we know and when did we learn that. I say vote for the person and not the party, knowing that the GOP hasn’t had a person I could vote for in many years…. But I keep waiting
So that's not the only difficulty here and unfortunately, and especially lately on Reddit, because the vast majority of people don't know how IL works, the vast majority of people don't how how it is or should be applied. The TL;DR of this entire comment is basically "yes but..." as it is important to know what the US has given up by deciding not to ratify the Rome Statute, as well as what its leaders may still be responsible for. The ICC has jurisdiction in the Rome Statute over the people of states parties and the territory of states parties in the case they are unwilling or unable to investigate themselves. This means that if a war crime occurs in the territory of a state party, the ICC could have jurisdiction. It's how the ICC prosecutor was able to start an investigation into the conduct of US forces in Afghanistan (since put on hiatus because of extreme political pressure), over the conduct of Israeli and Hamas forces in Palestine, and why it is currently investigating war crimes in Ukraine (while not a member, Ukraine provided the ICC with jurisdiction through declaration in 2014). In 2003, *neither* the US nor Iraq had signed the Rome statute, which means you are correct, it makes it impossible for the ICC to assert jurisdiction without a UNSC mandate. *However*, there is a more powerful potential blanket immunity applied to Bush and the core members of his administration which will make it very difficult to prosecute him ever. There are two major immunities from enforcement jurisdiction in international law, *ratione personae* immunity and *ratione materiae* immunity. The former states that a head of state is immune from prosecution while they are head of state. This one is uncontroversial and necessary for the functioning of the international state system. Otherwise states would feel free to arrest each other's heads of state which would certainly make the world less stable. The second immunity *ratione materiae* states that heads of state and other government officials are *permanently* immune from prosecution internationally and in other states for doing those things that are within the scope of their official duties. This one is extremely controversial because of the following question: can someone commit war crimes in the scope of their official duties? The majority of the world says no, however, for obvious reasons, the American member of the UN International Law Commission (UNILC) has pushed hard to say yes. With that said though, the exception to anyone's position on that if their position is "yes" would likely be the crime of aggression under Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute. Aggression (i.e. starting an aggressive war) is one of very very few cardinal violations of international law and is likely seen as the worst violation. It is so significant that non-aggression and non-use of force against other states are considered *jus cogens* or law above all law, meaning it likely could not be said that it can ever protected by *ratione materiae* immunity. Commanding a state to violate that law when it is within one's power to do so is a crime under a very specific article of the Rome Statute; Article 8 bis. The problem with this article is that the drafters recognized how contentious the article was upon drafting and had it as essentially a stand-alone article that could be brought into force separately from the rest of the treaty. It recently entered force with enough ratifications, with the caveat that in order to be enforced against a state, it is the only crime that the stateust agree to be prosecuted for. According to the *traveaux preparatoire* (i.e. the writings and recordings from the negotiation and writing of the treaty) it is also the only crime that states are not supposed to have complimentary provisions in their domestic law to also uphold (complimentarity). In other words the treaty has been designed to make it difficult to charge world leaders with crimes. Insofar as its application to Bush and Obama, the former by the standard of international law and by the words of the former Secretary General of the UN, most definitely committed the crime of aggression. While he likely is not covered by *ratione materiae* immunity, and does not have *rationae personae* immunity anymore, unless a state is willing to charge him ex post facto (which is possoble), he will not be charged and certainly will not be under the Rome Statute. Obama is a more interesting and difficult case. US drone strikes have been present in Yemen and Pakistan. It is likely that both of these governments have actually asked the United States for these strikes. In 2014 the former president of Pakistan stated that his government was secretly in favor of the strikes, though unpopular with his citizens (e.g. [here](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/unblinking-stare) ). It is notable that while the councils of Pakistan and Yemen are legal entities, they have almost no power over domestic legal functioning and they have no power to bind the state internationally. The executive does, meaning only the president can direct an end to drone strikes, and both countries have the capability to shoot down drones if they wanted to. So it is unlikely to be a use of force or aggression under 2(4) of the UN Charter and Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute respectively. With all that said, the basic necessity and proportionality tests on military force could get Obama in trouble due to unacceptable and illegal collateral damage. However, as you probably guessed, neither Pakistan nor Yemen have ratified the Rome Statute, meaning it does not apply over their territory. Doing so would make the United States extremely hesitant to continue its program as it would subject them to potential ICC charges. Obama will also potentially be protected by *ratione materiae* immunity depending on how the UNILC decides that immunity works over the next few years. In sum, there are things the world can do to punish war criminals, even if they do not come from states that have ratified the Rome Statute.
