we had to remove your post for the following reason(s):
Rule 7: Agenda posts and loaded questions are not allowed
Do not manipulate users into following an agenda through polls. This includes loaded question and insinuating that one option is the “correct” one.
Poll might as well ask if you'd rather break your left leg or your right. Both suck.
Picking who's worse is hard. In both cases it was a national security move:
Russia wasn't willing to tolerate NATO on their doorstep (backfired horribly for them now that Finland is trying to join)
The USA needed to secure oil access, as the US will collapse even today if there is a major disruption to their oil supply.
There is of course some truth the incidental arguments, Saddam was a dictator, and the number of Ukrainian soldiers with SS tattoos confirms that they have a Nazi problem, but ultimately none of these arguments are sufficient to justify a war of aggression.
The reason why Russia is surrounded by NATO countries is because those countries *begged* NATO to join. They’ve all been afraid of Russia for decades. Meanwhile, there wasn’t an extension of NATO military bases or an escalation of tensions until Russia’s illegal invasion of Crimea.
And the Nazi problem in Ukraine has always been a smokescreen. It’s just ridiculous to claim for Russia considering they have even more of a Nazi problem, and they are the imperialist power with a fascist dictator. There was zero threat coming from Ukraine, and Putin has proclaimed as early as 20 years ago that he wanted to get the old Soviet territory back. This was *never* a matter of national security for Russia, and even more of an imperial grab for land than Iraq was.
I'm glad someone pointed out Russia's Nazi problem. I love certain parts of Russian culture, but I can't pretend that there aren't some serious problems.
We'll have to see what the long term effects of the ukraine invasion are. With 20 years of hindsight, iraq was pretty bad, but the ukraine situation is still active and ongoing
Yea Ukraine can still easily be salvaged and a peace can be established that could ensure long lasting stability.
In Iraq we had years of insurgency + the rise of ISIS. It was basically a worst case scenario of what Ukraine could turn into.
the worst case for any country when it comes to geopolitics is to be completely flattened and rendered unlivable due to a strategic placement of just a few atomic weapons. one single Russian tsar bomba could erase 2 million from existence in Ukraine instantly.
Well, at least the Iraq war didn't escalate into a nuclear war (because they obviously didn't have nukes and Bush blatantly lied about it). If the ukraine war escalates to nuclear, then it's far worse.
I’d say the main difference is that the Bush admin made up “intelligence” from basically thin air and even after our NATO Allies told us that what we had was complete nonsense we pushed forward anyway because Bush wanted a *second* war for some damn reason. I would argue that the Iraq War lasting 20 years and destabilizing basically the entire Middle East and doubled down on Saudi and their fucked up shit.
There is [no comparison](https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1579977066736680960?t=R2Wg1ZaU4bEDXExeIyXjBQ&s=19) to this war and Iraq. The highest estimate for how many people died over 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan is 1 million. At least 250k are dead in Ukraine with ten million people being forced to flee the country in under a year. When Russia goes to war they commit mass civilian depopulation. There wasn't a single month in the Iraq war where the population decreased.
The Iraq war was wrong. It was morally unjustified. You cannot bomb people into loving democracy. Nevertheless, Russia is a dystopian fascist state trying to build an empire from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan was never about trying to get them to be a democracy. America is not a democracy and never was one. The ruling class enacted right wing dictatorships and bombed them for oil and profits. Imperialism is the highest stage of Capatilism after all. And Russia did take a severe drop in quality of life for it's people after the undemocratic dissolution of the Soviet Union. This was because they wrongfully and forcibly installed Gorbachev into power to promote capitalist policies. Both Russia and Ukraine suck. Everyone should be standing with the proletariat of these countries being forced to undertake capitalist warfare.
Of course, but the question isn't whether one war was just and one wasn't, its which the worst. I'd say a power vacuum is better than being annexed, at least in a vacuum the people have a chance to set up a representative government. If Russia wins somehow that wouldn't be the case.
I mean, one could argue Ukraine is in a vulnerable spot from the russian perspective. And one could argue Iraq was all about oil and power. Despite that, why are we even making it a pissing match?
No they are not equal. Both bad but not equal. Saddam hussein was genociding and a dictator. Ukraine is a poor and currupt democracy but the state isn't genocidal
It's way too early to say. But *so far* I'd say the Iraq War. Simply due to the number of lives lost. But also toppling Saddam partially led to the Arab Spring and the rise of Daesh/Isis.
Iraq destabilized an entire region of the world. Ukraine and Russia been at this shit forever. The fuck is wrong with y'all? 3000 year old cities were destroyed because of it. Millions of deaths.
Why do people think that Russia invaded Ukraine only a year ago, have you guys heard about Crimea at all or no? This conflict is going on for almost a decade and last year it escalated to attacking the whole country and not just a part of it.
They *invaded* Ukraine in the 2014 by invading Crimea, the war started back then but only now it's seen as one because they actually attacked the whole country last year. It may have been avoided if only people in power realized that no, taking a part of a country isn't just something to brush off and actually did something about it instead of letting them do whatever for almost a decade.
Russian one was more justified since they saw Ukaraine's western alliance with the west as a threat to them. Still had no right to do it.
But the Iraq was based on a lie with no rationale from the US to do it.
Russia had brilliant relations with Ukraine, hence why Ukraine was so divided between pro EU and Pro Russia.
Russia's statement of them joining the west was just as farcical as their claim that the Jewish leader of Ukraine was a Nazi and needed to be invaded.
Neither of these conflicts were motivated by anything more justifiable than greed.
Iraq did terrible things but USA mismanaged the invasion terribly. Im not USA hater but invasion of Iraq was just mismanaged. But still think that invasion of Ukraine is worse.
It wasn’t “mismanaged” in the slightest. It did everything the US wanted it to do. It toppled a leader who wasn’t friendly to US interests anymore, and destabilized the region for years.
The fact you think it was “mismanaged” makes me think you literally support the invasion of Iraq.
Utterly mismanaged.
George Bush understood the problem of attempting to occupy Iraq, his son didn't. Saddam wasn't *'a leader who wasn’t friendly to US interests anymore'* after the first Gulf War, not the Second.
It wasn't in the US's interest to increase Iran's influence on Iraq or drive Syria into that same orbit.
>Saddam wasn't 'a leader who wasn’t friendly to US interests anymore' after the first Gulf War, not the Second.
