Should non-whites be given equal rights to whites

[Moreau]

The bombings in Japan weren't terrorism because they were done by a state- another criteria for terrorism is that it's done by a non-state actor. Terrorism by states is a war crime and a whole different barrel of cats. Also I refuse to believe that ISIS terrorists believe that "they want the shit to stop" or that they're the victims of imperialism. A fairly big chunk of them aren't even from the war zones they're fighting in. Some of them lived in the West.

 

There is a consensus among Counter-Terrorism analysts, and heads of the various militaries fightings IS, that IS is a de facto state actor.

 

So by your logic what IS is doing can not be considered to be acts of terrorism? 

Edited April 24, 2016 by Moreau III

[Nationalist]

There is a consensus among Counter-Terrorism analysts, and heads of the various militarise fightings IS, that they are a de facto state actor.

 

So by your logic what IS is doing can not be considered to be acts of terrorism? 

ISIS are terrorists who fight against the great and glorious Assad.

 

In time they will be crushed and the great Assad will reign over those filth. 

[Andrezj Kolarov]

People fight with the resources available to them. If said groups had modern tanks, artillery, aircraft and ships I'm sure they'd be fighting with them.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Andrezj Kolarov

[Clarke]

You clearly don't know how the world works. I suggest going back to school. 

I know how it works just fine and changes need to be made. 

Typical American, obsessed with race.

 

Not American. 

 

On the other hand, I cannot think of any circumstances that could have caused you to become a sociopath who thinks killing millions of non-whites is OK.

You're making it about non-whites for some reason. I'm all for killing the bad guys, I don't know if there is millions of them but if so then kill away. 

 

 

Perhaps I am wrong but I think there is some irony giving "human rights" to those notorious for human rights abuses. 

[Moreau]

Those arguments, while good on paper, would hold more water if (1) bombing the country and replacing a government actually extended human rights to people who don't currently have them (they didn't in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. and I know of no example where you could claim otherwise), and (2) if extending the human rights was not achieved by violating the human rights, especially the right to live, of millions of people (non-whites, so pseudo-people.)

 

No one is claiming terrorism is OK. The question is how the people who bear the culpability for causing the deaths of millions are not punished or even condemned in any meaningful way. I don't see the perpetrators of the invasion of Iraq being punished for violating the human rights of millions. Do you?

 

You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

 

Exactly. Furthermore, who said those people wanted the so-called "freedom" being offered to them inside bombs being dropped from a B-52?????

[Kemal Ergenekon]

You're making it about non-whites for some reason. I'm all for killing the bad guys, I don't know if there is millions of them but if so then kill away. 

 

Perhaps I am wrong but I think there is some irony giving "human rights" to those notorious for human rights abuses. 

 

There hasn't been serious white-on-white actions since WW2. Not much chance of it happening either, except for limited wars (Russia competing for dominance of its former sphere of influence).

 

I am focusing on non-whites because some millions of them died as a result of interventions by the US, supported by several first-world white allies. Wikipedia tells me its the UK, Australia, Spain and Poland.

 

Only a very small minority of these people could have been described as "potentially undermining Western interests." However that didn't stop these countries from causing millions of collateral deaths just to topple a leader they did not like.

 

None of the people who took part in this war, or voted for the invasion were tried for violating human rights of those raped, killed, murdered, and impoverished. This is because those non-whites have no actual human rights.

 

Rights only matter if they are protected.

[Clarke]

There hasn't been serious white-on-white actions since WW2. Not much chance of it happening either, except for limited wars (Russia competing for dominance of its former sphere of influence).

 

I am focusing on non-whites because some millions of them died as a result of interventions by the US, supported by several first-world white allies. Wikipedia tells me its the UK, Australia, Spain and Poland.

 

Only a very small minority of these people could have been described as "potentially undermining Western interests." However that didn't stop these countries from causing millions of collateral deaths just to topple a leader they did not like.

 

None of the people who took part in this war, or voted for the invasion were tried for violating human rights of those raped, killed, murdered, and impoverished. This is because those non-whites have no actual human rights.

 

Rights only matter if they are protected.

I don't know about the millions figure, seems mostly made up. Yeah I can't really agree with Iraq and Libya but it happened and it is not worth debating about "what if". 

Its hard to really talk about the whole rights as at the end of the day they adhere extremely poorly to human rights, if they were paid better attention to them then I'm sure things would have worked out differently. They certainly have human rights, they just choose which ones to have. 