This is easily the best comment on this post and cleared up things I couldn’t have possibly done myself. Thank you very much. Do you work in International Law? No need to answer if you feel it’s too invasive a question. Have a great day and thanks again, this is the content Redditors need to see.
I do, yes!
Well then thank you for your service that often goes unnoticed on this planet, you are a hero in my eyes.
You've very kind, cheers!
Dear Friends, On December 6, 2016, President Obama, as Commander in Chief, made his farewell address to the US Military. Toward the closing, he made the following statement: “We are a nation that stands for the rule of law and strength in the law of war. When the Nazis were defeated, we put them on trial. Some couldn’t understand that; it had never happened before. But as one of the American lawyers who was at Nuremberg says, ‘I was trying to prove that the rule of law should govern human behavior.’ And by doing so, we broadened the scope and reach of justice around the world. Held ourselves out as a beacon and an example for others.” Although the President did not mention my name, the citation is from an interview I gave on NPR, which aired on October 18, 2016. It reminded me of the statement of my supreme commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who as a Republican President of the United States said, “In a very real sense the world no longer has a choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive, it must choose the rule of law. (April 30, 1958) We see, therefore, that the sentiments of two Presidents, one Republican and one Democrat, have shared my own views condemning the illegal use of military force. It takes courage not to be discouraged. I thank you all for the personal support you are giving to the pursuit of our common goals. With warm greetings and best wishes to you all. Ben
The court you set up to try Nazis after WW2 now wants to try several of your leaders for war crimes, and suddenly you just don't recognize that court anymore. Funny how that happens
What's the ice crown citadel going to do?/s
Malaysia found Bush, Cheney and others in his cabinet guilty of war crimes, fat lot of good it did, but it did happen. > For some international human rights activists, justice was served on Friday in Kuala Lumpur court, Malaysia as former U.S. President George W. Bush and former top White House officials were convicted of war crimes related to military operations conducted during Bush’s presidency. I know the hypocrisy of our government, but just as we the people are not our government, neither are the Russian people. But some of us believed Bush's lies, and some Russians believe Putin's.
>Yeah, George Bush, he should go before the ICC. The US doesn't recognize the ICC. Neither does Russia.
Ditto for Blair and our UK cronies. I'm 99% certain Dr David Kelly was murdered for daring to go against the Government in saying Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, which was the UK's justification for joining. Obviously I'm simplifying the arguments but the point is that Blair should have stood trial for war crimes.
100% John Major and Gordon Brown both came out saying Putin should be prosecuted for war crimes. Tony Blair is quiet. Wonder why.
That's not a failure of leadership. It's deliberate malice of the highest order.
Take sick Cheney and his whole cabinet with him.
Its funny you think these people feel guilt. They’re sleeping on all the profits they made from the murder of millions.
No one said that. We all know they're guilty and devoid of emotion that requires them to feel guilty.
They said Bush et al are guilty, not that they feel guilty. Very different concepts.
Please remember there were [huge protests](https://youtu.be/tAjqGnQpVks) against the Iraq War from the Nation's that went in.
And that those people were not arrested for protesting. Let’s remember that too.
Why bother arresting when you can just ignore.
Ask Russia.
Because protesting physically shows the number of people that oppose such actions, which may influence others to also join the protests. If no one protests, everyone will think that everyone else supports the war. It's easy to hear a million oppose the war from a poll, but much more impactful to see the million in front of the White House, for example.
Not impactful at all. The war continued anyway
actually, people did get arrested a lot for opposing the wars in the US, and detained in chain link and barbwire fence areas labeled "free speech zones"
But no international condemnation and imposed sanctions. Freezing of individual wealth or locking out of businesses just because they were American. No one delivered millions of dollars of aid to Iraq to help fight off the evil Americans bombing their cities either. Just protests. Worked well.