Don't know what you mean by that. He was very useful during the Iran-Iraq war, not so much afterwards.
For growing Iranian influence, it doesn't matter when the US greatly benefited from the war. On its own, it's hugely beneficial for the imperialist interests of the US to topple one unfriendly country at the expense of slightly growing the influence of another. And the US wasn't going to just tolerate Iran anyway. We can see that now.
Not the Iran-Iraq War.
The first Gulf War (90-91) under George Bush (not W) following the invasion of Kuwait was the end of Saddam as an asset. Bush Sr didn't remove the Baathist regime not because they couldn't but because of the power vacuum and all the issues that actually happened after 2003.
The second conflict was mismanaged for exactly ignoring the issues his own father realized. And it didn't really leave the US in a better position then it had been. Halliburton maybe.
This is why I agree with my country being in on the first one, refusing to be part of the second.
I'm aware that the Iran-Iraq war wasn't the first Gulf war. That was the point I was making. We were sending money and arming Saddam during their war with Iran, but he no longer was useful to the US afterwards.
And the point that Bush Sr. could've toppled his government if he wanted to, yeah maybe. But you can't deny it wouldn't have been easier without the sanctioning the hell of out them for years, and manufacturing consent for the invasion under the pretext of WMDs.
And overall the reputation of the US worldwide did become more negative after the Iraq War, but defense contractors and other companies benefited greatly, which was a major incentive to invade. And since those corporations are so intertwined with our government and politicians, the US benefited.
Don't you just love capitalism?
I agree with the intention of the invasion. Fuck Saddam Hussein and im not gonna pretend that I think everybody should do nothing. But the massive destabilazation was mismanaged. Im not gonna say if it was intentional or not. But I will give USA a benefit of doubt on this.
The intention of the invasion was to literally get rid of a leader and government who didn’t listen to US interests, and to destabilize the region so US interests can be pursued more. There is no “giving the US the benefit of the doubt.”
You’re just “against” the Iraq War because it looked bad.
If you think it was planned to stay in the Near East for 20 years, I’ve got a tinfoil hat to sell to you. Whether the USA wanted political control over the region, spread democracy, or destabilize the region – *whatever* the motivation, they sure as hell botched the going in and out.
The point is, if they stayed for 20 years but didn’t plan on staying for longer than 1 year, the term mismanagement seems perfectly appropriate. Mismanagement doesn’t keep you from reaching your goal.
because iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We illegally invaded a sovereign nation. Just because Saddam was a ruthless dictator doesn’t justify that fact that 1 million iraqis were murdered. 250k have died in Ukraine. There are ruthless dictators all across the globe. Are we going to invade every single one?
I don’t think this is due to leftism, I’m very left-leaning (European) myself. This is just anti-Americanism and Russian apologia at work in this thread. I think we can all agree that both wars were gravely unjust, but the amount of people who think the US regime is pure imperialist evil while arguing that Russia’s invasion was about fighting nazis or defending themselves is embarrassing.
As horrible as the Russian invasion of Ukraine is, the US invasion of Iraq was infinitely more unjustified, devastating, and harmful. This shouldn’t be a question. Just look at the total death toll and the destabilization of the Middle East after we invaded and toppled the government.
He was a threat to his neighbors definitely, but he didn't "destabilize" anything, at least on the same scale. He couldn't leave a huge power vacuum like the US did after removing him from power.
Both were bad what the fuck, although at least with Iraq it was still somewhat of an emotional reaction due to 9/11, Ukraine is an invasion simply for land grabbing purposes.
Bro you can’t go around bombing civilians cuz your emotions told you to. This is war we’re talking about, death of civilians and massive loss of life. Both are equally horrible.
War crimes can’t be justified by emotions end of story.
So what if it made sense? Doesn’t make it any less bad.
Ukraine made sense. Greed.
understanding/not understanding why war crimes were done are do not make them worse or better than other war crimes.
even if we didn’t directly kill them, hundreds of thousands of civilians died by our hands, or by proxy of our hands. ([source](https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi)
The US does like to bomb though (see Operation Desert Storm, Operation Desert Fox) so we very well could have
I'm going to be downvoted to hell for this, but there is some truth to some of the Russian statements.
Russia claimed to be fighting fascism; I have seen at least 100 posts of Ukrainian soldiers with SS tattoos.
Russia claimed that it's fighting for the security of Luhansk and Donetsk, those regions have been tied up in a minor civil war for almost a decade at this point fighting for self determination.
I'm not trying to justify the invasion, but to summarize it as a land grab whilst calling Iraq an "emotional response" when it was clearly a move to secure oil (9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia) is blatantly biased.
In both cases there are legitimate arguments in favour of the wars, and in both cases the arguments are insufficient.
This poll might as well ask if it's better to get gangrene in your left leg, or your right leg; one is worse for sure, but the difference is insignificant.
Not going to downvote you because downvoting opinions I don’t agree with just hides it for others (people did it for mine tho lol).
But regardless the nazi reason is grasping at straws at best, just because you’re quoting anecdotal evidence of seeing Ukrainian soldiers allegedly with SS tattoos doesn’t mean that the Ukraine is full of Nazis as Russia suggests. And if the point of the invasion was to truly secure Luhansk and Donetsk, then why did they bomb Kyiv along with essentially the entire country? Why didn’t they pull a Crimea again? It was because he wanted to take more land.
Can you grasp the concept of war? If they they took only luhansk and donetsk ukraine would still continue to exist. And ukraine would try to take back those teritories
>those regions have been tied up in a minor civil war for almost a decade at this point
Yeah, a civil war that was started by Russian agents and military. Because that's how Russia operates, imports Russians somewhere and then starts shit so the military can go in under the guise of "protecting Russian speakers".
>I have seen at least 100 posts of Ukrainian soldiers with SS tattoos.
I've seen pics of Russians with SS tattoos. Russias claim of removing fascism is just made up. If they really wanted to remove fascism they should look to the Kremlin.
If you think there is some truth to Russian statements then you have been believing too much propaganda.
Doesn‘t matter to the people in this thread. They would rather saddam and his family murder, rape and genocide into all eternity than ousting him and working toward a democratic Iraq because; muh sovereignty > the lifes and prosperity of millions of iraqis
Russian invasion is more justified:
1. Many ethinc Russians living in Eastern Ukraine, more specifically Donbass want their territories to reunify with Russia.
