There isn’t an example of a large US population living in one place so that they were a majority being attacked by a foreign entity. So you can’t say the US would respond differently from Russia because this has never happened to the US. I’d wager there would be a major military response if there was a similar situation.
When Ukraine had governments that were more closely aligned with Russia as opposed to the West/NATO there was no conflict between their citizenry. Both sides have a culture and history that is similar and much closer to Russia than the west. The non Russians saw an opportunity for greater economic growth for making overtures to the EU and the US NATO. They would have known in advance that Russia could never accept a NATO member that close to their border. They chose to take this risky provocative action and thought Russia would not do anything.
You can’t defend the US actions over the Cuban Missile crisis and simultaneously defend NATO installing missile batteries in countries in Eastern Europe in close proximity to Russia.
What happened in Serbia was not precision bombing. It was an attack on a sovereign nation who posed no threat to the US. The casualties were mostly civilian also and cluster bombs were used.
Plenty of people were saying there was no evidence of Saddam having nukes or even significant stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons. In the absence of any real proof, the pretext for declaring war was extremely weak or non-existent.
I recognise the Democrat culpability for the most recent US military actions sowing chaos, such as the overthrow of Gadaffi leading to the Arab Spring and elevation of the Muslim Brotherhood and associated terror groups.
I believe the CIA has funded and armed groups like Al Queda and ISIS and almost certainly continues to do so. Many of ISIS fighters were clearly paid mercenaries and Putin has correctly pointed this out. Both groups are now fighting in Ukraine for the Ukrainian/NATO side as has been confirmed by multiple sources from the Islamic world. So you have Nazis, ISIS and Al Queda fighting for Ukraine and you wonder why some of us don’t want to put Ukrainian flags in our Twitter profiles.
Russia is not at all innocent, but they were clearly and repeatedly provoked and their response was totally predictable. The breakup of an empire where you have mixed ethnic populations is always messy, and you only have to look at the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire or the breakup of the former Yugoslavia to see this. There was a fine balance which had been tread for decades which was abandoned and the West was deeply involved in sowing the seeds of chaos and discord from the start and is now sacrificing Ukrainians to test out new weapons systems.
Except that your analogy is pure lies.
The truth is Russians ruled over Ukraine through clients and rigged elections.
In 2014, Ukrainians overthrew the Russians and elected their own leaders.
Nothing bad happened to Russians in Ukraine except they no longer ruled the country.
It didn't matter, Vlad the Invader used those events as his excuse to invade and annex Crimea, and invade the Donbass.
And, if you were any student of history you'd well know that yours is precisely the excuse Adolf Hitler used to invade and annex Austria and Czechoslovakia.
That is not the example any civilized country would want to follow.
winslow: " When Ukraine had governments that were more closely aligned with Russia as opposed to the West/NATO there was no conflict between their citizenry.
Both sides have a culture and history that is similar and much closer to Russia than the west.
The non Russians saw an opportunity for greater economic growth for making overtures to the EU and the US NATO.
They would have known in advance that Russia could never accept a NATO member that close to their border.
They chose to take this risky provocative action and thought Russia would not do anything. "
You understand, don't you, that is just insane Russian propaganda?
In fact, Russia ruled over Ukraine before 2014 through corruption, intimidation and rigged elections.
When all that ended, Russians invaded and illegally annexed Crimea, also the Donbass.
In 2022, Vlad the Invader tried to finish the job against overwhelming opposition from Ukrainians, including Russian speakers.
The only true historical examples you can point to are Hitler invading and annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia, and I think such comparisons are entirely appropriate.
winslow: "You can’t defend the US actions over the Cuban Missile crisis and simultaneously defend NATO installing missile batteries in countries in Eastern Europe in close proximity to Russia."
Of course I can, once I've corrected your lies.
First, the Cuban missile crisis was an intense negotiation in which no shots were fired and nobody killed.
It resulted in mutual withdrawals of US nuclear missiles in Turkey and Italy and Russian missiles in Cuba.
Those missiles were soon rendered obsolete and unnecessary by submarine launched ICBMs.
Today, by stark contrast, U.S. missiles in Europe are not nuclear tipped, they are strictly defensive, intended to shoot down invading aircraft and missiles.
And Russia has many similar missiles intended for the same purposes.
Such missiles represent no threat to anybody with honorable intentions.
winslow: "What happened in Serbia was not precision bombing. It was an attack on a sovereign nation who posed no threat to the US.
The casualties were mostly civilian also and cluster bombs were used. "
No, the U.S. has used precision guided "smart bombs" since the 1990's precisely to minimize so-called "collateral damage".
But as our weapons have grown ever more accurate, so have our enemies found ever more clever ways to protect themselves with "human shields".
The 1990s Yugoslav wars are said to have killed around 140,000 people.
Of those, U.S. military actions may be responsible for a handful.
So there is no legitimate comparison to Vlad the Invader's actions in Ukraine.
winslow: "Plenty of people were saying there was no evidence of Saddam having nukes or even significant stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons.
In the absence of any real proof, the pretext for declaring war was extremely weak or non-existent. "
No the truth is that some people claimed after the fact that they had opposed it before, but reviews of actual texts show nobody seriously opposed and nobody claimed Saddam had no WMD.
Indeed, Saddam himself believed he had such weapons and threatened his neighbors with them.
Regardless, there is zero equivalence with Vlad the Invader's actions in Ukraine.
winslow: "I recognise the Democrat culpability for the most recent US military actions sowing chaos, such as the overthrow of Gadaffi leading to the Arab Spring and elevation of the Muslim Brotherhood and associated terror groups. "
Sadly, the words "Democrat" and "Deep State" are nearly synonymous.
Still, I'm not willing to say everything they are accused of is necessarily true.
Nor does any of it equate to Vlad's invasion of Ukraine.
winslow: "I believe the CIA has funded and armed groups like Al Queda and ISIS and almost certainly continues to do so."
Of course, you are entitled by US law to believe whatever you wish, but I've seen no evidence to remotely support such insane claims.
winslow: "Many of ISIS fighters were clearly paid mercenaries and Putin has correctly pointed this out.
Both groups are now fighting in Ukraine for the Ukrainian/NATO side as has been confirmed by multiple sources from the Islamic world.
So you have Nazis, ISIS and Al Queda fighting for Ukraine "
I'd believe nothing from Vlad the Invader.
I would believe that Muslims he killed in Chechnya and Syria might want some revenge in Ukraine.
I'm not certain how, exactly, that invalidates the Ukrainian cause.
winslow: "Russia is not at all innocent... "
Right, and all the rest is irrelevant.