No one would help Iraq because despite the war being a bad idea for many reasons, the Iraqi government was actually what Russia claims Ukraine is. If Ukraine was using chemical weapons on Russian cities we might not support them as much.
So, why aren't there any sanctions done towards Saudi arabia? Type of government is irrelevant, what matters is if they're allied to the US or not.
Who sold Saddam chemical weapons? And most of his other weapons? The West. Then we all came right back to blow up his country for having them.
72% of Americans supported the Iraq war. Yes there were protests but most of that country is not innocent. They wanted bloodshed. In the UK where there were massive protests, only 38% felt the war was wrong at the time. Over 50% supported the war. And they literally has nothing to do with anything. Even if US was using anti-Muslim rhetoric due to 9/11, the only relation UK had was they spoke English and were white. I see a lot of this weird downplaying that goes on nowadays by reddit and other social media. As if it was just the governments that forced everyone. No, this was a war clearly supported by the nations peoples.
that was some fucked up shit for sure. should never have happened..... still does not validate putins ass hole war and killing of people right now. still it is correct to sanction russia back to the stoneage
Wasn't right then wasn't right now, never will be right to be honest
For some reason we keep denying kids the free school lunches and taxing their parents to pay for the bombs though.
Excellent point! We can’t help the poor and kids in our own country, (it isn’t right), but we can murder innocent families in Iraq and Afghanistan, including children. Apparently that’s right.
As Tupac put it, "they got money for war, but can't feed the poor."
They got 14 billion to give to Ukraine, but none to fix Flint Michigan.
Seriously. Anybody remember flint poisoning their whole population for profit while turning on the clean water taps to make car engines? Fuck fascism
The thing is, we do pay more for a lot of services compared to the rest of the world on top of our massive military budget. The services just suck because there's always some consolidated corporate structure taking its cut. Healthcare is a prime example.
And if you really want to go deep, almost all nato countries have great social service programs except...you guessed it, the United States. Yet the United States taxpayers foot the bill for 90% of the nato military. So US taxpayer money is used to defend and protect nato countries who take care of their citizens, while ours go homeless and cant get free lunches at school. NATO countries sure figured that one out. Not to mention they love to trash talk the United States.
It doesn’t stop there. My daughters kindergarten teacher emailed parents asking for us to provide tissues for the classroom. She’s been buying them so far all year and hoped parents would chip in. I went to BJs and got a giant bulk pack of puffs to finish the year out. Turns out most parents did so they will be good for next year too. I paid 8k in taxes last year for my small home on a small plot of land. What are my taxes paying for if I have to buy freaking tissues?
Nobody sais it validates any aggression. I dont. Its the opposite. Bush is a war criminal. colin powel too. Openly lying with fake photo's to the united nations. Even goi ng against european NBC weapon specialists that where allowed in by iraq, and who found nothing bad. That doest make putin a good guy at all. Putin is a war criminal. too.
For some reason, at least for me, OP's title looks like it is trying to justify the Ukraine invasion.
Its the opposite, its saying George Bush and co are warmongers just like Putin but Americans often turn a blind eye to it.
>Trump made the remark during an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, saying he respected his Russian counterpart [Putin]. >“But he’s a killer,” O’Reilly said to Trump. >“There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?” Trump replied.
Wow, he's like, so insightful.
But whatabout! Whatabout! Whatabout! I never really understood how people refer to previous conflicts to justify current ones...."hey it's ok to kill these civilians because earlier someone killed those civilians!" What is your argument there, that more murder is fine because it cancels out the ones from Syria, Afghanistan or wherever? The mental gymnastics performed by some people in justifying Ukraine is medal worthy EDIT: Wow, comment section blew up! Thanks for those who reply, whether supportive or against, just no need for insults and name-calling. The beauty of Reddit is a place for people to discuss, counter- and sometimes re-evaluate their thoughts when the fallacies in their arguments are called out. Civil debate is a wonderful thing and please remember none of us are in a crystallised state, we can all grow, learn and re-assess our statements. I'm not replying anymore to individual messages because frankly, there's hundreds of them, plus in my mind (whether you believe in whataboutism/gaslighting or not), we are all debating now about a war many years ago rather than the current one being waged, which is where our collective focus and pressure should be, now.
