8 ms·

From Iraq, we went from zero power cuts in decades to no power at all within two weeks in the gulf war in 90, as NATO countries attacked all our civilian power

From Iraq, we went from zero power cuts in decades to no power at all within two weeks in the gulf war in 90, as NATO countries attacked all our civilian power stations. Life became horrible but we adapted. In some cases there were fights between people no different than the fights you saw in western countries over toilet rolls during covid, but I wouldn’t say it was a total society collapse. People will always find a way to adapt.

woodruffw 4y ago
Iraq's pre-war HDI was 0.560[1]. The US's in the same year was 0.865[2]. People will indeed always find a way to adapt! But I think these comparisons are fundamentally suspect: there really hasn't been think kind of mass-scale infrastructure collapse in a country nearly remotely developed as the US (or Canada, or the EU). The closest thing would probably be the war in Ukraine, and even there the infrastructure failures are relatively localized. [1]: https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/iraq https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/iraq [2]: https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/usa https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/usa
2Gkashmiri 4y ago
not to sound all propagandist but russia attacking ukraine infra is "bad" but NATO attacking iraq is "collateral damage".
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  Similarly I do not like authoritarians and therefore feel very bad for North Korean citizens. However I don’t understand why they are not allowed (or Iran, or any country) to build their own nuclear weapons. Many countries have nukes - what is their right to have them? Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction? I wish nukes would go away, but morally speaking if one country can have them then all countries can have them. It’s power politics after that.
  - chii 4y ago
    > Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction? not really. If you didn't already have nukes, but your regime is much against the west, i'd argue that it is the right thing for the west to deny it from them. I am attaching no moral argument to this - simply a practical, utilitarian argument. The reason russia has free reign to invade ukraine is _because_ they have nukes. Iraq invaded Kuwait just the same, but was pressed back in a war - imagine if they did have nukes; it would mean that Iraq could've acted with impunity, and they'd control all of the oil resources that was Kuwaits'.
    - monero-xmr 4y ago
      I agree from a western perspective. In a power struggle of west vs. various eastern alliances, it is in the west’s interest to prevent the spread of nukes. From a plain and simple moral perspective, IMO every country has the right to build them. Preventing that is about what team you are on rather than morals.
      - snickerer 4y ago
        It is a mistake to think in moral categories regarding to international politics. Morale is something a group-in-power uses to control (or influence) the public. Like fear, greed, or compassion. Morale is not a basis for political decisions or political analysis. Every country's ruler wants nuclear weapons. And every ruler wants the other rulers not to have the bomb at the same time. To force the others not to develop the bomb, you must put pressure on them. A good way to put pressure is... to have the bomb.
    - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
      >but your regime is much against the west, flip it over. west is against you so why should you submit to THEIR moral argument of denying YOU of nukes when they themselves have it?
      - PeterisP 4y ago
        > why should you submit to THEIR moral argument of denying YOU of nukes when they themselves have it? As the parent poster explicitly states, there is no "moral argument" made there, it's a very utilitarian realpolitik argument that allowing you nukes is risky enough that for any western politician respecting their countries' interests the right choice is to enforce submission with all kinds of means (economic, military, espionage).
- somedude895 4y ago
  The 2003 invasion of Iraq is very controversial, even in the West (thank god for free speech and freedom of press) and I'd imagine many people on Ukraine's side also didn't agree with the second Iraq war. Might be different in the US, but it's certainly the feeling I get in Europe, even though many also simply have no opinion on Iraq.
  - meitham 4y ago
    Ukraine sent a sizeable military force to participate in squashing Shia fighters in south Iraq late 2003.
  - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
    uh... the same freedom of speech that is currently wanting to skin assange alive for making public war crimes commited by americans and yet instead of taking action against the actual aggressors, the messenger is being charged. cool.... btw, what i meant to say was, "iraq invasion" as you put might be "controversial" but there was no blowback of them as is being done to russia. the EU just either let US do its thing or even joined their side so yeah, controversial is short selling it. Iraq, afghanistan, libya.... on and on. the US leaves destruction in its wake and its "just controversial" but no sanctions or arming the opposite side. Oh, also, yemen has been decimated by saudis for years now but because they happen to be US allies, everyone just turns a blind eye. but iran needs "revolution" and "ukraine needs to be saved from russia".. i am saying the two narratives do not depend on the ground realities, if people die or live. It just depends on the narrative that the US wants to push. That may be fine for the US or EU but everyone else just remembers.
- drewm1980 4y ago
  I would posit that the climate and the season matter enough to be a solid moral distinction in this case. Civilian lives depend on gas and electricity in all scenarios, but they depend on them ~much more in a Ukrainian winter.
synergyS 4y ago
Similar story here - when NATO bombed Serbia (we were part of Yugoslavia in 1999) we had similar experience. We had 4 hour blackouts per day, not more luckily, as everyone had a lot of frozen food that could go bad if blackouts were longer.