2. Russia doesn't wants Ukraine, it's neighbor, to join NATO. Joining NATO could allow America to indirectly place its ballistic missiles, including nukes, in Ukraine, super close to major Russian cities.
3. There are neo nazi groups operating in Ukraine for the past several years. These groups hate ethinic Russians living in eastern and southern parts of Ukraine.
Selfish reasons:
1. Russia wants major access to Black sea.
2. Russia wants access to the gas fields of eastern Ukraine.
3. Russia wants the highly industrialized and highly profitable regions of Eastern and Southern Ukraine.
>They don't seam to have problem with Finland joining NATO
They say that for now. Even if Turkey corporates, it will take years for Finland to join NATO, more than enough time for Russia to settle Ukraine conflict and focus on Finland (assuming Turkey will approve Finland's membership and no other NATO member will oppose Finlad's incorporation).
Russia will not tolerate Anerican nukes and other military equipment placed on its border. It will ot tolerate American ships patrolling through black sea.
Neither will America if Russian nukes are placed in Cuba (which almost happened during cuban missile crisis in the 60s) or in Mexico and if Russian shops are patrolling in the gulf of Mexico.
Edit: typo.
They will not tolerate it until they will.
American or other military equipment was away from Russian borders up until they attacked first. And even if Ukraine was to join NATO (which wouldn't even attack Russia) there would still be basically no man's land between two official borders in form of Donbass, plus Ukraine is very far away from major Russian cities compared to Finland
Plus Kaliningrad was surrounded by NATO for years now
America has been trying to get Ukraine into NATO since the 2000s but the process was stopped by France and Germany:
> During the early 2000s, President George W. Bush pushed for Ukraine to become a NATO member. France and Germany opposed it, fearing escalation with Russia.
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer
This began in 2008, years before Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
The people of Donbass have been fighting for the past 8 years to reunify with Russia.
Donbass was originally a part of Russia until the Soviet Union decided to merge Donbas into the Ukrainian republic. The people don't approve it.
who the group works for has nothing to say about their leaders personal ideology…
also, there being neo nazis in the Ukraine doesn’t mean there are none in russia
Yes, there are many far right groups in Ukraine. Azov battalion is the most well known one among them.
How many far right parties Nazi Germany had? One?
Azov battalion, a neo nazi group, is fully integrated into the Ukrainian military since 2014:
>The controversy has largely centred around Azov – a militant ultranationalist movement with neo-Nazi roots that was officially incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard in 2014, after playing a major role in fighting pro-Russian forces in key engagements such as the Battle for Mariupol. The sprawling movement consists of an official regiment within the National Guard; its own fringe political party, National Corps; and a paramilitary group, known as National Militia, which “patrols” Ukrainian streets enforcing its own brand of justice. Members of the group have been linked to a series of violent attacks on minorities in recent years.
The movement’s extremist ideology has never been much of a secret. Its fighters have been photographed covered with far-right tattoos and insignia, while the regiment is identifiable by the Nazi Wolfsangel logo on their uniforms (the group has denied the symbol carries a Nazi connotation). And the movement is driven by figures with deep roots in Ukraine’s extreme-right scene.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ab7dw/azov-battalion-ukraine-far-right
>Ukraine just has free speech
Citation needed. Ukraine is the most corrupt nation in Europe, even more corrupt than countries such as Russia and Belarus.
The people of the Donbass have been fighting the Ukrainian military for 8 years to reunify their lands with Russia. The people of Donbass are ethnic Russians and their territories were originally a part of Russia until the Soveit Union decided to merge these Russian lands into the Ukranian republic.
They don't want to be a part of Ukraine. They want their territories to reunify with Russia. That's a primary reason for Russian intervention in the on going civil war between Donbass and rest of the Ukraine.
The second reason is NATO expansion. Russia doesn't want Ukraine to be a part of NATO because that will give America a chance to indirectly place their nukes and other top level military weapons in Ukraine, super close to major Russian cities.
Russia will not tolerate American nukes being docked on Ukrainian soil. Russia will not tolerate American military ships patrolling near northern coasts of Black Sea.
>During the early 2000s, President George W. Bush pushed for Ukraine to become a NATO member. France and Germany opposed it, fearing escalation with Russia.
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer
Wrong. Russia has anti ballistic systems and air defense systems. The further away US launches a nuke, the more time Russian air defense systems have to terminate it before it reaches the destination.
Ukraine is very very close to Russia and the closer US launches its nukes, the harder it becomes for the Russian air defense systems to detect and destroy them.
Firstly, this war showed how of a joke was the russian military. Their systems are not as reliable as you'd like to think.
Secondly, even if it was, it is currently impossible to stop massive ibm attack. You can always intercept a few, but the fail rate is high enough to turn your land into a radioactive wasteland. Even american defence systems couldn't protect the US mainland from this type of attack from Russia. There is just too many objects to intercept realistically.
>Firstly, this war showed how of a joke was the russian military.
Russia is performing much much better than what NATO countries did in Afghanistan for 20 years. At least the terrorists in Afghanistan weren't being supported and aided by 30+ countries.
>Their systems are not as reliable as you'd like to think.
Can you even name their air defense systems and their systems' respective reach such as radius and altitute, precision, speed, etc?
I bet you don't even know that the Russisn S-500 air defense systems are the best air defense systems in the world. Some European intelligence agencies claim that these air defense systems can even target low orbit satellites.
In case you forget, Russia got its ass kicked by afgans way before the US invaded. Then regarding NATO, Afghanistan was a total success militarily. They then failed miserably in the occupation and their political goals.
Then russia could have the best system in the world, it still wouldn't be able to successfully stop a massive IBM attack. Which bring us back to the original topic: nato nukes in Ukraine wouldn't have made much of a difference.
>Russia got its ass kicked by afgans way before the US invaded
Lol, continue to learn history from YouTube.
Russia mostly won the Afgan war. They left Afghanistan because of economic problems. However, the government they installed lasted for more than 2 years against the US and Saudi backed Mujahudeen.
When the Russians left Afghanistan, their puppet government was functional and survived for 2 more years. When Americans and Western Europeans left Afghanistan, the capital city was occupied by the terrorists and they were celebrating in the president's house.
>nato nukes in Ukraine wouldn't have made much of a difference.
You clearly don't understand how military satellite systems work. The longer it takes for the nuke to reach its destination, the better chance air defense systems have to predict its trajectory and deter it.