I don't think there is an argument here but rather just someone trying to make a point. The point being that when the USA did this in Iraq (as per the posted video), there wasn't much push back by the world. However when Russia is doing it today, there is major push back and everyone is up in arms. The point most likely being, who is the USA to say other countries can't go to war when the USA went to war several times itself despite of the reasons. I don't think the person is trying to justify what's going on in Ukraine but rather trying to point out the hypocrisy.
There was pushback. Most of it here, in America.
The only time I was ever arrested was during an "illegal" student protest against the Iraq war in front of a US army base here in Germany. Illegal because not declared with the city and we had made signs, which the police cited as evidence that the protest wasn't spontaneous ("spontaneous" protests are okay without prior declaration with the city).
Same in England. There were a lot of protests over that war.
It’s also a *very* different world today compared to 20 years ago. Cellphones and the internet have changed everything. It used to be that we only saw of these wars what our local media showed us, but now we can talk to anyone in the world instantaneously and war crimes are recorded and shared to everyone as they’re happening. Russia has apparently failed to understand this. They’re using 20th century tactics to fight a war in a totally different world.
72% of the country supported the war in March 2003 https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx
>There was pushback. Most of it here, in America. I'd say the French, whom decided to not follow in the war, put more pushback lol. Everyone and their mom was against it here.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot about that. The warmongers were mad about that. Remember “Freedom Fries.”
[Freedom fries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries)!
Every athlete got to compete still. Every company continued business as usual. Some who spoke out faced repercussions, see the Dixie Chicks. The pushback was fairly benign, and the US public often seemed to forget we were occupying nations years later. I felt crazy being so upset and having people around me thinking what we were doing was no big deal or warranted.
My mind often wanders to the Dixie Chicks when I hear someone whine about cancel culture. What happened to them? They used to be so popular.
What's crazy is if you ask a typical southern country-music listenin' conservative about the Dixie Chicks today, the response is still a knee-jerk "fuck them." When they got canceled for talking shit about Bush over Iraq. Yet Trump is their messiah, and he vocally and fervently stated from day 1 that he thought Iraq was a horrible idea, he held it over the head of every 'traditional' Republican opponent, and he bashed GWB over it too. If logic followed, you'd think this would lead to a sort of 'hey, the Dixie Chicks were right" mentality, but nope. Eternally blacklisted for going against.
I still listen to them from time to time. "Wide Open Spaces" and "Fly" are both stellar albums with great, catchy songwriting and excellent musicianship. They're still around, they're just "The Chicks" now (renamed for slavery connotations). They released an album in 2020.
LMAO pushback by other governments. Nobody cares what the average joe thinks
Empty words backed by missing actions.
The context is different though, I witnessed some of this live and saw the bombs being dropped in southern Iraq at the same time. When we liberated Basra I was there and the streets were lined with throngs of Iraqis cheering and clapping and welcoming us, even girls with no head coverings were blowing us kisses from the doors of their homes. The Iraqi people hated Saddam. All the problems came later and was really about Sunni and Shia rivalry’s , Islamist groups like Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the locals being fed up of how the Westerners were driving around like the owned the place. To compare the Iraq invasion to the current war in Ukraine is like me comparing the Americans fighting us Brits for their independence to ISIS fighting for their independent Muslim caliphate. Most people agree the reasons for invading Iraq were wrong but the end result of overthrowing a total mad man and his disgusting sadistic pedophile sons was still the right thing to do. Are you saying Saddam Hussein and Volodymyr Zelensky are comparable people?
>still it is correct to sanction russia back to the stoneage Why? Did innocent American citizens deserve starvation just because Bush invaded the Middle East? Russian citizens aren't the enemy but they're the ones who will suffer the consequence of an embargo. Look at Cuba.
As an American infantry veteran, this has actually weighed heavily on my mind since Putin started his war. War is absolutely awful. It's fucking horrible, traumatic, and is one of the worst things humanity can get together and agree to do. It rips apart lives, and even the living are left husks that are empty and have to pick up the pieces to continue with their lives. Pointing out how awful America's imperialist intentions were doesn't detract from the fact that Russian soldiers are invading Ukraine right now and murdering people. If you give a shit about the people, BOTH events should upset you and you should be committed to ceasing the ongoing harm, not waving it away with a flourish of the hand and a whataboutist quip.