 

Its mostly a different issue however related more to the US being a superpower. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I don't know about the millions figure, seems mostly made up. Yeah I can't really agree with Iraq and Libya but it happened and it is not worth debating about "what if". 

Its hard to really talk about the whole rights as at the end of the day they adhere extremely poorly to human rights, if they were paid better attention to them then I'm sure things would have worked out differently. They certainly have human rights, they just choose which ones to have. 

 

Its mostly a different issue however related more to the US being a superpower. 

 

War related deaths: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256. This does not include who died because of poverty, starvation, etc. These are the direct ones.

 

The rest of your argument does not make sense. The US claims that it upholds human rights, but violated the rights of millions, and no one faced any tribunal as a result.

[Rozalia]

It's something I've said for a long time, that people have varying levels of care and that those in Africa and Asia they care for are just a fad. They'll be manipulated by the government and media to support the war for Democracy!, Love!, Tolerance!, Freedom!, and other platitudes and that'll give the liars at the top just cause to bring down a foreign government. In reality in a lot of cases you only replace a regime, even if corrupt, with an even more corrupt false democratic regime. The new regime is usually more intolerant. They're puppets also so you can guarantee they'll surrender everything to foreigners unlike the tyrant (unless the tyrant was also puppet obviously). 
 
Overall I'm completely against any such so called "just war", it's all a load of nonsense. If the war reason was, we're going to take X for ourselves I'd actually be more favourable to it as I value honesty and I know that I don't really care all that much for such people. Though obviously other factors would likely make me oppose it.
 

This is especially true if those imperialist countries are democracies (USA, UK, France, etc) and their populations continuously votes in huge numbers for a government that continues the same imperialist policies as the one it replaced.

 
That implies the choice of Democracy isn't a joke in most places. Can you tell me in foreign policy a difference between Brown's New Labour government and Cameron's Tory government? Same with America and other places, the choice doesn't really exist. New Labour voters may be "guilty" for Iraq but if the Tory's had been in charge they would have done the same and everybody knows it.
 

You complain bitterly about non-white people flooding your "purely white" western world. Yet you advocate for the bombing of predominately non-white countries, which only displaces millions of none-white people, and forces them to seek refuge in your "purely white" western world and who can't be turned back because the west signed the UN Charter of Human Rights.
 
Do you see the problem with your logic?

 
You're completely wrong in that. Nothing beyond the globalist agenda compels them to accept such people. They could if not following their corrupt ideology slam the door in their faces very easily.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Rozalia

[Clarke]

If the US faced consequences then questions would need to be asked of every country in the world and it would be difficult to hold other large powers accountable. 

Lets not forget this all happened after the World Wars and the US has always being in command since, such accountability will lead the entire world into chaos and I doubt others will be so willing to be held accountable. More war is very likely and ultimately it will be much much worse for those people you think are abused. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

If the US faced consequences then questions would need to be asked of every country in the world and it would be difficult to hold other large powers accountable. 

Lets not forget this all happened after the World Wars and the US has always being in command since, such accountability will lead the entire world into chaos and I doubt others will be so willing to be held accountable. More war is very likely and ultimately it will be much much worse for those people you think are abused. 

 

You are again unable to comprehend. This is not about US facing consequences from other countries. This is citizens of the US holding other citizens of the US accountable for violating the human rights of millions of non-whites.

 

The citizens of the US do not hold their own accountable for these, because these non-whites in third world countries do not actually have human rights in their eyes. Whatever rights they are claimed to possess are not protected.

 

Hence my original thesis: Rights and democracy only works among equals. Those who are too weak suffer what they must, because caring for other people regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or language is just window-dressing, hiding the uglier truth.

[Spite]

Those arguments, while good on paper, would hold more water if (1) bombing the country and replacing a government actually extended human rights to people who don't currently have them (they didn't in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. and I know of no example where you could claim otherwise), and (2) if extending the human rights was not achieved by violating the human rights, especially the right to live, of millions of people (non-whites, so pseudo-people.)

 

 

 

No one is claiming terrorism is OK. The question is how the people who bear the culpability for causing the deaths of millions are not punished or even condemned in any meaningful way. I don't see the perpetrators of the invasion of Iraq being punished for violating the human rights of millions. Do you?

 

Invoking Godwins so early is probably a bad idea, but the original example of a liberal democratic intervention to liberate the population and reinstate democracy and freedom and so on was WW2. I understand that few people would argue that Iraq or Afghanistan were ideal democracies, or particularly great on the human rights front. However it is indisputable that both are more democratic and more liberal with more enforcement of human rights than was true under previous governments. These things take time. I'm playing devil's advocate here, I personally don't believe that anything positive comes from forcing views onto others that way.

