America and the West are always fine with political violence when it's directed against others (or just against anyone who isn't white) but the second it gets directed towards us, then it becomes a problem.
Great take, Joe. The political elites think they are untouchable until an event like this shatters the illusion. Then they come out singing Kumbaya and preaching peace love and understanding. Hipocrites.
Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe, The USSR in Eastern Europe, Ethiopia's war in Tigray, The Second Congo war, the Mongol invasions and conquests (yes, if you can believe it), the Chinese civil wars, Second Sino-Japanese war, Soviet-Afghan war, ect., all rank higher than that threshold you asked for in terms of deaths. In fact, that you'd even give Iraq as a benchmark is strange, given it is not even in the top ten most destructive conflicts of the world after 1492, to say nothing of the 20th century.
But given you're a socialist, here's my answer for you: how about Socialism? Your ideology conquered billions in the 20th century, including the Macedonians--my people. You told us that this was the beginning of a superior world, that we would live under the party now. "Bourgeoise democracy" was to be done away with, in favor of enlightened rule under visionaries. You had nigh-unlimited access to our people, land, resources, and ruled over us for decades.
You also killed-if you can believe it-probably equal numbers of my family as compared to the fascists, and undoubtedly tortured a great deal more. But still, it was a necessary sacrifice to build a future...that would never come. Because after your ideology lost its grip on power, had to work in democratic societies, and could no longer arbitrarily kill or torture those who went against the party line, guess what its current representation in Macedonia's parliament of 120 seats.
You have 7.
50 years of socialist rule, and that's the best you can do. You killed us for nothing.
You literally asked for Ed to "name a country that has killed more people to achieve its political aims than the United States killed in Iraq." And guess what, they're a pretty low bar, given that conflict doesn't even make the top 20 most deadly conflicts since 1492, or since the 19th century, or since the 20th century. All of which is a part of the modern world. Every conflict I gave you far exceeds the Iraq war in casualties, and in fact checking a list the deadliest wars since the 1500s, it ranks around 50th place. A war, mind you, that seems to have most deaths be incurred from sectarian violence between Iraqis.
Its your fault for asking for that benchmark, if you didn't want it reached.
But then again, your ideology killed a lot of my people for a lie, so its not like I should expect its adherents to do much better than make spiteful comments towards the harbinger of the ideology which triumphed in the cold war. And ask for rather low bars for subjects.
You said, and I quote," Please name a country that has killed more people to achieve its political aims than the United States killed in Iraq."
Nazi Germany and the USSR in WW2: 20th century,
1st Ethiopian war in Tigray: 20th century
Second Congo war: 20th-21st century
Chinese civil war-20th century
Second Sino-Japanese war-20th century
Soviet-Afghan war-20th century.
All of those above listed conflicts happened within the past hundred years. All of which-as well as many more-are far beyond any deaths in Iraq. Which you, as I have already written , demanded someone to "please name a country that has killed more people to achieve its political aims than the United States killed in Iraq" in response to the criticism of ignorance on your end towards the wider world. Unless you don't consider the 20th century to be a part of the "modern era," every single conflict listed bar the mongol conquests matches that request of yours.
America and the West are always fine with political violence when it's directed against others (or just against anyone who isn't white) but the second it gets directed towards us, then it becomes a problem.
And we have the audacity to say, "This isn't how we do things!" Yes, it is.
Great take, Joe. The political elites think they are untouchable until an event like this shatters the illusion. Then they come out singing Kumbaya and preaching peace love and understanding. Hipocrites.
Thank you Tina! It makes me want to pull my hair out
Author hasn't been outside the US to recognize real political violence. Nigeria, Indonesia, So. Africa...
Please name a country that has killed more people to achieve its political aims than the United States killed in Iraq.
Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe, The USSR in Eastern Europe, Ethiopia's war in Tigray, The Second Congo war, the Mongol invasions and conquests (yes, if you can believe it), the Chinese civil wars, Second Sino-Japanese war, Soviet-Afghan war, ect., all rank higher than that threshold you asked for in terms of deaths. In fact, that you'd even give Iraq as a benchmark is strange, given it is not even in the top ten most destructive conflicts of the world after 1492, to say nothing of the 20th century.
But given you're a socialist, here's my answer for you: how about Socialism? Your ideology conquered billions in the 20th century, including the Macedonians--my people. You told us that this was the beginning of a superior world, that we would live under the party now. "Bourgeoise democracy" was to be done away with, in favor of enlightened rule under visionaries. You had nigh-unlimited access to our people, land, resources, and ruled over us for decades.
You also killed-if you can believe it-probably equal numbers of my family as compared to the fascists, and undoubtedly tortured a great deal more. But still, it was a necessary sacrifice to build a future...that would never come. Because after your ideology lost its grip on power, had to work in democratic societies, and could no longer arbitrarily kill or torture those who went against the party line, guess what its current representation in Macedonia's parliament of 120 seats.
You have 7.
50 years of socialist rule, and that's the best you can do. You killed us for nothing.
I'm not saying the US is the most politically violent of all time but of modernity. I'm sure the Mongol Empire was by far the deadliest.
You literally asked for Ed to "name a country that has killed more people to achieve its political aims than the United States killed in Iraq." And guess what, they're a pretty low bar, given that conflict doesn't even make the top 20 most deadly conflicts since 1492, or since the 19th century, or since the 20th century. All of which is a part of the modern world. Every conflict I gave you far exceeds the Iraq war in casualties, and in fact checking a list the deadliest wars since the 1500s, it ranks around 50th place. A war, mind you, that seems to have most deaths be incurred from sectarian violence between Iraqis.
Its your fault for asking for that benchmark, if you didn't want it reached.
But then again, your ideology killed a lot of my people for a lie, so its not like I should expect its adherents to do much better than make spiteful comments towards the harbinger of the ideology which triumphed in the cold war. And ask for rather low bars for subjects.
You're being obtuse. If you want to claim the Assyrian Empire killed more people than the contemporary US, go right ahead. But it's a moot point.
You said, and I quote," Please name a country that has killed more people to achieve its political aims than the United States killed in Iraq."
Nazi Germany and the USSR in WW2: 20th century,
1st Ethiopian war in Tigray: 20th century
Second Congo war: 20th-21st century
Chinese civil war-20th century
Second Sino-Japanese war-20th century
Soviet-Afghan war-20th century.
All of those above listed conflicts happened within the past hundred years. All of which-as well as many more-are far beyond any deaths in Iraq. Which you, as I have already written , demanded someone to "please name a country that has killed more people to achieve its political aims than the United States killed in Iraq" in response to the criticism of ignorance on your end towards the wider world. Unless you don't consider the 20th century to be a part of the "modern era," every single conflict listed bar the mongol conquests matches that request of yours.
Hmm maybe I should read this.
misspells Obama’s name in second sentence.
Nevermind…