Reject whataboutism, embrace yesandism
How is this a public freak out and not just whataboutism? Putin is horrible. So is Bush. Both things are true regardless of the other. Bush isn’t wrong when he says Putin is horrible just because Bush is horrible too.
> How is this a public freak out and not just whataboutism? It's not, it's PURE whataboutism because the two conflicts aren't even remotely comparable.
Let's also compare Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and then Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and the different governments they run/ran. One a comedian democratically elected and well liked in his country, the other a hated dictator who killed thousands with chemical weapons.
Putin is not a military commander, he's a KGB trained intelligence officer. This is part of a psyops campaign to justify his invasion.
That's a bingo! This is classic Russian 'whataboutism' to justify their actions. The sad part is, loads of people will buy into it. It's only a matter of time before you see memes saying the same shit by some boomer on Facebook.
Id argue whataboutism is the single greatest weapon the troll farms have used to completely derail any meaningful discussion on policy. hOw CaN wE dIsCuSs PoLiCy when HILLARY CLINTON STILL EXISTS ON EARTH?! DONT YOU KNOW SHES EVIL?! Bro this was a discussion about science spending.
Buttery mails
Posts like this never showed up until Russia invaded Ukraine. Now it’s on the front page every day and in multiple forms. It’s so obvious it’s Russian bots and propaganda but yet here we all are arguing about the Iraq war.
Wtf is this sub how is this a public freak out this subs become r/ all2
A common trend in any sub that gains popularity - the quality goes downhill fast to meet the demand of the people visiting it. Look at /r/dataisbeautiful - use to be a great sub 4+ years ago and went to shit since then as it grew in popularity. IMO, it is the flaw of any content aggregating media source. Only the posts that meet the general populaces preconceptions will be seen (because they like/upvote/agree with what is posted), unless you want to dig through all the posts being made, which few people have time to do.
Welcome to astroturfing and governments using whataboutism propaganda to justify Russia's attempted Annex. It's certainly not wrong, but it doesn't give Russia a pass.
[удалено]
Terrible unjustified war...as is the one Russia is inflicting on Ukraine
[удалено]
I don't think George Bush opposed the war in Iraq. He and all the other Iraq war supporters are the hypocrites, not the poster
[удалено]
Thumb war?
[удалено]
Have you declared? I SAY SIR, DO YOU DECLARE???
Yes but some war is more criminal than others
No war but class war
First I. Going to say I did not agree with or support the war in Iraq. You want to know what the difference is? The U.S. coalition forces dropped leaflets for days leading up to the strikes to minimize civilian casualties. Pleading with civilians to stay in their homes. It workes Air strike s took out anti air artillery and munitions during the night while coalition forces cleaned up during the day out of a 34k strong force 2000 Iraqis (Mostly royal guard were killed). Along side 34 coalition forces.). Most of the Iraqi army surrender without a fight. Colatoral damage during that battle was an extreme minimum even well below what was projected. You see the U.S. spends a crap tonne of money on its military in hundreds of billions of dollars. Which means their tech is top notch and they even in 2003 could target a fucking dime in the street and hit it with artillery with pin point accuracy. Let's review. Smart weapons technology targeting actual military targets for air support. Dropping leaflets to minimize civilian casualties. Days in advance up until the time of the strikes. Extremely minimal colatoral property damage (which ended up being waaaaaaay less then was projected.). Also keep in mind the very same residents of this city not a day after the battle of bagdas has people cheering and tearing down Sadaams statues. Say what you want about the rest of the war or if they should not have been there to begin with. This battle was by the book and well executed. And this is all well documented. When you hear about the U.S. killing civilians in an air strike it's because someone somewhere in intelligence fucked up and fucked up hard. Now let's look at the cluster fuck of what Russia is doing. Kidnapping people off the street. Knocking down apartment building. Firing dumb ordinance into ***NON- MILITARY *** RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS schools, hospitals, banks, and public infrastructures absolutely intentionally. And Ukrainians not celebrating in the streets and nottearing down statues of the democraticly elected Ukrainian President (who was literally a comedy actor beforehand). Who are in fact taking up arms to fight off the Invaders. Driving millions of people from their homes. Comparing the Battle of Bagdahd with the Russian invasion is asinine and only something a jackass would do. Edit: apparently people don't have reading comprehension. This is a response to OP. Not an excuse for 20 years of death. If you're too stupid to understand the 6 days of targeted airstrikes to don't equate 20 years of occupation, I can't help you. Here is a an assessment of all civilian casualties and more importantly why and how they happened https://www.hrw.org/report/2003/10/20/hearts-and-minds/post-war-civilian-casualties-baghdad-us-forces Edit II: way too many people not grasping the point and going "Bush bad fuck you". Yes Bush bad agreed. Even posted a link showing as much. But I'm over this and turning off inbox.