[Clarke]

You are again unable to comprehend. This is not about US facing consequences from other countries. This is citizens of the US holding other citizens of the US accountable for violating the human rights of millions of non-whites.

 

The citizens of the US do not hold their own accountable for these, because these non-whites in third world countries do not actually have human rights in their eyes. Whatever rights they are claimed to possess are not protected.

 

Hence my original thesis: Rights and democracy only works among equals. Those who are too weak suffer what they must, because caring for other people regardless of race, ethnicity, religion or language is just window-dressing, hiding the uglier truth.

Human Rights abuses in other countries isn't really the concern of US citizens, not just 3rd world countries.

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Invoking Godwins so early is probably a bad idea, but the original example of a liberal democratic intervention to liberate the population and reinstate democracy and freedom and so on was WW2.

No it wasn't, Germany declared war on the United States so they had no choice.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Invoking Godwins so early is probably a bad idea, but the original example of a liberal democratic intervention to liberate the population and reinstate democracy and freedom and so on was WW2. I understand that few people would argue that Iraq or Afghanistan were ideal democracies, or particularly great on the human rights front. However it is indisputable that both are more democratic and more liberal with more enforcement of human rights than was true under previous governments. These things take time. I'm playing devil's advocate here, I personally don't believe that anything positive comes from forcing views onto others that way.

 

Restoring the liberty of a previously existing nation from foreign invasion is one thing (your WW2 examples), invading and enforcing "regime change" (which reads replacing the guy in power with your own puppet) is something completely different. You see many people with my thoughts criticizing the US for Iraq and Afghanistan, yet you don't see them criticizing the first Gulf War. These are completely different beasts.

 

No, it is quite disputable that they are more democratic and more liberal. How are we going to measure democracy and freedom? By using the metrics Freedom House provides? The more pro-US you are, the more points you score even if you are led by a repressive dictator. If you are not thinking of Freedom House and making your own statements, please explain how Iraq is more democratic now? In the past it was Sunnis oppressing the rest. Now it is the Shia oppressing the Sunnis, and Kurds being semi-independent in the north. Is this the democracy you are talking about?

Human Rights abuses in other countries isn't really the concern of US citizens, not just 3rd world countries.

 

Human right abuses conducted by US citizens on foreign people is within the jurisdiction of the US.

[Clarke]

Human right abuses conducted by US citizens on foreign people is within the jurisdiction of the US.

 

If it was so simple something would have being done already. 

[Four]

Should human rights be expanded and bombing third-world countries banned? If the right want to claim that it's wrong to kill Americans and the French, why don't they feel the same on the browns being murdered? 

 

Let's get back on track of the OP. 

 

To add to the debate: IF it were the other way around, OP, would you have the same feeling/opinion on the matter? Remove the fact that USA is a world power. US citizens are what we call "terrorists" bombing/shooting/killing Iraqi people in their places of businesses and Iraqi Military Forces are now invading USA/France/England...etc to route out terrorism.

 

What would your feelings/opinions on that be?

 

Another thing that I'd like to bring up is that most wars are media driven. We see, sitting at home eating dinner, people getting shot and murdered all the time - even in our own neighborhoods. Death is obviously very hard to deal with - but we are very desensitized to the act of war - some of us were born in the era of war (2001) and only know war. It might not be at our door, but it has been taught, televised, and presented to us.

 

Carry on.

[Spite]

Restoring the liberty of a previously existing nation from foreign invasion is one thing (your WW2 examples), invading and enforcing "regime change" (which reads replacing the guy in power with your own puppet) is something completely different. You see many people with my thoughts criticizing the US for Iraq and Afghanistan, yet you don't see them criticizing the first Gulf War. These are completely different beasts.

 

No, it is quite disputable that they are more democratic and more liberal. How are we going to measure democracy and freedom? By using the metrics Freedom House provides? The more pro-US you are, the more points you score even if you are led by a repressive dictator. If you are not thinking of Freedom House and making your own statements, please explain how Iraq is more democratic now? In the past it was Sunnis oppressing the rest. Now it is the Shia oppressing the Sunnis, and Kurds being semi-independent in the north. Is this the democracy you are talking about?

