"It takes two to start a war" . . . not so sure about that.

[johnofgwent]

Iraq had the excuse of Kuwait slant drilling for oil across the border, duck.

One of the more entertaining people I met in my varied career was the brother of Jim Guerin's Defence Lawyer.

Jim who ? I hear you say. Look him up. And International Sgnal. And Allivane International.

Through those dodgy contacts I found a tale of Iraq borrowing the way Gordon Brown did to shore up his banking pals. They borrowed a ***LOT*** from Kuwait to fund their war with Iran. And would have been able to pay most of it back if Kuwait had played fair with the OPEC cartel. But for most of the decade prior to Saddam rolling his tanks, Kuwait consistently piped and sold more than the amount the cartel told them they were "allowed" to. And this shat on Iraq's ability to make money in particular.

So in the end Saddam got pissed off and rolled his tanks in, and set fire to the oil to f**k Kuwait's ability to sell it, apparently.

Well that's what I heard through the channels i had available at the time.

ANYWAY

Back to the topic, Ingeneral it does take two to start a war, but generally the junior partner's role is to have something the other side covets.  Food.... Water.... Minerals....  Lebensraum ...

[srb7677]

They old saying "it takes two to start a war" doesn't seem to apply here any more than it did with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Indeed, so many wars have been started by just one country choosing to invade another. The invaded nation's only contribution is to resist the attacker, the only other option being to surrender to enemy occupation. Austria-Hungary invaded Serbia in 1914. Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Japan invaded China in 1937. Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935. Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982. Iraq invaded Iran in 1981. North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950. In every case a war was started by one nation choosing to invade another, sometimes successfull, sometimes less so. A war began simply because the invaded nation resisted and was supported by others.

[srb7677]

Western countries pursue similar policies to each other.  All the leaders support global bodies, such as the WHO, the WEF, and the agenda is totalitarianism under a particular group of the elite.  Putin does not support that.  It's quite simple.

So the only one who is not a totalitarian is Putin?

I think you made more sense when you stuck to covid,

[Scott777]

Some will say that Ukraine provoked Russia by being successful and wanting to join the EU and Nato.  But all over the world there are countries that pursue differing policies that co-exist in peace, even if that's an uneasy peace.

Western countries pursue similar policies to each other.  All the leaders support global bodies, such as the WHO, the WEF, and the agenda is totalitarianism under a particular group of the elite.  Putin does not support that.  It's quite simple.

[HDQQ]

Iraq had the excuse of Kuwait slant drilling for oil across the border, duck.

I don't think Russia have an excuse for violence to try to solve their perceived hurt from Ukraine preferring to look West rather than East. Blame shifting is OK, but the Ukraine did not send troops into Russia, nor did they fire missiles over their border AFAIK.

Russia has no real excuse.

So if I don't like my neighbour's noisy sports car I can bulldoze his house?  The answer is: "depends on the size of your bulldozer".

[Sampanviking]

Not strictly true Barry. The Maidan coup did install a strongly anti Russian regime in Kiev and these have taken out their spite on the ethnic Russian populations in the East. If such events had been reported over the last eight years with even a fraction of the vigour devoted to demonising Russia, then the level of support for Ukraine from the Western public would undoubtedly be very very much less.

All the Ukraine ever had to do was to accept that its geography meant that Its Independence came at the cost of neutrality. Its not that big a thing to ask of a country.
It had security and threw it all away by aligning with a rabidly and ideologically hostile anti Russian alliance. Now its paying the price and the US is reaping the propaganda benefits with its crocodile tears.

[Barry]

Iraq had the excuse of Kuwait slant drilling for oil across the border, duck.

I don't think Russia have an excuse for violence to try to solve their perceived hurt from Ukraine preferring to look West rather than East. Blame shifting is OK, but the Ukraine did not send troops into Russia, nor did they fire missiles over their border AFAIK.

Russia has no real excuse.

[HDQQ]

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is an unprovoked attack on one country by another.  They old saying "it takes two to start a war" doesn't seem to apply here any more than it did with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

Some will say that Ukraine provoked Russia by being successful and wanting to join the EU and Nato.  But all over the world there are countries that pursue differing policies that co-exist in peace, even if that's an uneasy peace.

All it needs is for one person / group / nation to designate another as an enemy / victim to start hostilities.