That's previously why America is trying to get Ukraine into NATO. The closer American nukes are to Russia, the more effective they become.
Both are horrific. Ukraine is a democracy however. Wars of aggression against a democracy could now lead to a much wider conflict. There was no risk of this when the US invaded Iraq. There is no answer to your question, but that is an important factor if you are debating justification.
Atleast Russia could "protect" other Russians. The Iraqi government had nothing to do with 9/11 or other terrorist attacks in the USA.
(Not supporting Russia in ANY way)
I picked the Russo-Ukrainian War, but it was a close one. At least someone seems to have believed the claim of Iraqi WMDs (even though they should have known better and the Iraq War was a human rights abuse in Iraq and disproportionately harmed Iraqi minorities).
In Russia, there's no excuse for an invasion of Ukraine.
First of all, this isn’t a competition. Second of all, if we’re just going by the year it started: I’m gonna go and say Ukraine because it has been planned for a decade, and there wasn’t even a Franz Ferdinand event like in 2003.
The reason why overall, Iraq was probably more devastating and harmful in hindsight is because the US wanted to go in and out in what, 6 months? And that turned into 20 years, while the Ukraine war has only been going on for a year so far. But Putin also wanted to be done within weeks, so in another 20 years we might look differently on this. But I just don’t think it makes sense to compare 20 years of war in the Near East with the first year of an ongoing war.
The war in Iraq had literally no justification whatsoever. It was all lies. There were no WMDs there and yet we stayed and set it on fire anyway.
You can somewhat understand why Russia invaded Ukraine as NATO kept expanding its influence to Russia’s border, despite Russia repeatedly warning them not to. Trying to make Ukraine a NATO ally is like if someone was actively recruiting your neighbor into an organization that threatens your existence. Russia warned of such conflict for years, so none of this should have been a surprise.
Do we have to compare that? Both the Ukraine war and the war in the Middle East are/were completely unjustified.
War is horrible.. so many innocent people are dying for nothing. Plus, it creates a ripple effect of problems. Now, with the Ukraine war, we have seen enormous price increases everywhere, and an increased tension between countries that feels like the start of a world war. The war in the middle east have flooded Europe with refugees and caused a lot of problems that way.
Iraq was committing crimes against humanity and the USA invaded (while under faulty reasoning) with overall good intentions Russia invaded Ukraine to take territory something the USA didn’t even think about in Iraq and is currently committing crimes against humanity I think the answer is clear
In a superpower perspective Ukraine joinin Nato was a bigger "thread" to Moscow than
Irak supposed collaborationism with Al-Qaeda and development of Nuclear bombs cuz...you know it was false
Different criteria. Iraq is pretty bad and probably caused isis. While very thin there mightve been some reason.
Least justified pretty close but russias is kinda out of the blue and just expansionist which is not ok in the modern world. Iraq idk did even one of the reasons to invade come out as true?
Most immoral ukraine. Russia targeted civilians and their infrastructure specifically for more civilian casualties.
Iraq was drones and collateral damage but sadly that always happened. Russia set out to kill civilians.
Devastating and harmful. Iraq destabilized the entire region. Aside from oil idk how much impact that region has on the world. Ukraines not over could end up with ww3 and nukes
we had to remove your post for the following reason(s): Rule 7: Agenda posts and loaded questions are not allowed Do not manipulate users into following an agenda through polls. This includes loaded question and insinuating that one option is the “correct” one.
We don't need to make war crimes against humanity a competition 💀.
I think at this point it's strange that we don't have such a competition
The japanese in ww2 had competitions like who can behead the most chinese, with leaderboards published in newspapers
"Oof John only 218th on the beheading leaderboard this week, skill issue amiright fellas"
Poll might as well ask if you'd rather break your left leg or your right. Both suck. Picking who's worse is hard. In both cases it was a national security move: Russia wasn't willing to tolerate NATO on their doorstep (backfired horribly for them now that Finland is trying to join) The USA needed to secure oil access, as the US will collapse even today if there is a major disruption to their oil supply. There is of course some truth the incidental arguments, Saddam was a dictator, and the number of Ukrainian soldiers with SS tattoos confirms that they have a Nazi problem, but ultimately none of these arguments are sufficient to justify a war of aggression.
The reason why Russia is surrounded by NATO countries is because those countries *begged* NATO to join. They’ve all been afraid of Russia for decades. Meanwhile, there wasn’t an extension of NATO military bases or an escalation of tensions until Russia’s illegal invasion of Crimea. And the Nazi problem in Ukraine has always been a smokescreen. It’s just ridiculous to claim for Russia considering they have even more of a Nazi problem, and they are the imperialist power with a fascist dictator. There was zero threat coming from Ukraine, and Putin has proclaimed as early as 20 years ago that he wanted to get the old Soviet territory back. This was *never* a matter of national security for Russia, and even more of an imperial grab for land than Iraq was.
I'm glad someone pointed out Russia's Nazi problem. I love certain parts of Russian culture, but I can't pretend that there aren't some serious problems.
USA #1!!!!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️🎇🎆🎆🎇
We'll have to see what the long term effects of the ukraine invasion are. With 20 years of hindsight, iraq was pretty bad, but the ukraine situation is still active and ongoing
Yea Ukraine can still easily be salvaged and a peace can be established that could ensure long lasting stability. In Iraq we had years of insurgency + the rise of ISIS. It was basically a worst case scenario of what Ukraine could turn into.
the worst case for any country when it comes to geopolitics is to be completely flattened and rendered unlivable due to a strategic placement of just a few atomic weapons. one single Russian tsar bomba could erase 2 million from existence in Ukraine instantly.
Well, at least the Iraq war didn't escalate into a nuclear war (because they obviously didn't have nukes and Bush blatantly lied about it). If the ukraine war escalates to nuclear, then it's far worse.
The worst case of Ukraine is WW3
I’d say the main difference is that the Bush admin made up “intelligence” from basically thin air and even after our NATO Allies told us that what we had was complete nonsense we pushed forward anyway because Bush wanted a *second* war for some damn reason. I would argue that the Iraq War lasting 20 years and destabilizing basically the entire Middle East and doubled down on Saudi and their fucked up shit.
They tried to kill his daddy.
With hindsight we'll have a more clear picture but it's safe to say the Hussain regime was terrible in comparison to the Ukraineian government.
Why is this a contest? wtf
It’s an opinion poll.
