7 ms·

Im honestly surprised they have not intervened directly let. The US invaded Iraq for less. Here is a democratic country needlessly invaded, with obvious civil

by ProAm 5y ago

Im honestly surprised they have not intervened directly let. The US invaded Iraq for less. Here is a democratic country needlessly invaded, with obvious civilians being targeted and killed. I think the US politicians are too old and still fear their memories of the cold war. War is hell but not helping is merciless.

gambiting 5y ago
The argument was and still is that by "helping" you'd actually cause more devastation(or, at worst - start a nuclear exchange between superpowers). But like OP said, there has to be a threshold, an attrocity so bad that NATO will be forced to intervene. I personally think seeing 18 month old babies killed by shrapnel is enough - but I'm not in charge of the policy(for better or worse).
- ProAm 5y ago
  Regardless of helping or not helping there will be more devastation, that is unavoidable at this point. Will the world let one person terrorize an entire region and neighboring countries? If US does not intervene in means Putin has won, and can have all of the old soviet states back, the US is too scared to get its hands dirty again. Of course there is massive risk, but we are beyond that point. Without intervention you let Russia expand, rebuild and have the same risk of nuclear war as before, just with a bigger bully. If this invasion was justified in any manner I would feel different.
scotty79 5y ago
US knew that Iraq didn't really have WMDs and they also know Russia really has WMDs.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  > US knew that Iraq didn't really have WMDs Source? I thought the US suspected they did but oversold how good the intel was.
  - scotty79 5y ago
    The idea that they have them was purely fictional and manufactured only for justifying invasion of Iraq to US voters and international community. There are many indications that it wasn't the case of 'Oops, we were wrong' but rather 'Oops, we lied'
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
      Waiting for that source.
      - raphlinus 5y ago
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA is a pretty good one, actually. It's in the form of a joke, but the fact that it got a laugh conveys a sort of shared knowledge they were pulling a fast one over the public. ETA: If you're asking for more "straight news" types of sources, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-... is a pretty neutral and objective retrospective, relying heavily on a Senate Intelligence Committee report that was approved on a bipartisan basis.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        Your second seems to validate my claim. > Is there a fine line between hyping the evidence and lying about it? It’s too fuzzy for the Pinocchio Test, as it also falls in the realm of opinion.
        scotty79 5y ago
        Are you saying that lying (to incite a war and perform an invasion) in a manner other than overt and blatant is not really lying, but just a metter of opinion? High moral standards.
        5y ago

by ProAm 5y ago

gambiting 5y ago

The argument was and still is that by "helping" you'd actually cause more devastation(or, at worst - start a nuclear exchange between superpowers). But like OP said, there has to be a threshold, an attrocity so bad that NATO will be forced to intervene. I personally think seeing 18 month old babies killed by shrapnel is enough - but I'm not in charge of the policy(for better or worse).

ProAm 5y ago
Regardless of helping or not helping there will be more devastation, that is unavoidable at this point. Will the world let one person terrorize an entire region and neighboring countries? If US does not intervene in means Putin has won, and can have all of the old soviet states back, the US is too scared to get its hands dirty again. Of course there is massive risk, but we are beyond that point. Without intervention you let Russia expand, rebuild and have the same risk of nuclear war as before, just with a bigger bully. If this invasion was justified in any manner I would feel different.

scotty79 5y ago

US knew that Iraq didn't really have WMDs and they also know Russia really has WMDs.

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
> US knew that Iraq didn't really have WMDs Source? I thought the US suspected they did but oversold how good the intel was.
- scotty79 5y ago
  The idea that they have them was purely fictional and manufactured only for justifying invasion of Iraq to US voters and international community. There are many indications that it wasn't the case of 'Oops, we were wrong' but rather 'Oops, we lied'
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Waiting for that source.
    - raphlinus 5y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA is a pretty good one, actually. It's in the form of a joke, but the fact that it got a laugh conveys a sort of shared knowledge they were pulling a fast one over the public. ETA: If you're asking for more "straight news" types of sources, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-... is a pretty neutral and objective retrospective, relying heavily on a Senate Intelligence Committee report that was approved on a bipartisan basis.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
        Your second seems to validate my claim. > Is there a fine line between hyping the evidence and lying about it? It’s too fuzzy for the Pinocchio Test, as it also falls in the realm of opinion.
        scotty79 5y ago
        Are you saying that lying (to incite a war and perform an invasion) in a manner other than overt and blatant is not really lying, but just a metter of opinion? High moral standards.
        5y ago