Putin intervention in Ukraine vs Bush Intervention in Iraq

Post Reply New Topic

Do you think Superpowers and more specifically the United States and Russia are abusing their power.

Bush sought in alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which as it turned out was not. Putin, however, claims that the power in Ukraine took over a group of fascists, and his intervention on the Crimean peninsula is intended only to protect the Russian minority in Crimea. Hitler also claimed so when invaded Czechoslovakia: D

What is your opinion on the Russian intervention in Ukraine in the context of the American operation in Iraq.

In my view, both Bush and Putin are two psychopaths, thankfully one has lost power, it may also be the second ousted from power. Spoiled thugs and nuclear toys are a bad combination

The justification used by both Bush and Putin for their military interventions are equally bullsh*t.
And now, the American right is fawning over Putin, while ridiculing their own President, Barack Obama. They in part seem to identify with him because they miss having a President like Bush, who likes to appear overly macho, and acts rashly and brainlessly. Then there's the other reasons which the right won't admit to - that they seem to have a genuine homoerotic thing for a shirtless Putin.

Regarding the war in Iraq, the other option was to let Saddam Hussein keep the power and then pass it on to Uday of Qusay. Furthermore, Bush didn't declare war against Iraq, the congress did. The American president does not control the congress; the Russian president does control the Russian Federal Assembly.

Putin may be trying to borrow a page from Abraham Lincoln's playbook. Early in 1861 Union soldiers moved into northwestern Virginia. The state had already cast its lot with the Confederacy, the group of Rebels there then held a "referendum" in which they voted to break from Virginia and join the Union as West Virginia.

The Confederacy had actually made the first aggressive move by attacking Fort Sumter.
And there is a world of difference here - the Confederacy was conducting armed insurrection against the legal government of the United States, whereas Putin is occupying the territory of a sovereign nation.
Really, why is it that you conservatives have it out for the 16th President? Is it a states rights thing? Is it about race?

^^^ Please tell me how, in any way, I was denigrating Lincoln, quite the contrary. It is perhaps you who needs to take the blinders off.

Well, it appeared as such to me, as you said Putin was taking a page out of Lincoln's book with the Russian invasion of the Crimea. You seemed to be saying that Virginia had the right to leave the US because of a popular vote taken there.

The hill folks of West Virginia were fed up with the confederacy. Tired of dying so that the tidewater lowland planters could keep their slaves. So they seceded from the seceders, and rejoined the Union as the new state of west virgina.

A better analogy to Putin might be the Mexican War. Putin could say "return Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and Texas, to Mexico! And THEN talk to me about the Ukraine! And then he migh go on to say "Im only helping those poor ethnic Russians manning the Alamo in Crimea!".

Johnson county, Mississippi, all but seceded from the Confederacy after self described Southern Yankee Pro-Union guerrillas under the leadership of Confederate army deserter Newt Knight had all but seized control from southern control. William Tecumseh Sherman had made mention of it on his march to the sea.

Johnson county, Mississippi, all but seceded from the Confederacy after self described Southern Yankee Pro-Union guerrillas under the leadership of Confederate army deserter Newt Knight had all but seized control from southern civilian and military leadership. William Tecumseh Sherman had made mention of it on his march to the sea.

I'm liberal. I dont like Lincoln. People like to remember him as a martyr, but he came close to being a dictator.

Abraham Lincoln wasn't a saint, or a great president, for that matter. People need to remember that the US wasn't built by anyone portrayed on the Mount Rushmore, but by the Likes of Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt. The US today is kept great by people like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc., not by the politicians.

But from what I know he abolished slavery and gave blacks the freedom which they deserve after all

It is hilarious, Putin and Russia aren't any different than America. Putin asked Russian lawmakers for an Authorization for the Use of Military Force(AUMF) in Ukraine, Bush asked for the same in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama didn't even bother with his adventure into Libya. So many more untold stories for Bush and Obama too. John Kerry was literally on some Sunday talkshow saying how Putin was acting like it was the 19th century and that "you can't invade another country in the 21st century on completely trumped up pretexts", I'd laugh if it wasn't so honestly unbelievable. They're talking about putting sanctions on Yanukovych and his government, they're even talking about sanctions on Putin and the Russian government but what punishment will George Bush, Dick Chaney, Barack Obama, and Hilary Clinton get? They're never going to be sanctioned, they're never going to have to go to the Hague. They get to live the rest of their lives out in untold luxury and power, protected by tax-payer funded Secret Service agents for the rest of their lives. Maybe Hilary will get an even bigger reward yet from the powers that be and become president, make another war criminal president so they never make any waves about the rest.

We don't have any moral ground to stand on with Russia, the EU/US/NATO/IMF/whatever's concern for Crimea or Ukraine have nothing to do with human rights or democracy. Maybe after a decade of war and military occupation, maybe if they build some island torture prison. I'm not taking Russia's side here either, I just see thru the propaganda that our own government is feeding us. This is what we do when we want to overthrow governments; they manipulate the real grievances of the populace, they ally themselves to any extremist or fringe group necessary against the government they don't like, take advantage of any sectarian division, they incite these violent protests and inevitably frame it as some intellectual college student run pro-western democracy movement going up against some Hitler-esqe evil dictator that will surely kill them all if left in power. False flags do happen, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt straight up faked protester deaths and the EuroMaidan people hired snipers(I wonder from who) to take out protesters and police, the terrorists in Syria likely used Sarin against their own people to goad the US into was with Assad.

Watching these protests over the years, its makes you realize how not free we actually are in America. Cops have no issue opening fire citizens in America, they'll put one in your dog when you're said and done too as a bonus. If faced with some Color Revolution/Arab Spring type uprising in America, they would mow all of us down. You can't occupy important infrastructure and god help you if you disturb the monied and politically collected powers.

"There are precious few at ease with moral ambiguities, so we act as if they don't exist"

I'd be more sympathetic to Lincolns good side if the public acknowledged his dark side

Or, just listen to President Lincoln's own words in the Fourth Lincoln Douglass Debate



There was never an On/Off button with racism. It was like a dimmer switch. He wasn't as bad as many people of the time, but I wouldn't call him a "champion"

Jefferson, too, made the presidency by the use of the Sothern Slaveowners political power.

I know these two aforementioned presidents did some great things, but I examine the whole person. But most people don't want to ackowledge the dark sides of their heroes, partly because it would mean they'd have to look at the good deeds of their villians. People don't want to be confused. Ignorance is bliss, and as long as they are ignorant of the shades of gray stationed in between their moral "black and white" point of view; they'll be content for history to maintain its status quo.

The most moral president I've studied, President Arthur, is one of the most uninteresting administrations. Yet, I was baffled by an online project by historians to rank the Presidents' by a number of factors. Yet, in the criteria of "Moral Authority", President Arthur (who fought corruption and reformed the civil service) was ranked below President Jackson (who ignored the constitution and commited a genocide on the Native Americans.)

Aside from ensuring that already extant Russian Military bases don't get attacked, Russia has about as much business invading the Crimea as we did in invading Iraq. --None at all.