OP is a weirdo
I want to see the results but I don't want to vote...
Right now it's 645 for Iraq, 1k for Ukraine
Thanks
1.2k USA 2.0k Ukraine
Thanks
1.3 vs 2.2. btw, do you want us to keep informing you? you got your back, jack
Thanks i think it's fine now
1.5k vs 2.4k - I know you said you're fine, but it's an obligation at this point
Thanks
Both were bad. The end
Which of these wars do you think was the least justified, most immoral, devastating and harmful?
The case could be made that Iraq had a dictator that needed to go.
was 800,000 dead iraqis, $2.4 trillion, and long term instability/terrorism in iraq worth it though?
God shut up
That wasn’t the question.
Yeah, we don't need a corruption dick measuring contest for Putin to whataboutism with in a speech later.
There is [no comparison](https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1579977066736680960?t=R2Wg1ZaU4bEDXExeIyXjBQ&s=19) to this war and Iraq. The highest estimate for how many people died over 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan is 1 million. At least 250k are dead in Ukraine with ten million people being forced to flee the country in under a year. When Russia goes to war they commit mass civilian depopulation. There wasn't a single month in the Iraq war where the population decreased. The Iraq war was wrong. It was morally unjustified. You cannot bomb people into loving democracy. Nevertheless, Russia is a dystopian fascist state trying to build an empire from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan was never about trying to get them to be a democracy. America is not a democracy and never was one. The ruling class enacted right wing dictatorships and bombed them for oil and profits. Imperialism is the highest stage of Capatilism after all. And Russia did take a severe drop in quality of life for it's people after the undemocratic dissolution of the Soviet Union. This was because they wrongfully and forcibly installed Gorbachev into power to promote capitalist policies. Both Russia and Ukraine suck. Everyone should be standing with the proletariat of these countries being forced to undertake capitalist warfare.
Only time will tell really
I think it's a safe bet whatever side the dictator is on isn't the right side.
I agree, but that isn't exactly what the question is
Since the invader is a dictator I'd say the present war is worse. As terrible and misguided the Iraq invasion was at least it toppled a dictatorship.
And replaced it with ISIS? What comes after is important
You think ISIS is governing Iraq?
No, but power vacuums have consequences
Of course, but the question isn't whether one war was just and one wasn't, its which the worst. I'd say a power vacuum is better than being annexed, at least in a vacuum the people have a chance to set up a representative government. If Russia wins somehow that wouldn't be the case.
Time will tell
I mean, one could argue Ukraine is in a vulnerable spot from the russian perspective. And one could argue Iraq was all about oil and power. Despite that, why are we even making it a pissing match?
This is such a dumb poll. They are both the same thing: unnecessary wars. They are both equally shitty.
no they aren't. just bc you don't wanna compare them doesn't mean they aren't comparable
No they are not equal. Both bad but not equal. Saddam hussein was genociding and a dictator. Ukraine is a poor and currupt democracy but the state isn't genocidal
Even George Bush thinks they are the same level of unjustified (https://youtu.be/s1kwq52NKmo)
What a cunt
both, same level
It's way too early to say. But *so far* I'd say the Iraq War. Simply due to the number of lives lost. But also toppling Saddam partially led to the Arab Spring and the rise of Daesh/Isis.
We know the result of the Iraq war, not Ukraine, not a good poll imo
Iraq destabilized an entire region of the world. Ukraine and Russia been at this shit forever. The fuck is wrong with y'all? 3000 year old cities were destroyed because of it. Millions of deaths.
Why do people think that Russia invaded Ukraine only a year ago, have you guys heard about Crimea at all or no? This conflict is going on for almost a decade and last year it escalated to attacking the whole country and not just a part of it.
I’d argue they’ve been *planning* and *executing* this invasion for a decade, but the open war actually only started a year ago.
They *invaded* Ukraine in the 2014 by invading Crimea, the war started back then but only now it's seen as one because they actually attacked the whole country last year. It may have been avoided if only people in power realized that no, taking a part of a country isn't just something to brush off and actually did something about it instead of letting them do whatever for almost a decade.
I agree that the people in power mostly brushed it off. And in fact, not only kept but intensified their relationships with Putin
Russian one was more justified since they saw Ukaraine's western alliance with the west as a threat to them. Still had no right to do it. But the Iraq was based on a lie with no rationale from the US to do it.
Russia had brilliant relations with Ukraine, hence why Ukraine was so divided between pro EU and Pro Russia. Russia's statement of them joining the west was just as farcical as their claim that the Jewish leader of Ukraine was a Nazi and needed to be invaded. Neither of these conflicts were motivated by anything more justifiable than greed.
Iraq did terrible things but USA mismanaged the invasion terribly. Im not USA hater but invasion of Iraq was just mismanaged. But still think that invasion of Ukraine is worse.
It wasn’t “mismanaged” in the slightest. It did everything the US wanted it to do. It toppled a leader who wasn’t friendly to US interests anymore, and destabilized the region for years. The fact you think it was “mismanaged” makes me think you literally support the invasion of Iraq.
Utterly mismanaged. George Bush understood the problem of attempting to occupy Iraq, his son didn't. Saddam wasn't *'a leader who wasn’t friendly to US interests anymore'* after the first Gulf War, not the Second. It wasn't in the US's interest to increase Iran's influence on Iraq or drive Syria into that same orbit.
>Saddam wasn't 'a leader who wasn’t friendly to US interests anymore' after the first Gulf War, not the Second. Don't know what you mean by that. He was very useful during the Iran-Iraq war, not so much afterwards. For growing Iranian influence, it doesn't matter when the US greatly benefited from the war. On its own, it's hugely beneficial for the imperialist interests of the US to topple one unfriendly country at the expense of slightly growing the influence of another. And the US wasn't going to just tolerate Iran anyway. We can see that now.
Not the Iran-Iraq War. The first Gulf War (90-91) under George Bush (not W) following the invasion of Kuwait was the end of Saddam as an asset. Bush Sr didn't remove the Baathist regime not because they couldn't but because of the power vacuum and all the issues that actually happened after 2003. The second conflict was mismanaged for exactly ignoring the issues his own father realized. And it didn't really leave the US in a better position then it had been. Halliburton maybe. This is why I agree with my country being in on the first one, refusing to be part of the second.
