Saddam Hussein didn't literally genocide kurdish people? Not saying that justifies a country halfway across the world to brutally occupy them, but it's not like that didn't happen.
In the former instance there was an actual concerted effort to specifically murder people of a certain minority. In the latter there was a misguided attempt to squash an insurgency and build a new government at all costs. This is documented history and I can only assume you've been drooling on some communist furry subs for the past decade and just left adolescence. You can't just change word's definitions for your own childish deranged goals.
The fucking nerve of you to invoke the idea of 'documented history' when you're as ignorant as a fucking toddler about that very history is absolutely fucking infuriating. And for someone who puts so much goddamned effort into your affectation of intelligence you have absolutely no fucking critical thinking. The US, this hapless buffoon of a country. Accidentally murdering several million people over the course of three decades. Whoopsie! I deleted the only pharmaceutical factory in the region. D'oh! I bombed a baby food factory and all the civilian power and water infrastructure! How does this keep happening??
And the fucking chauvinism. It's genocide when our enemy uses chemical weapons during wartime in an area with a lot of insurgent fighting (compare us killing another several million people in Vietnam with our own chemical weapons for the exact same reasons except deliberately targeting their food supply but that's not considered a genocide somehow). They killed about 3k people but they did it with animal bloodlust. But we're good. We killed A THOUSAND TIMES THAT MANY PEOPLE but with good intentions. Promise.
People like you are mathematical proof that the west needs to be fucking destroyed.
You see the double standard you're using here, right? Awful things done by natos geopolitical enemies are genocides, war crimes,... Yet when nato does it it's at most a misguided atempt at doing the right thing?
It's because you've been a petulant, condescending little fancylad while your watering down of the term genocide and accusing the people with actual documentation on their side of doing what you're doing. To paraphrase someone else, you guys have your Wrong and Smug sliders completely maxed out, to the point where you (not you personally, at least yet) quickly get solipsistic and start dehumaizing people with different opinions as bots as soon as the notion that your views are obviously correct, good and widespread is even slightly challenged.
Nah you just pearl clutched when we called Western Powers bad names.
I'm loosely in favor of restricting the use of the word genocide to when it's definitionally appropriate myself, but that's in the context of effective communication and clarity. So long as "genocide" is going to be used exclusively to refer to US State Department desginated enemies only, then it's perfectly reasonable to liken the US/France/UK's horrific foreign interventions genocide as well. Western interventions, both formal and clandestine, have killed many more than anyone else those imperialist fucks have accused of the word, so in the interest of showing just how absurd their usage is yes, we should and can call Western powers genocidal too.
Yes, correct. Now Saddam Hussein on the other hand..
Edit: oh you're one of the hexbear people, jesus you people are insufferable
I agree with you and you resort to whataboutism in response. Somehow I'm the insufferable one?
Yikes.
Literally justifying the Iraq war while acting like we're the assholes here, right
Saddam Hussein didn't literally genocide kurdish people? Not saying that justifies a country halfway across the world to brutally occupy them, but it's not like that didn't happen.
Holy fucking shit.
After hand wringing the word in context of the US killing millions of people.
And we're insufferable.
In the former instance there was an actual concerted effort to specifically murder people of a certain minority. In the latter there was a misguided attempt to squash an insurgency and build a new government at all costs. This is documented history and I can only assume you've been drooling on some communist furry subs for the past decade and just left adolescence. You can't just change word's definitions for your own childish deranged goals.
The fucking nerve of you to invoke the idea of 'documented history' when you're as ignorant as a fucking toddler about that very history is absolutely fucking infuriating. And for someone who puts so much goddamned effort into your affectation of intelligence you have absolutely no fucking critical thinking. The US, this hapless buffoon of a country. Accidentally murdering several million people over the course of three decades. Whoopsie! I deleted the only pharmaceutical factory in the region. D'oh! I bombed a baby food factory and all the civilian power and water infrastructure! How does this keep happening??
And the fucking chauvinism. It's genocide when our enemy uses chemical weapons during wartime in an area with a lot of insurgent fighting (compare us killing another several million people in Vietnam with our own chemical weapons for the exact same reasons except deliberately targeting their food supply but that's not considered a genocide somehow). They killed about 3k people but they did it with animal bloodlust. But we're good. We killed A THOUSAND TIMES THAT MANY PEOPLE but with good intentions. Promise.
People like you are mathematical proof that the west needs to be fucking destroyed.
Honestly writing off America's involvement in the Iraq war as just "misguided" has me fucking FUMING.
whoopsies i did yet another imperialism killing millions in the process
You see the double standard you're using here, right? Awful things done by natos geopolitical enemies are genocides, war crimes,... Yet when nato does it it's at most a misguided atempt at doing the right thing?
Awwww poor Bush and his administration, just poor misguided rubes with no ill intent at all. :(
Not saying that
Then why did you use the word misguided
deleted by creator
You're agreeing with my comment and have 10 upvotes but mine has 2? Curious
It's because you've been a petulant, condescending little fancylad while
your watering down of the term genocide and accusing the people with actual documentation on their side of doing what you're doing. To paraphrase someone else, you guys have your Wrong and Smug sliders completely maxed out, to the point where you (not you personally, at least yet) quickly get solipsistic and start dehumaizing people with different opinions as bots as soon as the notion that your views are obviously correct, good and widespread is even slightly challenged.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I don't think the war was justified.
Yeah killing millions of people was totally worth getting one man!
Now let's bomb Washington DC to rubble and kill your family so we can get to Bush, the even bigger war criminal.
Did I say I think we should have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?
Nah you just pearl clutched when we called Western Powers bad names.
I'm loosely in favor of restricting the use of the word genocide to when it's definitionally appropriate myself, but that's in the context of effective communication and clarity. So long as "genocide" is going to be used exclusively to refer to US State Department desginated enemies only, then it's perfectly reasonable to liken the US/France/UK's horrific foreign interventions genocide as well. Western interventions, both formal and clandestine, have killed many more than anyone else those imperialist fucks have accused of the word, so in the interest of showing just how absurd their usage is yes, we should and can call Western powers genocidal too.