But there is some truth in the point he is making. I think we absolutely need to acknowledge that there is some nuance to this discussion and we can do so without lending credence to the "there's no difference between Biden and Trump" bullshit.
Biden voted for the Iraq War which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people of dying. It's disgusting that this type of shit is normalized and swept under the rug in this country.
On the scale of morality they're both pretty fucking close to the wrong side of the spectrum. Like how in god's name can you say that someone who voted to authorize the iraq war even has an ounce of morality in any fiber of their being?
Maybe look into Biden's history some before making sweeping generalizations.
Joe Biden happened to be one of the senate leaders for interventions related to Milosevec's Yugoslavian ethnic assaults on Bosnians, Albanians, etc., resulting in two direct military action events by the U.S./NATO (Bosnian War in the early 90's, Kosovo War in the late 90's) culminating in Milosevec being indicted by the UN as a war criminal. He died before conviction.
The people of Kosovo appreciated it well enough to have named a major highway after his son, who after the war spent a few years as a legal advisor helping them train judges and prosecutors.
Saddam Hussein was a similarly violent dictator. When the administration at the time was railroading the U.S. into war based on spurious information, sacrificing the integrity of Colin Powell to that end, it shouldn't be a surprise that someone like Joe Biden, who had seen U.S. intervention in violent conflicts as a tangible net positive and protector of life to that point, would support it.
That doesn't make him immoral. He was wrong in putting faith in the Bush administration to act in good faith regarding national security and to have a meaningful plan for limited violence in deposing a murderous tyrant.
He's also wrong in that I'd suspect he still sees the U.S. military as a net positive for global security and safety at this point. But that doesn't come from an immoral or evil place. It comes from a misguided view of U.S. foreign power as a force of romantic heroism.
Still bringing up the Iraq War when he was part of an administration that avoided boots on the ground in similar capacities with Libya and Syria shows a lack of perspective. Similar to that where people attack Obama for substantially more drone strikes than Bush, ignoring that the weaponization of drones was something that only really took off after Obama took office, and was effectively the concession Obama gave to the military status quo while pulling back boots on the ground interventionism.
U.S. foreign policy is largely a trolley problem run amok. Non-action by a U.S. President effectively ensures death of innocents because of the house of cards the U.S. and WWII allies constructed after WWII. Action also carries an inherent cost to life. Being POTUS or a high ranking foreign policy senator/congressperson implicitly requires a level of moral compromise. Judging them with the power of hindsight is disingenuous.
It also prevents meaningful discourse needed to shift the status quo. You aren't going to change beltway regulars that the interventionist practices of the past are a net negative today by immediately attacking the moral argument. It needs to be deconstructed in a fact based, reasonable method. Much like M4A or similar universal healthcare proposals, a change in U.S. policy is something most people inherently desire but can't see the path from where we are today to where we should be.