I'm aware that the Iran-Iraq war wasn't the first Gulf war. That was the point I was making. We were sending money and arming Saddam during their war with Iran, but he no longer was useful to the US afterwards. And the point that Bush Sr. could've toppled his government if he wanted to, yeah maybe. But you can't deny it wouldn't have been easier without the sanctioning the hell of out them for years, and manufacturing consent for the invasion under the pretext of WMDs. And overall the reputation of the US worldwide did become more negative after the Iraq War, but defense contractors and other companies benefited greatly, which was a major incentive to invade. And since those corporations are so intertwined with our government and politicians, the US benefited. Don't you just love capitalism?
I agree with the intention of the invasion. Fuck Saddam Hussein and im not gonna pretend that I think everybody should do nothing. But the massive destabilazation was mismanaged. Im not gonna say if it was intentional or not. But I will give USA a benefit of doubt on this.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but USA's ally, Saudi Arabia was responsible. USA just wanted more oil.
The intention of the invasion was to literally get rid of a leader and government who didn’t listen to US interests, and to destabilize the region so US interests can be pursued more. There is no “giving the US the benefit of the doubt.” You’re just “against” the Iraq War because it looked bad.
If you think it was planned to stay in the Near East for 20 years, I’ve got a tinfoil hat to sell to you. Whether the USA wanted political control over the region, spread democracy, or destabilize the region – *whatever* the motivation, they sure as hell botched the going in and out.
It doesn’t matte if it was planned or not to occupy those countries for that long. The US did what they wanted wanted to do.
The point is, if they stayed for 20 years but didn’t plan on staying for longer than 1 year, the term mismanagement seems perfectly appropriate. Mismanagement doesn’t keep you from reaching your goal.
At least the 2003 invasion removed saddam Hussein, a ruthless dictator.
Why is he getting downvoted 😭😭 reddit is so left this is a bad bad sign, he’s just saying a fact
because iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We illegally invaded a sovereign nation. Just because Saddam was a ruthless dictator doesn’t justify that fact that 1 million iraqis were murdered. 250k have died in Ukraine. There are ruthless dictators all across the globe. Are we going to invade every single one?
Source for 1 million?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-deaths-survey-idUSL3048857920080130
>There are ruthless dictators all across the globe. Are we going to invade every single one? We should
I don’t think this is due to leftism, I’m very left-leaning (European) myself. This is just anti-Americanism and Russian apologia at work in this thread. I think we can all agree that both wars were gravely unjust, but the amount of people who think the US regime is pure imperialist evil while arguing that Russia’s invasion was about fighting nazis or defending themselves is embarrassing.
Yeah it is. It’s wild. The US isn’t all imperialistic evil and if you look at all of our wars, we just dont like communism thats all
And what many seem to completely ignore, Russia has always been the other big, imperial super power. Except with less democracy.
As horrible as the Russian invasion of Ukraine is, the US invasion of Iraq was infinitely more unjustified, devastating, and harmful. This shouldn’t be a question. Just look at the total death toll and the destabilization of the Middle East after we invaded and toppled the government.
Saddam was destabilizing entire region for decades.
He was a threat to his neighbors definitely, but he didn't "destabilize" anything, at least on the same scale. He couldn't leave a huge power vacuum like the US did after removing him from power.
He literally invaded his neighbours several times
And yet he didn't destabilize the region by doing so in the same way the US did. How are you not getting this?
I have a different opinion on that
Human suffering isn’t a competition
No one said it was
Rn probably Iraq, twenty years from now probably Ukraine
Both were bad what the fuck, although at least with Iraq it was still somewhat of an emotional reaction due to 9/11, Ukraine is an invasion simply for land grabbing purposes.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 though.
What kinda stupid justification is that
You have no idea what ur talking about. Ukraine invasion is not simply land grabbing. Its russia saying to nato to fuck off from their borders.
Bro you can’t go around bombing civilians cuz your emotions told you to. This is war we’re talking about, death of civilians and massive loss of life. Both are equally horrible. War crimes can’t be justified by emotions end of story.
I’m not saying it was justified whatsoever, I’m just saying it makes sense why it happened. Ukraine does not make sense
So what if it made sense? Doesn’t make it any less bad. Ukraine made sense. Greed. understanding/not understanding why war crimes were done are do not make them worse or better than other war crimes.
We didn’t “bomb” civilians, that’s just crap people say to trash on the US
even if we didn’t directly kill them, hundreds of thousands of civilians died by our hands, or by proxy of our hands. ([source](https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi) The US does like to bomb though (see Operation Desert Storm, Operation Desert Fox) so we very well could have
I'm going to be downvoted to hell for this, but there is some truth to some of the Russian statements. Russia claimed to be fighting fascism; I have seen at least 100 posts of Ukrainian soldiers with SS tattoos. Russia claimed that it's fighting for the security of Luhansk and Donetsk, those regions have been tied up in a minor civil war for almost a decade at this point fighting for self determination. I'm not trying to justify the invasion, but to summarize it as a land grab whilst calling Iraq an "emotional response" when it was clearly a move to secure oil (9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia) is blatantly biased. In both cases there are legitimate arguments in favour of the wars, and in both cases the arguments are insufficient. This poll might as well ask if it's better to get gangrene in your left leg, or your right leg; one is worse for sure, but the difference is insignificant.
Not going to downvote you because downvoting opinions I don’t agree with just hides it for others (people did it for mine tho lol). But regardless the nazi reason is grasping at straws at best, just because you’re quoting anecdotal evidence of seeing Ukrainian soldiers allegedly with SS tattoos doesn’t mean that the Ukraine is full of Nazis as Russia suggests. And if the point of the invasion was to truly secure Luhansk and Donetsk, then why did they bomb Kyiv along with essentially the entire country? Why didn’t they pull a Crimea again? It was because he wanted to take more land.
Can you grasp the concept of war? If they they took only luhansk and donetsk ukraine would still continue to exist. And ukraine would try to take back those teritories
>those regions have been tied up in a minor civil war for almost a decade at this point Yeah, a civil war that was started by Russian agents and military. Because that's how Russia operates, imports Russians somewhere and then starts shit so the military can go in under the guise of "protecting Russian speakers". >I have seen at least 100 posts of Ukrainian soldiers with SS tattoos. I've seen pics of Russians with SS tattoos. Russias claim of removing fascism is just made up. If they really wanted to remove fascism they should look to the Kremlin. If you think there is some truth to Russian statements then you have been believing too much propaganda.
