improve visibility for military operations

destruction of essential enemy food supplies.

Attacking civilian food sources is a war crime.

See the problem? And even if I concede all of this, it doesn’t get someone closer to the original claims being made, it’s just a whataboutism based on a lazy bastardization of the word terrorism.

I don’t recall him saying he was an Iraqi, I just know he’s a lying campist shill dirtying up the discourse with slopulist slogans and conspiratorial brainrot like they all do. Whether American interventionism is good or not isn’t at issue here, it’s about whether it’s terrorism.

Whatever circumstance of his upbringing have led him to these asinine positions aren’t important, I just know that these talking points are destructive nonsense and inevitably function to sweep for actual terrorists who target civilians openly and explicitly like ISIS.

The Greens stance on it is as admirable as it’s always been. That the rest of the world can’t hold the same standard isn’t on them.

Putting a policy in a vacuum is the worst possible way govern, and I hope this forever demonstrates why the Greens should never be allowed near the levers of power. Their brand of pacifism is identical to Trump’s: willfully ignorant of the downstream effects and motivated by anything but the material conditions of the victims.

supporting a President who backs Ukraines enemy

This is transparently guilt by association and nothing more. Our sovereign decision to support Ukraine has nothing to do with appeasing America. By your own logic we should be doing the opposite if it was relevant.

There has never been a ruling by the UN, ICC, ICJ or whatever about the use of agent orange breaching the Geneva conventions or being a war crime. All legal analysis is post hoc. Today it might be, but it’s irrelevant to this foreign agitators ridiculous claims.

You assert they knew based on nothing but a hope and a dream. Chemical warnings are designed to prevent misuse, and I would love to hear you claim the warnings on the box were “will cause generational harm”. In fact it’s the exact opposite because soldiers were incredibly ignorant of the toxicity of the chemical, a fact veteran advocacy groups have spoken of at length.

They also stopped using agent orange shortly after more information came out about those kinds of harmful effects in 1969, which goes against your claim.

If you think any of this is convincing of the claim “America and ISIS are the same” you’ve got your head in the sand.

This was only a cover story however.

You clearly don’t care at all about how much they care about civilians, because you are conflating two forces where the difference in the amount they care is massive. Zero care from ISIS, more than zero by the US, both terrorists in your delusional world view.

Terrorism is when not asking how the Vietnamese felt before using agent orange? Genius.

Better questions if you aren’t 50iq:

• Why was agent orange used?
• What was the expected effect of agent orange when it was used?

Learn to read. I never made a claim about Israel.

You realise you can track my bowel movements from my comments right? That’s how much I care about you.

Removed by mod

That would depend on each individual circumstance because I don’t treat geopolitics like team sports. I’m not here to depose anybody, I’m here to expose lazy slopulist propaganda and disinformation from people like yourself, which I have done. Might I remind you this thread started because you called America the same as fucking ISIS, another claim you abandoned almost immediately because you have nothing but lies and ignorance.

I really don’t care about the semantics of your ad hom.

Wtf kind of Russian bot defends liberal democracy? The Russian bots all sound exactly like you, ahistoric anti-west trolls. You’re literally glazing Saddam Hussein just to be able to hate America more.

“They benefitted briefly” look how far you’ve fallen. I thought it was all about the money and oil? All that rhetoric smashed against the rocks of reality. A worthless analysis abandoned at the slightest pushback.

I guess that brief benefit was the reason they spent years and trillions of dollars in the region distributing aid, building civilian infrustrature, and propping up the Iraqi government, all so they’re adversaries in the region could benefit more than them. How selfless.

I absolutely got my facts right, Clinton didn’t plan to invade the country but he sure as hell made it his policy to make Saddam an enemy and work towards regime change in Iraq.

You’re talking points are so dated. Oil? Really? Iraqi oil remained the property of the Iraqi government, and nothing close to the trillions the US spent in the conflict was recouped by US oil companies. Iraq sold their oil on the open market without preferencing the US, China benefitted more from the market then America did.

Clinton made regime change in Iraq official policy because Saddam kept invading his neighbours, but I guess that doesn’t enter into your calculus about instability in the middle east because you’re a campist hack. Keep acting like money was the reason, all evidence to the contrary.

As for the rest of your rambling talking points that leap from one schizophrenic slogan to the next, all I can say is your handlers need to teach you better. Maybe you can learn the the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending, some history lessons from WWII, and a bit of polysci to help you understand the slopulist here is you.

Ample records of disproportionate strikes? Yes. Ample records of targetting civilians? No. Those rules of engagement are absolutely followed, and we know this from the thousands of instances where strikes were called off because civilian presence in the area changed. They keep endless records because they are accountable to Congress.

It’s a moot point when comparing America to ISIS because terrorists definitionally don’t have any concept of proportionality because killing civilians is the goal.

I don’t really care to argue I/P, that conflict is forever fucked and nobody knows anything about it.

I mean if you want to argue that it should be an even standard across the board I might agree with you, like I would hold Iran in infinitely lower esteem for hanging political dissidents, to say nothing of them doing it publically.

But something rubs me the wrong way about America, the shining city on the hill, even dipping its toes in this kind of barbaric spectacle.

Whether it’s because I hold them to a higher standard, or because I view it as a betrayal of what liberal democracy means.

Yes you’re right, the standard we should hold for the US is being able to see into the future, but for ISIS the standard is not killing some women they can sex traffic because you think they are savages with no moral agency. Very woke of you.

the material destruction and collateral casualties are left to others to clean it all up.

You’re lies aren’t even convincing, like why do you think America spent so much time there after Saddam was deposed? They were pumping billions into the country trying to stabilise it. Iraqi leaders had every opportunity to capitalise on that but chose to pursue sectarianism and corruption instead.

Ah yes, the pro-American, pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine Russian bots, I must be one of those 🤡

Hope you got a good look at my profile while you were desperately searching for something besides my arguments to talk about.

Lmao, yea Saddam was a great guy, everyone was cheering for him during the Al-Khald Hall purge. Glad to hear you defend a dictator so openly while speaking about the evils of a secular democracy from the other side of your mouth.

It’s really gross how you remove all agency from literal terrorists because apparently you think so little of Arabs. “ISIS had no choice but to fill a power vacuum with civilian blood, they’re just poor little guys :(”

And again, you are lying about what terrorism is to suit your obvious propaganda.

Blah, blah, blah, America bad, America bad. I thought the attack on the Russian data centres put you guys out of commision?

I’d rather a lessor evil framework than… Oh wait your not suggesting anything because you’re an empty vessel for campist brain rot.

Nobody cares about “imperialism”, they care about living standards, representation, and economic prosperity. America has strived to realise these ideals and helped other nations reach them to through its international humanitarian efforts and security guarentees.

Any failure to meet their own standards pales in comparison to actual terrorists who don’t have those standards to begin with, so your use of that word really exposes your ignorance.

Btw the UN means nothing, it’s a glorified group chat for tinpot dictators and despots. A majority of the member states fall below 6 on the democratic index, i.e. they are corrupt authoritarian shit-holes.

Exactly, to spread terror. You’ve correctly identified that motive is a part of the definition. Congrats.

The US is chiefly concerned with fighting militants for material strategic goals, and has laws against targetting civilians.

ISIS is chiefly concerned with butchering anyone, regardless of civilian status, to gain, and maintain through fear, power in a region.

How myopic. I didn’t realise America’s sole focus since it’s inception has been terror and barbarism. I guess PEPFAR, USAID, the civil rights act, the Marshall Plan, fighting smallpox and polio, and international disaster relief were just cosmic whoopsies that materialised from the ether.