- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/794993
Archived version: https://archive.ph/YHzBc
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230728005938/https://www.reuters.com/world/us-intelligence-report-says-china-likely-supplying-tech-russian-military-2023-07-27/
Isn’t the USA supplying cluster bombs to Ukraine?
Yeah but it is not suitable for rage inducing title, so they choose China instead.
The double standards and american exceptionalism of the people that post CNN/WaPo/NYT news articles on foreign events…
The US has been very clear on their support for Ukrainian defenses (probably for money, never for moral reasons), while China has been faking a peace negotiatior role.
If you adopt a specific outlook, the duplicity is less stark.
Russia is attacking a sovereign nation and when they took land, they took people. To most, that makes them the bad guys.
Backing away from that and making this a geopolitical chess game, both players have coaches. Sounds fair.
Geopolitics is never about fairness. The greater good is left to those who have powers. Iraq was a sovereign nation; but attacked, causing the deaths of their citizen, for no legitimate casus bellli. Just invent a reason, how about WMD? Yeah, that’s good enough. And Iraqi are still left to obscurity and there’s nothing they could do about it.
Iraq was absolutely fucked, but what Russia is doing in Ukraine is open genocide. Their media and politicians constantly talk about eliminating Ukrainian identity. The US media and politicians constantly talked about bringing democracy to Iraq (which it still kind of has).
The situations are comparable, but they are very different. An honest commentator would acknowledge the horrors of both if pressed, while also being able to qualify and separate that horror.
USA didn’t bring democracy to Iraq. They destroyed it. They fired all of Saddam’s army and then wondered why groups like ISIS gained hold. That constant media frenzy about “we’re winning”, Bush’s speech, WMDs, and the de-Baathification was full on propaganda. The best type of propaganda is the type where you don’t notice it and that you think you’re immune to it.
Both USA and Russia lied about their premises. They both use “liberation” and “freeing the people” as their pathetic excuse for invading a country.
It’s the people who suffer these wars (yes, Russian people too. Not all of them support the war, and i speculate that younger generation doesn’t support it). The governments just get their big piles of money.
>The US media and politicians constantly talked about bringing democracy to Iraq (which it still kind of has).
This doesn’t make sense and won’t likely happen. You either conquer them or left them unstable enough (in this case, fighting each other) so it doesn’t matter if you’re there or not. The current situation is a plus to geopolical chess players, for their national interests.
For context, Iraq is just a chess piece . it can be a pawn, bishop, rook, queen, or king or whatever. The end game is for these big players to win. Depending on strategy, Iraq can be pawned, sacrificed, or promoted to queen or whatever as long as the real player can win the game.
And this apply to other countries as well, not just Iraq, If you got what I mean. At the end of the day, its all about the real players trying to stay winning so their national interest will remain protected.
This is just immature and gross. Don’t belittle the crime of genocide because you lack the literacy to express your indoctrinated rage.
deleted by creator
And you shouldn’t minimize Russian crimes, or their openly stated motivations to eliminate Ukrainian identity because of your indoctrinated contrarianism.
“openly stated motivations to eliminate Ukrainian identity”
You mean the Nazism?
“But Iraq!” is literally all these people have. As if two things can’t be bad at the same time.
The reason people keep bringing up Iraq is not for some “whataboutism”. It’s simpler and more significant than that: it shows a hypocrisy, and double-standards. It’s not that people are saying “what Russia is doing isn’t bad because the USA did bad” (that is whataboutism, by the way); they’re saying that the USA’s (and the world’s) feigned outrage over Russia is hypocritical because of what the USA has done. Nobody held (or intends to hold) the USA to account for what it’s done, yet everyone is demanding Russia be torn apart, torn down, everyone tried for war crimes, etc. It’s a double-standard. If the USA had been held to account for what it did, then people wouldn’t be saying “but Iraq” (and if they did, that truly would be simple whataboutism). But until there is fair application of standards, it’s fair to call the USA on its hypocrisy when it wants to pretend to be the world’s police while simultaneously (ironically, in line with behavior of actual police) causing tremendous harm itself.
The difference is that most western liberals will eagerly acknowledge the horrors of that clusterfuck and denounce it entirely. Tankies on Lemmy will not engage in the same critical thought regarding this Russian genocide.
It’s an extremely low rhetorical bar, but a notable one nonetheless. Whenever you attempt to engage this kind of introspection around here there is a zero percent chance of being rewarded with good faith discussion. It’s mostly just conspiracies, and being called brainwashed.
Your definition of whataboutism needs a serious overhaul. It’s done to divert anger somewhere else or lessen the perceived severity.
Topic: China saying one thing and then covertly doing another to support an unjust invasion.
Thread: “But whatabout Iraq?!?!”
It flows from tribalist anger. Gotta point out how the other team screwed up so you don’t feel so bad when your team shits the bed.
Buddy, lots of us had outrage when the US invaded Iraq. You just can’t handle when the conversation shifts from it for 5 minutes because an even worse thing is happening.
Yes agreed. My perspective is the latter but I can see the more myopic view creating a bad vs good narrative.
Ukraine hasn’t been a sovereign nation since America funded and trained Nazis to overthrow it. Now it’s just a client state of the US that was used to try to “weaken Russia”.