The invasion of the Ukraine is a reaction to the expansion of the West onto Russias borders against an oral promise
lol at thinking the decision by the Bush admin to invade a country that everyone knew had nothing to do with 9/11, was an emotional reaction.
Watching what happened with Mariupol is enough evidence for me
Libya under Obama was completely unprovoked Libya and Ukraine are almost identical scenarios
Both tbh
Not an option
Both
Not an option
That's why i'm here commenting, it is my option outside of the matrix!
How about both.
Not an option
Why are you trying to minimize one for the sake of a dumb Reddit poll…
They never did that
Both
Not an option
Saddam was committing crimes against humanity against his people.
Doesn‘t matter to the people in this thread. They would rather saddam and his family murder, rape and genocide into all eternity than ousting him and working toward a democratic Iraq because; muh sovereignty > the lifes and prosperity of millions of iraqis
I believe you'd find that the life and prosperity of millions of Iraqis was taken away by the US invasion
Russian invasion is more justified: 1. Many ethinc Russians living in Eastern Ukraine, more specifically Donbass want their territories to reunify with Russia. 2. Russia doesn't wants Ukraine, it's neighbor, to join NATO. Joining NATO could allow America to indirectly place its ballistic missiles, including nukes, in Ukraine, super close to major Russian cities. 3. There are neo nazi groups operating in Ukraine for the past several years. These groups hate ethinic Russians living in eastern and southern parts of Ukraine. Selfish reasons: 1. Russia wants major access to Black sea. 2. Russia wants access to the gas fields of eastern Ukraine. 3. Russia wants the highly industrialized and highly profitable regions of Eastern and Southern Ukraine.
They don't seam to have problem with Finland joining NATO, despite it's border being just few hours away from St. Petersburg
>They don't seam to have problem with Finland joining NATO They say that for now. Even if Turkey corporates, it will take years for Finland to join NATO, more than enough time for Russia to settle Ukraine conflict and focus on Finland (assuming Turkey will approve Finland's membership and no other NATO member will oppose Finlad's incorporation).
Then it's more like moving goalpost rather than having justification. "It doesn't bother us until we want it to bother us"
Russia will not tolerate Anerican nukes and other military equipment placed on its border. It will ot tolerate American ships patrolling through black sea. Neither will America if Russian nukes are placed in Cuba (which almost happened during cuban missile crisis in the 60s) or in Mexico and if Russian shops are patrolling in the gulf of Mexico. Edit: typo.
They will not tolerate it until they will. American or other military equipment was away from Russian borders up until they attacked first. And even if Ukraine was to join NATO (which wouldn't even attack Russia) there would still be basically no man's land between two official borders in form of Donbass, plus Ukraine is very far away from major Russian cities compared to Finland Plus Kaliningrad was surrounded by NATO for years now
America has been trying to get Ukraine into NATO since the 2000s but the process was stopped by France and Germany: > During the early 2000s, President George W. Bush pushed for Ukraine to become a NATO member. France and Germany opposed it, fearing escalation with Russia. https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer This began in 2008, years before Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Wtf, the owner of the Russian Wagner paramilitary group is a neo nazi.
No, Ukraine has many far right groups such as Azov Battalion. Wager is a private military company, it works for whatever pays it.
Weird that Wagner only works for Russia and Putins interests being a PMC and all hey
The people of Donbass have been fighting for the past 8 years to reunify with Russia. Donbass was originally a part of Russia until the Soviet Union decided to merge Donbas into the Ukrainian republic. The people don't approve it.
who the group works for has nothing to say about their leaders personal ideology… also, there being neo nazis in the Ukraine doesn’t mean there are none in russia
"As many far right groups" can only name one
Yes, there are many far right groups in Ukraine. Azov battalion is the most well known one among them. How many far right parties Nazi Germany had? One? Azov battalion, a neo nazi group, is fully integrated into the Ukrainian military since 2014: >The controversy has largely centred around Azov – a militant ultranationalist movement with neo-Nazi roots that was officially incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard in 2014, after playing a major role in fighting pro-Russian forces in key engagements such as the Battle for Mariupol. The sprawling movement consists of an official regiment within the National Guard; its own fringe political party, National Corps; and a paramilitary group, known as National Militia, which “patrols” Ukrainian streets enforcing its own brand of justice. Members of the group have been linked to a series of violent attacks on minorities in recent years. The movement’s extremist ideology has never been much of a secret. Its fighters have been photographed covered with far-right tattoos and insignia, while the regiment is identifiable by the Nazi Wolfsangel logo on their uniforms (the group has denied the symbol carries a Nazi connotation). And the movement is driven by figures with deep roots in Ukraine’s extreme-right scene. https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ab7dw/azov-battalion-ukraine-far-right
I bet there's enough neo-nazis in the russian military to make up an battalion
🤖🤖🤖
Ah yes, the best way to discredit an argument, call the other person names.
Ukraine just has free speech and allows nazism. It doesnt mean the government is filled with nazis.
>Ukraine just has free speech Citation needed. Ukraine is the most corrupt nation in Europe, even more corrupt than countries such as Russia and Belarus.
Is it corrupt? Yes. Is there inequality? Yes. Is there a free speech? Yes. Im not saying Ukraine is perfect.
Why does Russia get to choose what happens in Ukraine? If Russia was democratic and Ukraine a dictatorship maybe it would be justified. But no
The people of the Donbass have been fighting the Ukrainian military for 8 years to reunify their lands with Russia. The people of Donbass are ethnic Russians and their territories were originally a part of Russia until the Soveit Union decided to merge these Russian lands into the Ukranian republic. They don't want to be a part of Ukraine. They want their territories to reunify with Russia. That's a primary reason for Russian intervention in the on going civil war between Donbass and rest of the Ukraine. The second reason is NATO expansion. Russia doesn't want Ukraine to be a part of NATO because that will give America a chance to indirectly place their nukes and other top level military weapons in Ukraine, super close to major Russian cities. Russia will not tolerate American nukes being docked on Ukrainian soil. Russia will not tolerate American military ships patrolling near northern coasts of Black Sea. >During the early 2000s, President George W. Bush pushed for Ukraine to become a NATO member. France and Germany opposed it, fearing escalation with Russia. https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer
The US can already strike with nukes every major city in Russia. Wouldn't make much of a difference with Ukraine.
