US and Allies Invasion of Iraq - 2003

[Josh]

We heard then about the evil Hussein just like we hear about the evil Putin now.

No one is invading Russia or calling for an invasion of Russia to replace Putin.

The correct parallel to the Bush Administration lies about Iraq in order to justify the invasion of Iraq are the lies that that Russia is telling to justify the invasion of Ukraine. They are lies BY Putin, not lies ABOUT Putin.

Biden called for regime change (and then shortly thereafter "clarified" his statements to say he didn't actually mean for regime change).

[Ken]

We heard then about the evil Hussein just like we hear about the evil Putin now.

No one is invading Russia or calling for an invasion of Russia to replace Putin.

The correct parallel to the Bush Administration lies about Iraq in order to justify the invasion of Iraq are the lies that that Russia is telling to justify the invasion of Ukraine. They are lies BY Putin, not lies ABOUT Putin.

Biden called for regime change (and then shortly thereafter "clarified" his statements to say he didn't actually mean for regime change).

Like I said, no one is calling for the INVASION of Russia regardless of how evil Putin is or isn't.

[PetrChelcicky]

Propaganda is not much different, if it's "the West" or Russia.
I agree of course that the United States will think twice about invading and occupating Russia which is a much bigger country than Iraq and which is possessing some nasty nuclear weapons. But Putin also shied away from invading and occupating Ukraine as a whole, from similar reasons.
So, whatever Ken thinks, there's not much moral difference between Biden's West, Bush's West and Putin's Russia.
Imperialist reasoning is the same all over the world.

Still, an important point of difference is the question if the imperialist party can hope for much collaboration by the natives. This was the case in Nazi Germany and Saddam's Iraq - in both cases the rulers had stupidly suppressed, imprisoned or expelled a lot of oppositional activists which now, coming out of prison or hide, were eager to collaborate.
But in Russia things are rather different, and the intelligent part of the Biden government knows this. Russia has some oppositional parties which are permitted and rather active, and which are often more anti-Western than the Putinists themselves. The tiny pro-Western minority will never suffice to organize a collaborative administration - that's a reason why invading Russia is not on the table.

[Ken]

Propaganda is not much different, if it's "the West" or Russia.
I agree of course that the United States will think twice about invading and occupating Russia which is a much bigger country than Iraq and which is possessing some nasty nuclear weapons. But Putin also shied away from invading and occupating Ukraine as a whole, from similar reasons.
So, whatever Ken thinks, there's not much moral difference between Biden's West, Bush's West and Putin's Russia.
Imperialist reasoning is the same all over the world.

Still, an important point of difference is the question if the imperialist party can hope for much collaboration by the natives. This was the case in Nazi Germany and Saddam's Iraq - in both cases the rulers had stupidly suppressed, imprisoned or expelled a lot of oppositional activists which now, coming out of prison or hide, were eager to collaborate.
But in Russia things are rather different, and the intelligent part of the Biden government knows this. Russia has some oppositional parties which are permitted and rather active, and which are often more anti-Western than the Putinists themselves. The tiny pro-Western minority will never suffice to organize a collaborative administration - that's a reason why invading Russia is not on the table.

Yes, wars of aggression against another nation are evil and are the ultimate war crime according to the Nuremburg Tribunals. Whether we are talking about Bush's invasion of Iraq or Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Of that we are in agreement.

No one is talking about invading Russia. NATO isn't set up for that anyway. Russia is the only country in Europe that has territorial aspirations beyond its borders.

[Josh]

Indeed, one of the opposition parties in Russia is the literal Communist Party. They are quite anti-Western and anti-American.

[PetrChelcicky]

Ken, it's obvious that the United States have no "territorial aspirations".
I am not so certain about some neighbouring states. For example, Finland is very suddenly very eager to join the Nato - perhaps because they hope to get back Karelia (or at least the part of Karelia they lost in WW2)?
And Poland might get the East Prussian exclave.
Then, there are aspirations of a different kind. The U.S. companies would nearly have got a grip on one fifth of the Russian oil and gas reserves when Chodorkovsky tried to join a Western corporation. And the Western/Russian relations soured just after Putin prevented that Chodorkovsky coup. That was the moment when the American media started to spread anti-Putin and anti-Russian propaganda. It looked a lot like frustrated commercial aspirations.

