> On the verge of the second Iraq invasion, on European TV, there was doubt about claims of WMD but a hint of oil and USA agenda. American TV at my friends house was rallying that Saddam and his regime must be ended immediately.

The two were not mutually exclusive.

pretention to adherence to international law is

Can you point exactly what you mean by international law? Because I think you're handwaving over something that does not exist, at least in the way you imply it does.

Interesting. So what crimes then would putin be guilty of over the Ukraine war?

> Interesting. So what crimes then would putin be guilty of over the Ukraine war?

If you're honestly interested on the topic, I welcome you to Google the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for Putin.

Ahhhh gotcha. So you see the us invasion of Iraq as totally ok but the Russian invasion of Ukraine as against the law.

It is a little funny to see you question international law and then without missing a beat pivot to “check out the icc warrants.”

Just know that at a non-negligible portion of the us is waking up to the utter nonsense.

For future reference boys, you have to claim whataboutism before you reach this point in the conversation lol.

I didn’t bring up Iraq here and the thread is about russia so exactly how this is <insert social media buzzword here> is escaping me.

It's generally illegal to invade other countries that aren't about to invade you[1].

There's quite a few heads of state who should be hauled out for trial at the Hague for doing just that. None of them will be.

[1] Unless, of course, you're a permanent UNSC member. /s