Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Ira...
Perhaps if anyone asks the Russians they can just say it was worth it[1].
Let's stop with pretending that the reason why Ukrainian deaths are different is for any other reason than because they're pale skilled Europeans with blue eyes and blonde hair. Most major media have already admitted it, governments have already applauded it in parliament, it's probably about time that HN stops pretending it's about other reasons too.
[0] https://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/iraqi...
For a long time, West Europe sought good relations with Russia and benefited from trade. That changed when Putin attacked Ukraine. The war hit too close to home, and West European countries could no longer trust Putin's intentions. The primary reaction was a sudden increase in military spending. As a secondary reaction, West Europe gave ok to stronger sanctions that were already supported by East Europe and the US.
What's happening in Ukraine is a completely unprovoked attack by a nuclear power led by a madman who seems to have lost all grip on reality. The potential for escalation in to something nobody ever imagined possible is very real.
Lastly, there's also such a thing as "intent". Cynical responses will surely follow but I'm convinced that while the US made many colossal mistakes in the Middle East they never came close to having malicious drive that Russia is showing now.
Way to lose the point. Nothing on that paragraph is different from the Bush Jr. excursions into the Middle East and threats all over the world?
Not to say the entire situation is alike. It's not. But on those features it's similar.
Irak was a dictatorship which committed genocide on its own people. Even if the reasons weren't true (and they weren't but people believed the propaganda at the time) there was at least the hope that things would improve for the people. (For the Kurds, they have.)
Ukraine is a democracy. The propaganda isn't even good enough to fool anyone.
The situations are very different.
I even saw some brown people getting murdered by US forces on TV in my local McDonalds at 4 in the day one time.
By the Iraq War Bodycount's dataset, the civilian kill count of US forces alone, without including the Iraqi government forces, almost matches that of the sectarian terrorists who explicitly sought out to kill civilians. From occupation to leaving in 2011, it is only about 20% less. That is plainly unacceptable and criminal in any context.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/25/iraq-t...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/24/iraq-war-logs-...
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2010-03-10/oba...
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2011-05-23/us-...
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/iraqs-new-death-sq...
It's perfectly consistent to believe in equity and believe that neither the Russian nor the American billionaires' assets should be seized.
You can't just handwave away one side and say "regardless of whether you believe it's justified for group A, you have to believe it's justified for group B".
We could have a ceiling of say 50 million quid and you get to say you won capitalism, and everyone throws you a bug party.
How do you expect to have Google, Microsoft, Apple Tesla, SpaceX? if their founders were to retire once they have 50m
Or maybe others would be highly productive if the current people retire.
> shift their goal from making a great profit to making a great social impact
who says they will shift?
Progressive taxation should be uncapped, when you pass some threshold of "this is more than you need in the lifetimes of you, your partner, your next-of-kin to all live a life of unparalleled luxury" then it should escalate up to 99%, and if you pass some really obscene threshold equivalent to a small country's GDP then let it go to 100%.
Wealth taxation should be effective. No individual needs to own land area equivalent to a city, or housing and art assets of a disproportionate nature.
And on the flipside... income taxation can be lowered if we're more effectively taxing wealth and the obscene earnings. Instead we could encourage far more social mobility and the growing of a far larger middle-class. Tax low earners and those without wealth nothing at all, and tax the middle-class only a little.
This opinion won't resonate on HN, but modern society has become so effective at extracting money from people and enriching a few, and rent-seeking as a business model so prevalent that it does feel we're at risk of putting future generations in a serfdom role that had taken hundreds of years to get out of.
This is all distinct from what's happening in Ukraine and with sanctions, this is just an opinion about what's happening in the World at large.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/18/61percent-of-americans-paid-...
Why stop at 100%? Assuming it is okay to put a cap on how much wealth and income a person can have, it should be sensible to have marginal tax rate higher than 100% of the taxable income.
You earn more than 100M in a year? Please pay 200M until your wealth is back to sensible levels. Alternatively, you can reduce your taxable income by making charitable donations willingly – same thing as far as balance is concerned, but you might feel differently about it.