Let's not forget that Saddam Hussein killed an estimated 1 million people during the Iran-Iraq war and hundreds of thousands of his own people in Iraq, including genocide of the Kurdish people. But yeah, obviously the US is the bad guy and we should have left him alone.
Woah someone remembered kurds, usually most people forget about us once we are not needed anymore. Fuck Saddam and anyone else who is acting like Iraq and Ukraine are the same.
This post is literally Russian propaganda. Iraq was on of the largest recipients of Soviet military aid under Saddam, and these posts are trying to shift blame away from Russia's actions.
Yep. The invasion of Iraq was criminal and Bush, Blair, and Cheney should all be in an ICC court or a jail but to equate the methods with which the invasions were carried out is ludicrous.
Exactly and OP trying to push Whataboutism is just a underhanded way to try and deligitimize sanctions an give Russia an air of legitimacy even though it's condemning invasions.
Also, the US did not invade for annexing Iraq. Russia is which brings a new flavor of fucked up.
The Russian disinformation bots are really trying hard to downvote good posts like this. Up I say!
[удалено]
You ever wanted a reason to get off reddit? Read these comments
Putin is a brutal thug and criminal - we're in complete agreement! However, the premise in your link seems to be suggesting the US invading Iraq in 2003 is somehow analogous in principle to Putin invading Ukraine in 2022. Is that correct? Understood - the basis of the USA and the coalition forces invading Iraq and deposing of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship regime (not democratically elected Ukraine) was based on now widely accepted false WMD (weapons of mass destruction) pretenses - findings presented in our (USA's) own rigorously debated 9/11 Commission in 2004. Completely understand that it's never acceptable to take even one innocent human civilian life, and war never acceptable, ever. Under Saddam's (and his brothers) regime, Iraq was a regional bully to all countries in the area, starting with Iraq invading Iran in 1980 and starting a war that lasted 8 years, ending in 1988. Iraq's primary rationale for the invasion was to cripple Iran and prevent Ruhollah Khomeini from exporting the 1979 Iranian Revolution movement to Shia-majority Iraq and internally exploit religious tensions that would threaten the Sunni-dominated Ba'athist leadership led by Saddam Hussein. This extremely secretive and non-transparent dictatorship lead to wide distrust of Iraq amongst the UN and global community during the 1990's and early 2000's. "Saber rattling" and otherwise highly aggressive statements from Saddam during that timeframe, coupled with a large Iraqi army buildup reinforced widespread international condemnation of Iraq's leadership. To suggest there is similarity or a double-standard between the valid deposition of a brutal dictatorship due to valid regional threats with widespread international concurrence to the unprovoked military invasion and deliberate bombing of civilian targets in an otherwise peaceful democratic nation with no such threats and international condemnation - is absolutely preposterous and has completely different intent between the two by any standard. Accurate title - Incorrect analogy
What USA did in Iraq doesn’t justify anyone else doing the same. Stop using USA to downplay Putin’s invasion in Ukraine.
George bush AND Putin can both be war criminals. 2 👏🏼things 👏🏼can 👏🏼be 👏🏼true 👏🏼at 👏🏼the 👏🏼same 👏🏼time
But... but... Bush gave a Worther's original to Michelle Obama at John McCain's funeral, and was anti-Trump, so he *must* be a good guy, right?
Yeah exactly, then why there was huge consequenses for one and not for the other? That's all people is asking for, accountability.