Russia is the aggressor and the US stands with Ukraine and helps them.
China pretends to be ‘neutral’ in a war so glaringly having a country violate the sovereignty of Ukraine but then secretly support the aggressor.
What is so difficult to understand? Or do you purposefully try to muddy the waters by invoking “whatabout…?” and see if the countries supporting Ukraine could be slandered?
This war could not be more clear in who is the aggressor and who try to help the violated. The fact you feel the need to point in all directions and try to steer attention away from where we should be paying attention to is in itself a despicable act, only the logical conclusion I am left with is that you somehow feel aligned with russia and it’s war path against others. You created a moral outrage where other should feel bad but the only thing you have truly done is put a stain on your character. Pathetic and shameful to be basically rooting for russia at this point.
US is a murderous invader that has invaded Iraq, Afganistan in my lifetime and continues to bomb many places on earth.
Who will support victims of American agression?
You’re not wrong…
This is just more whataboutism.
That’s a lot of talking for someone who wants to use clusterbombs…
Ofc it could be clearer. For example: The US invasion of Iraq was a an actually unprovoked invasion
You’re just late at learning about a border conflict at a time of horrible escalation and don’t have anything but imperialist propagandaof a meddling party to draw conclusions from.
And no I don’t have the emotional energy to spare to discuss it here I just want to signal much needed dissent to people stumbling over this thread
You prohibiting current actions because of . This attitude might seem nobel or informed but whatabout is your true argument and it gets you nowhere.
The fact you sow doubt on the invasion of Ukraine as ‘perhaps russia had a point to start killing civilians’ is despicable and tells me you are a russian puppet or bad faith actor, just to muddy the waters.
Imagine being against unjust invasions (and there is a point to be made for that) but when clear and present danger presents itself you use unjust invasions to justify the war of aggression perpetuated by russia. The irony probably slips right by you. Well, it would if your mindset is to ‘level’ all events as ‘the same’. Pathetic and dubious at best.
US/NATO is the aggressor. Russia has liberated the people undergoing ethnic cleansing by Ukraine’s Nazis. Educate yourself. Grow up and get your head out of American propaganda.
Removed by mod
I’m Irish and not a troll. Where are you from?
Russia doesn’t meet the definition of fascism, Ukraine does.
Now just racism.
Removed by mod
Why would you think I’d pretend to be Irish? We’re not big fans of imperialists.
You’re a racist bigot however. I’d rather be though of as a troll than be like you.
If this is the same blursty as on Reddit he was pretty active in one of the Ireland subs for a fair while. People will have different opinions to you occasionally
How is saying that close military allies are supporting each other ‘AmErIcAn ExCePtIoNaLiSm’?
Fuck off back to lemmygrad.
He is on lemmygrad, that’s how federation works.
If you want to be in a neoliberal echo chamber, you should move to beehaw. Or back to reddit.
Removed by mod
Seriously, if the .ml instance is just as infested with these disgusting people as lemmygrad, there’s no point to us participating in the discussion. Don’t engage with tankies.
Pretty weird to talk about echo chambers when someone’s calling out zero value circlejerk comments.
Removed by mod
American cluster bombs are still killing children in Laos. They’re a stupid weapon.
Russia invaded Laos?!
Russia is already using them
I’ll defer to the defenders WRT what weapons they need.
Russia is not using them. Only Ukraine has been.
So you’re okay with them using chemical weapons, petal mines (which they have), bioweapons… just anything goes, right? The people of Crimea and Donbas are “defenders”, can they do anything too?
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/25/growing-civilian-toll-russian-cluster-munition-attacks
Chemical weapons: no, due to their effects easily leaving the AOR. Petal mines: yes. Crimea and the Donbas are occupied Ukrainian territory.
It is well documented, by Human Rights Watch and others, that **the Ukrainian military **has used cluster munitions. There is nothing to support a claim that Russia has done so. The Pentagon has rejected the earlier claimed evidence of Russian cluster munition attacks:
Get some consistency man, you’re all over the place.
Your Pentagon cite is from when the conflict was less than a month old. That is worthless.
Fair enough, I’ve yet to see any credible evidence though.
It may surprise you to know that in a thread where I advocate for the US giving Ukraine cluster munitions, that I don’t care that Ukraine has been using cluster munitions.
As stated by another, your Pentagon source is out of date. It’s pretty funny though that you reject HRW saying Russia is using them, but use HRW as your source that Ukraine is.
WRT chemical weapons: different things are different. When you can contain things in an AOR, I’m less concerned about the lingering effects. Areas can be closed off and cleared, especially when you’re the one that dropped them. That’s way less possible with chemical weapons, that will literally drift with the wind.
No, nothing surprises me with hopelessly brainwashed supporters of fascist Ukraine. You don’t care because you have no consistent moral principles. On the one hand you pretend to care about chemical weapons affecting the wrong people and on the other you don’t care because your “side” is using them. You can’t even offer a plausible excuse.
Not funny when you know that HRW is an arm of US propaganda., so when it says something negative about a US ally, you can take them seriously, because they couldn’t deny it and had to admit it to try to appear to be impartial.