Simply ignoring the points? Just as a reminder, here they are again:
Iraq gassed their own citizens, tried to assassinate a U.S. president, invaded their neighbors, engaged in terrorism (not Al Qaeda). At the time of the gulf war there were regularly trying to shoot down iUS and NATO aircraft in the no-fly zone designed to keep Saddam from killing the Kurds. Iraq was a horrible mistake and tragedy - but no oil was stolen, nor was territory seized. While many people died, there was never any systematic assault on civilian populations - Iraq became a disaster because of an Iraqi civil war. It was a single country.
Russia is invading a country whose security they guaranteed. They are raping and murdering people, flattening cities and directly targeting infrastructure that is only for civilian purposes. They are attacking those who are not a threat to them, and never engaged in any of the above causes beli. They are I’m doing so to enlarge their nation and subjugate others. They are threading the same to other nations. They unleashed the largest European war since WWII.
So if you see that as symmetric, there is almost nothing we can discuss in an objective way.
As I mentioned, if you really can't tell the difference and apply objective criteria, then it's not worth continuing this discussion.
Not sure why you are trying to move the goalposts. Look where our discussion started.
In your more recent reply above you cherry-picked the features of both wars in a way that's supposed to make your argument look valid. You ignored facts that contradict it.
I don't think you are arguing in good faith and are prepared to change your position. You seem to model Russia as "the enemy" that does everything bad. That's fine by me.
Iraq gassed their own citizens, tried to assassinate a U.S. president, invaded their neighbors, engaged in terrorism (not Al Qaeda). At the time of the gulf war there were regularly trying to shoot down iUS and NATO aircraft in the no-fly zone designed to keep Saddam from killing the Kurds. Iraq was a horrible mistake and tragedy - but no oil was stolen, nor was territory seized. While many people died, there was never any systematic assault on civilian populations - Iraq became a disaster because of an Iraqi civil war. It was a single country.
Compare to:
Russia is invading a country whose security they guaranteed. They are raping and murdering people, flattening cities and directly targeting infrastructure that is only for civilian purposes. They are attacking those who are not a threat to them, and never engaged in any of the above causes beli. They are I’m doing so to enlarge their nation and subjugate others. They are threading the same to other nations. They unleashed the largest European war since WWII.
Your inability to see a difference here is either astounding or predictable, depending on your core ideologies, but I have a solid suspicion of which I believe it is.
Russia is invading a country whose security they guaranteed. They are raping and murdering people, flattening cities and directly targeting infrastructure that is only for civilian purposes. They are attacking those who are not a threat to them, and never engaged in any of the above causes beli. They are I’m doing so to enlarge their nation and subjugate others. They are threading the same to other nations. They unleashed the largest European war since WWII.
So if you see that as symmetric, there is almost nothing we can discuss in an objective way.
As I mentioned, if you really can't tell the difference and apply objective criteria, then it's not worth continuing this discussion.