3 ms·
Saying that it's the invasions that created civil wars and suffering in Afghanistan and Iraq is just exceptionally ignorant. Here's a taster: https://en.wikiped
by dgroshev 4mo ago
Saying that it's the invasions that created civil wars and suffering in Afghanistan and Iraq is just exceptionally ignorant. Here's a taster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Ba%27athist_Ir...
For all their failures, the allies never bombed cities with nerve agents.
- ZeroGravitas 4mo agoYour page says: > Saddam committed crimes of aggression during the Iran–Iraq War Which links to a page about the war: > Iraq was aided by [...] the United States, the United Kingdom, > After years of military and economic losses, decreasing morale, intensifying Iran–U.S. relations, and little international action against Iraqi attacks on Iranian civilians, Iran agreed to a ceasefire with Iraq under United Nations Security Council Resolution 598. So they basically did.
- dgroshev 4mo agoI don't think anyone engaging in a good faith discussion would make the conclusion you just made.
- ZeroGravitas 4mo agoWhy not? What do you think an llm would say if you asked it: > Did the US and UK support Saddam Hussein when he was using weapons of mass destruction on Iranian civilians?
- dgroshev 4mo agoThe question is completely different from the point I was making. "X did bad things on their own" and "Y had absolutely no relationship with X at any point" are two points so blindingly obviously different that I'm having a hard time accepting that you are genuinely confused about the difference. It's a motte-and-bailey fallacy that starts with countries and leaders having relationships in a global, interwoven world and ends with excusing a blood-thirsty dictator as if they had no agency.
- thrownthatway 4mo ago[dead]