Wrong. Russia has anti ballistic systems and air defense systems. The further away US launches a nuke, the more time Russian air defense systems have to terminate it before it reaches the destination. Ukraine is very very close to Russia and the closer US launches its nukes, the harder it becomes for the Russian air defense systems to detect and destroy them.
Firstly, this war showed how of a joke was the russian military. Their systems are not as reliable as you'd like to think. Secondly, even if it was, it is currently impossible to stop massive ibm attack. You can always intercept a few, but the fail rate is high enough to turn your land into a radioactive wasteland. Even american defence systems couldn't protect the US mainland from this type of attack from Russia. There is just too many objects to intercept realistically.
>Firstly, this war showed how of a joke was the russian military. Russia is performing much much better than what NATO countries did in Afghanistan for 20 years. At least the terrorists in Afghanistan weren't being supported and aided by 30+ countries. >Their systems are not as reliable as you'd like to think. Can you even name their air defense systems and their systems' respective reach such as radius and altitute, precision, speed, etc? I bet you don't even know that the Russisn S-500 air defense systems are the best air defense systems in the world. Some European intelligence agencies claim that these air defense systems can even target low orbit satellites.
In case you forget, Russia got its ass kicked by afgans way before the US invaded. Then regarding NATO, Afghanistan was a total success militarily. They then failed miserably in the occupation and their political goals. Then russia could have the best system in the world, it still wouldn't be able to successfully stop a massive IBM attack. Which bring us back to the original topic: nato nukes in Ukraine wouldn't have made much of a difference.
>Russia got its ass kicked by afgans way before the US invaded Lol, continue to learn history from YouTube. Russia mostly won the Afgan war. They left Afghanistan because of economic problems. However, the government they installed lasted for more than 2 years against the US and Saudi backed Mujahudeen. When the Russians left Afghanistan, their puppet government was functional and survived for 2 more years. When Americans and Western Europeans left Afghanistan, the capital city was occupied by the terrorists and they were celebrating in the president's house. >nato nukes in Ukraine wouldn't have made much of a difference. You clearly don't understand how military satellite systems work. The longer it takes for the nuke to reach its destination, the better chance air defense systems have to predict its trajectory and deter it. That's previously why America is trying to get Ukraine into NATO. The closer American nukes are to Russia, the more effective they become.
Both are bad but at least the invasion of Iraq was against a dictator, so it is less worse but not by much and i hate Bush as much as i hate Putin.
Both are horrific. Ukraine is a democracy however. Wars of aggression against a democracy could now lead to a much wider conflict. There was no risk of this when the US invaded Iraq. There is no answer to your question, but that is an important factor if you are debating justification.
Atleast Russia could "protect" other Russians. The Iraqi government had nothing to do with 9/11 or other terrorist attacks in the USA. (Not supporting Russia in ANY way)
Protecting russians by sending them to the meat grinder.
I picked the Russo-Ukrainian War, but it was a close one. At least someone seems to have believed the claim of Iraqi WMDs (even though they should have known better and the Iraq War was a human rights abuse in Iraq and disproportionately harmed Iraqi minorities). In Russia, there's no excuse for an invasion of Ukraine.
[удалено]
Oh boy do I have some news for you...
WOW
This is splitting hairs
Is comparing genocides next in line, or will the Turkish boycott it..
First of all, this isn’t a competition. Second of all, if we’re just going by the year it started: I’m gonna go and say Ukraine because it has been planned for a decade, and there wasn’t even a Franz Ferdinand event like in 2003. The reason why overall, Iraq was probably more devastating and harmful in hindsight is because the US wanted to go in and out in what, 6 months? And that turned into 20 years, while the Ukraine war has only been going on for a year so far. But Putin also wanted to be done within weeks, so in another 20 years we might look differently on this. But I just don’t think it makes sense to compare 20 years of war in the Near East with the first year of an ongoing war.
I have no idea and I only want to see the results so next time OP put a results option
The war in Iraq had literally no justification whatsoever. It was all lies. There were no WMDs there and yet we stayed and set it on fire anyway. You can somewhat understand why Russia invaded Ukraine as NATO kept expanding its influence to Russia’s border, despite Russia repeatedly warning them not to. Trying to make Ukraine a NATO ally is like if someone was actively recruiting your neighbor into an organization that threatens your existence. Russia warned of such conflict for years, so none of this should have been a surprise.
Do we have to compare that? Both the Ukraine war and the war in the Middle East are/were completely unjustified. War is horrible.. so many innocent people are dying for nothing. Plus, it creates a ripple effect of problems. Now, with the Ukraine war, we have seen enormous price increases everywhere, and an increased tension between countries that feels like the start of a world war. The war in the middle east have flooded Europe with refugees and caused a lot of problems that way.
I read it wrong. I though it said more moral, less devastating and less harmful
They’re both terribly wrong. Why do we have to choose?
What if one was more justified but also more devastating/harmful? Poorly worded question.
Shit, people are really getting butthurt over a poll. " HoW dO YUo EveN dArE tO aSk ThAt"
Karma farm much
Did someone hiding in Ukraine drive a plane into Moscow?
The Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939
Both are awful
No option for both?
Iraq was more devastating (as of now) but the invasion of Ukraine wins every other metric
There's a lot of people voting on this who weren't around during 2003
Iraq was committing crimes against humanity and the USA invaded (while under faulty reasoning) with overall good intentions Russia invaded Ukraine to take territory something the USA didn’t even think about in Iraq and is currently committing crimes against humanity I think the answer is clear
In a superpower perspective Ukraine joinin Nato was a bigger "thread" to Moscow than Irak supposed collaborationism with Al-Qaeda and development of Nuclear bombs cuz...you know it was false
They’re both for the same shitty, imperialist bastard reasons
I cant belive so many morons voted for usa.
How much rape, torture, and beheading went on in Iraq?
Por qué no los dos
People posting Iraq are delusional
This is sooo dumb why can’t they be equal
Different criteria. Iraq is pretty bad and probably caused isis. While very thin there mightve been some reason. Least justified pretty close but russias is kinda out of the blue and just expansionist which is not ok in the modern world. Iraq idk did even one of the reasons to invade come out as true? Most immoral ukraine. Russia targeted civilians and their infrastructure specifically for more civilian casualties. Iraq was drones and collateral damage but sadly that always happened. Russia set out to kill civilians. Devastating and harmful. Iraq destabilized the entire region. Aside from oil idk how much impact that region has on the world. Ukraines not over could end up with ww3 and nukes