woodruffw 4y ago

Iraq's pre-war HDI was 0.560[1]. The US's in the same year was 0.865[2]. People will indeed always find a way to adapt! But I think these comparisons are fundamentally suspect: there really hasn't been think kind of mass-scale infrastructure collapse in a country nearly remotely developed as the US (or Canada, or the EU). The closest thing would probably be the war in Ukraine, and even there the infrastructure failures are relatively localized. [1]: https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/iraq https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/iraq [2]: https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/usa https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/usa

2Gkashmiri 4y ago

not to sound all propagandist but russia attacking ukraine infra is "bad" but NATO attacking iraq is "collateral damage".

monero-xmr 4y ago
Similarly I do not like authoritarians and therefore feel very bad for North Korean citizens. However I don’t understand why they are not allowed (or Iran, or any country) to build their own nuclear weapons. Many countries have nukes - what is their right to have them? Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction? I wish nukes would go away, but morally speaking if one country can have them then all countries can have them. It’s power politics after that.
- chii 4y ago
  > Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction? not really. If you didn't already have nukes, but your regime is much against the west, i'd argue that it is the right thing for the west to deny it from them. I am attaching no moral argument to this - simply a practical, utilitarian argument. The reason russia has free reign to invade ukraine is _because_ they have nukes. Iraq invaded Kuwait just the same, but was pressed back in a war - imagine if they did have nukes; it would mean that Iraq could've acted with impunity, and they'd control all of the oil resources that was Kuwaits'.
  - monero-xmr 4y ago
    I agree from a western perspective. In a power struggle of west vs. various eastern alliances, it is in the west’s interest to prevent the spread of nukes. From a plain and simple moral perspective, IMO every country has the right to build them. Preventing that is about what team you are on rather than morals.
    - snickerer 4y ago
      It is a mistake to think in moral categories regarding to international politics. Morale is something a group-in-power uses to control (or influence) the public. Like fear, greed, or compassion. Morale is not a basis for political decisions or political analysis. Every country's ruler wants nuclear weapons. And every ruler wants the other rulers not to have the bomb at the same time. To force the others not to develop the bomb, you must put pressure on them. A good way to put pressure is... to have the bomb.
  - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
    >but your regime is much against the west, flip it over. west is against you so why should you submit to THEIR moral argument of denying YOU of nukes when they themselves have it?
    - PeterisP 4y ago
      > why should you submit to THEIR moral argument of denying YOU of nukes when they themselves have it? As the parent poster explicitly states, there is no "moral argument" made there, it's a very utilitarian realpolitik argument that allowing you nukes is risky enough that for any western politician respecting their countries' interests the right choice is to enforce submission with all kinds of means (economic, military, espionage).
somedude895 4y ago
The 2003 invasion of Iraq is very controversial, even in the West (thank god for free speech and freedom of press) and I'd imagine many people on Ukraine's side also didn't agree with the second Iraq war. Might be different in the US, but it's certainly the feeling I get in Europe, even though many also simply have no opinion on Iraq.
- meitham 4y ago
  Ukraine sent a sizeable military force to participate in squashing Shia fighters in south Iraq late 2003.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  uh... the same freedom of speech that is currently wanting to skin assange alive for making public war crimes commited by americans and yet instead of taking action against the actual aggressors, the messenger is being charged. cool.... btw, what i meant to say was, "iraq invasion" as you put might be "controversial" but there was no blowback of them as is being done to russia. the EU just either let US do its thing or even joined their side so yeah, controversial is short selling it. Iraq, afghanistan, libya.... on and on. the US leaves destruction in its wake and its "just controversial" but no sanctions or arming the opposite side. Oh, also, yemen has been decimated by saudis for years now but because they happen to be US allies, everyone just turns a blind eye. but iran needs "revolution" and "ukraine needs to be saved from russia".. i am saying the two narratives do not depend on the ground realities, if people die or live. It just depends on the narrative that the US wants to push. That may be fine for the US or EU but everyone else just remembers.
drewm1980 4y ago
I would posit that the climate and the season matter enough to be a solid moral distinction in this case. Civilian lives depend on gas and electricity in all scenarios, but they depend on them ~much more in a Ukrainian winter.

synergyS 4y ago

Similar story here - when NATO bombed Serbia (we were part of Yugoslavia in 1999) we had similar experience. We had 4 hour blackouts per day, not more luckily, as everyone had a lot of frozen food that could go bad if blackouts were longer.