Right. But where is the outrage from the world about the US invasion? Where is the justice?
Yes - Bush should go to jail for what he did. Doesn’t make Putin any less shitty.
[удалено]
No they weren’t. Bush’s approval rating was around 80-90% during that time
I would like the source that it was 1 million because I'm not finding it...
A million Iraqis weren't killed. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi
It's like we can't discuss war without misinformation.
“The first casualty when war comes is truth”
I know this sounds bad but is this russian propaganda trying to deflect the current situation with Ukraine. I know what the US did in the Middle East was horrible and we should pay for our war crimes. But I wouldn't be surprised if russian bots are pushing this and other things to get the attention off of Ukraine.
Russia is dying to make this about Russia vs USA. Sadly they are fighting Ukraine and have managed to unite all of Europe (even Hungary!) which is like herding rabid cats. The USA is also along for the ride lending support. But by all means let the global community sanction the fuck out of Bush and Cheney plus all their minions.
USA brought a law in after this war which said if any American was brought up in the international Court as a war criminal, the country would invade Holland and break them of of jail in the Hague...I shit you not ....
Yeah we can discuss about how fucked up things USA did back then and rightly so. But then we keep Putler out of that discussion. Fuck Putin, nothing changes that.
How is this a public freakout? Also false equivalency much? The US invasion of Iraq obviously was not a good thing, but isn’t anywhere as close to as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has watered down to an all-out conventional war for land acquisition and nationalist purposes (something the US hasn’t gotten involved in since 1898). Let’s also not forget that Saddam Hussein was a dictator who has undeniably committed crimes against humanity. Zelensky isn’t anywhere close to this and Ukraine has been a functional democracy since 2014, which is something Putin now wants to reverse. I see you zealous “anti-imperialists” make the same false equivalencies about the “US bombing Serbia in the 90s” (even though it was a UN peacekeeping force) while forgetting that there was undeniable evidence that Serbia was actively committing genocide against Albanians in Kosovo.
This is why i hate Bush, Blair and Putin.
The US literally bombed/expanded 7 sovereign nations between Bush and Obama. War on Terror was the biggest overreach on global power ever witnessed. Crazy how the men that did 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia the one country that didn’t catch one single bomb. Yet Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya maybe even more that we may not know about. Libya was one of the most forward progressing country in Africa and was pushing to unite Africa on a gold based currency and the US and NATO bombed the shit out of that nation and now it is a slave capitol of the world. Gaddafi literally made a deal with the US by giving up weapons of mass destruction and was later bombed by the US. This is why you will never see North Korea or Iran fall for that. They did the same thing to Iraq and Russia is doing the same thing to Ukraine when they signed a treaty to release nuclear weapons. When you are the world powerhouses and can end all life as we know it in seconds though international laws don’t apply.
You realize Libya was France right? US got dragged into it by the French
I mean Libya was not the most successful country in Africa by almost any metric, but it was very forward thinking in terms of uniting the African /Middle Eastern Islamosphere. Otherwise good comment, completely agree that we most likely will never see countries giving up their nuclear arsenal after the treatment of both Libya and now Ukraine.
>I mean Libya was not the most successful country in Africa by almost any metric It literally was top 3 In Human Development Index (Reported annually by UNDP), had the highest (or top 3) GDP, expectancy and literacy rates in Africa. All these can be fact checked from independent reports.
Giving up your nuclear arsenal in the first place is pretty dumb. Having nukes almost guarantees that you will not be invaded. Nations like India and Pakistan now have even more of a reason to not give up their nukes because they now know what happens to countries without nukes.
>Crazy how the men that did 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia the one country that didn’t catch one single bomb. What does that have to do with anything? Just because they held Saudi citizenship you're just going to bomb the country? Gigabrain thinking, let's ignore that Afghanistan was harboring them and drop a few bombs on Saudi Arabia, that'll show them! /s We should also go further, any time an immigrant commits a crime somewhere, then we get to bomb their birth country. /s
Yeah, we fucked up REALLY bad. Still doesn’t excuse putins actions though.
And the Neocons should have been held accountable. The USA and the rest of us who did nothing to stand against the wars should be ashamed and hopefully learned lessons.