The people we drop bombs on are citizens of somewhere too.
The insinuation here is that even the civilians are invaders? OP is talking about what's brushed aside as collateral damage, especially easily when things go south overseas.
Nowhere in that sentence did I see an insinuation that we were talking about civilians (and I was specifically talking about Russian soldiers). But when we discuss collateral damage, yes that happens sometimes and its awful. However, take how much collateral damage Ukraine causes in Russia when fighting back and how much Russia causes in terms of civilian lives, infrastructure, etc. and it feels pretty clear to me that democratic nations are probably net better at minimizing collateral damage (and generally following international norms and treaties for human rights) than authoritarian regimes.
One would think, but: https://www.justsecurity.org/89781/us-lethal-strikes-program... / https://archive.md/eZUTB
> feels pretty clear to me that democratic nations are than authoritarian regimes.
Our "feel" is, it is always the other. Never us?
War Atrocities in Yemen Linked to US Weapons
Columbia Law School researchers have unveiled a disturbing connection between American arms and civilian deaths.
It's also UK weapons systems being used alongside US ones, so the US isn't solely at fault here.
Lend-Lease began in 1941 - so we were exporting war materiel and technology years before we got directly involved in WW2.
What does this mean? You seem to say the war on communism did nothing because we won it anyway? How can you tell?
It’s better to ask for my reasoning and explain your own opposing point of view.