You made a specific statement, you didn't back up that statement.
None of those wars, interventions, proxy wars etc. fall under "annihilating 3rd world powers, slaughtering their citizens, stealing their resources...etc. etc. etc. ... massive holocausts that we have perpetuated"
To fit the war would have to be ALL of those things, not just some of them.
The pre 20th century wars where all too small except the Civil War, and that isn't a war that fits your description
WWI - Well it wasn't exactly a massive hollocust by Americans, and it wasn't against third world powers or an effort by Americans to steal resources.
WWII bombings could have been called massive holocausts, if they where acts of aggression rather than responding to aggression, but they where not against 3rd world powers, nor wars to steal resources.
Besides Korea and Vietnam the later wars were probably too small to qualify. They both where against third world powers, but they where against aggressive third world powers, who tried (and eventually in North Vietnam's case succeed) to conquer other countries. Also again, not a war to steal resources.
Iraq I? Not a "massive holocaust", not an aggressive war, not a war to steal resources.
Iraq II? Rather questionable as "a massive holocaust" , esp. as one committed by us, which wouldn't count the killing done by resistance forces (forces resisting the invasion or the occupation we initially set up), insurgents (forces fighting against the Iraqi government), terrorists (forces targeting and attacking civilians to spread terror and disorder, or to spread terror to try and impose an order themselves in charge), and violent criminals (organized crime, violence related to seeking money, ordinary street crime). Its also least somewhat questionable as a totally aggressive act (Iraq had violated the cease fire that ended the previous conflict started by its aggression), and it wasn't a war to steal resources.
All the other wars are way too small to be called massive holocausts.
|