There's a good chance that Russia loses this war and then we shall see who gets what. Then we can continue this debate on a factual base.

[Ken]

Ken, it's obvious that the United States have no "territorial aspirations".
I am not so certain about some neighbouring states. For example, Finland is very suddenly very eager to join the Nato - perhaps because they hope to get back Karelia (or at least the part of Karelia they lost in WW2)?
And Poland might get the East Prussian exclave.
Then, there are aspirations of a different kind. The U.S. companies would nearly have got a grip on one fifth of the Russian oil and gas reserves when Chodorkovsky tried to join a Western corporation. And the Western/Russian relations soured just after Putin prevented that Chodorkovsky coup. That was the moment when the American media started to spread anti-Putin and anti-Russian propaganda. It looked a lot like frustrated commercial aspirations.

There's a good chance that Russia loses this war and then we shall see who gets what. Then we can continue this debate on a factual base.

Well, one can go around the world and list the territorial disputes on one hand or two.

Japan wants the Kuril Island back from Russia
Israel and Palestine have complicated territorial disputes over the same territory
China and Taiwan have a territorial dispute
Perhaps Ireland and the UK have an issue over Northern Ireland but that isn't really a hot dispute anymore.
To my knowledge Finland and Poland don't. Karelia was completely depopulated of Fins in 1940 and the current population of Karelia was moved in from southern Russia and is an aging rural population. I'm not sure Finland really wants to deal with a million or so aging Russians in terms of social welfare, education, healthcare, etc. Or whatever the actual population is there. I'm not aware that Poland and Germany actually want to open up that border dispute. Especially with EU integration making it increasingly irrelevant.

Other than that, every other territorial dispute I can think of involves Russia in some way. Georgia, Moldovia, Chechnya, Ukraine, etc. etc.

As for international capitalism? That's a whole different topic. There are every manner of foreign firms operating in the US from Canadian and Russian mining companies to Japanese and European car companies. And BP is a big player here in the US. I'm not sure anyone is really worried about the Brits getting control over American oil. It is the same thing everywhere else in the world. That it just globalism and is the opposite of border disputes.

[ohio jones]

And Poland might get the East Prussian exclave.

I'm not aware that Poland and Germany actually want to open up that border dispute. Especially with EU integration making it increasingly irrelevant.

Other than that, every other territorial dispute I can think of involves Russia in some way. Georgia, Moldovia, Chechnya, Ukraine, etc. etc.

I assume Petr was referring to Kaliningrad, which would involve Germany and, yes, Russia. Poland might well be interested if it came up for sale, but its historic claims are much more distant.

[Ken]

And Poland might get the East Prussian exclave.

I'm not aware that Poland and Germany actually want to open up that border dispute. Especially with EU integration making it increasingly irrelevant.

Other than that, every other territorial dispute I can think of involves Russia in some way. Georgia, Moldovia, Chechnya, Ukraine, etc. etc.

I assume Petr was referring to Kaliningrad, which would involve Germany and, yes, Russia. Poland might well be interested if it came up for sale, but its historic claims are much more distant.

Maybe so. But the point is that most western social democracies aren't really looking to add land and population, especially when the populations are poorer and less productive. The US would hardly want to absorb Guatemala, for example, turn it into a state and give citizenship and social welfare to 18 million Guatemalans and be forced to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into Guatemala to bring it up to US standards. We don't hardly want any Guatemalans, much less ALL of them.

Or even Mexico for that matter. The US would have no interest in annexing and absorbing the Mexican states of Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua and Coahuila, Nueva Leon, Tamaulipas which are the six border states. That would bring tens of millions of new Hispanics into the US, 12 new Hispanic Senators and a bunch of new Hispanic Congressmen which would completely upset the existing balance of power in Congress and would likely cost hundreds of billions to get those states up to American standards in terms of infrastructure and such. No one actually wants that.

Russia seems to be the exception to that rule.

[Josh]

Western states go on wars of adventurism all the time. Of course they don't grant statehood - they instead invade other countries and turn them into client states.