 

Any metric I use will obviously be dismissed by you as being corrupted by western influences or whatever, so I'm not sure how I can argue with you further about this. Democracy in Germany was barely fifteen years old when it began to be eroded in '33. I'd hardly say that it was an established doctrine waiting to resurge. Most people alive in 45 in Germany would have been born in either a kingdom or a fascist government. Similarly most of Western Europe was under various quasi-democratic systems and gradually evolved into full democracies post-WW2.

 

Vis-a-vis Iraq, the demographic fact that there are more Shia than Sunni, combined with tribalist politics, leads to a Shia dominated parliament. However it is unequivocally NOT a dictatorship. There are elected parties which are in competition. It is somewhat divided by religious lines, but arguably that is situational due to the deep sectarian violence in the country at present. It doesn't mean that this will *always* be the case. And what is the alternative? Dictatorship? Division? Iraq is a democracy with deep issues facing it, but it's no longer a dictatorship. Therefore it is unarguably more democratic than it was before. Despite deep corruption issues, which plague all countries in the middle east, it has a legal system which on paper is fair and just, and a constitution which enshrines basic rights and duties. In other words, it has a framework to build on. It's not fair to judge the success of Iraqi democracy in the long term when it is a mere 12 years old and has been faced with a civil war for most of that period.

 

Let's get back on track of the OP. 

 

To add to the debate: IF it were the other way around, OP, would you have the same feeling/opinion on the matter? Remove the fact that USA is a world power. US citizens are what we call "terrorists" bombing/shooting/killing Iraqi people in their places of businesses and Iraqi Military Forces are now invading USA/France/England...etc to route out terrorism.

 

What would your feelings/opinions on that be?

 

Another thing that I'd like to bring up is that most wars are media driven. We see, sitting at home eating dinner, people getting shot and murdered all the time - even in our own neighborhoods. Death is obviously very hard to deal with - but we are very desensitized to the act of war - some of us were born in the era of war (2001) and only know war. It might not be at our door, but it has been taught, televised, and presented to us.

 

Carry on.

 

 

You sure it's appropriate to use your mod account for this kind of post?

[Four]

 

You sure it's appropriate to use your mod account for this kind of post?

 

I already posted that I would be making this forum (debate) my home as a mod for a while. You can expect me to jump in here and there to demonstrate proper posting etiquette as some of you don't know how to follow rules. 

 

Thanks for asking though.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Let's get back on track of the OP. 

 

To add to the debate: IF it were the other way around, OP, would you have the same feeling/opinion on the matter? Remove the fact that USA is a world power. US citizens are what we call "terrorists" bombing/shooting/killing Iraqi people in their places of businesses and Iraqi Military Forces are now invading USA/France/England...etc to route out terrorism.

 

What would your feelings/opinions on that be?

 

Another thing that I'd like to bring up is that most wars are media driven. We see, sitting at home eating dinner, people getting shot and murdered all the time - even in our own neighborhoods. Death is obviously very hard to deal with - but we are very desensitized to the act of war - some of us were born in the era of war (2001) and only know war. It might not be at our door, but it has been taught, televised, and presented to us.

 

Carry on.

 

My reaction would be the same. What did you expect and why?

[Moreau]

It's something I've said for a long time, that people have varying levels of care and that those in Africa and Asia they care for are just a fad. They'll be manipulated by the government and media to support the war for Democracy!, Love!, Tolerance!, Freedom!, and other platitudes and that'll give the liars at the top just cause to bring down a foreign government. In reality in a lot of cases you only replace a regime, even if corrupt, with an even more corrupt false democratic regime. The new regime is usually more intolerant. They're puppets also so you can guarantee they'll surrender everything to foreigners unlike the tyrant (unless the tyrant was also puppet obviously).

 

Overall I'm completely against any such so called "just war", it's all a load of nonsense. If the war reason was, we're going to take X for ourselves I'd actually be more favourable to it as I value honesty and I know that I don't really care all that much for such people. Though obviously other factors would likely make me oppose it.

 

 

That implies the choice of Democracy isn't a joke in most places. Can you tell me in foreign policy a difference between Brown's New Labour government and Cameron's Tory government? Same with America and other places, the choice doesn't really exist. New Labour voters may be "guilty" for Iraq but if the Tory's had been in charge they would have done the same and everybody knows it.

 

 

You're completely wrong in that. Nothing beyond the globalist agenda compels them to accept such people. They could if not following their corrupt ideology slam the door in their faces very easily.

I can't remember ever agreeing with you on anything, but we in agreement on this.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Any metric I use will obviously be dismissed by you as being corrupted by western influences or whatever, so I'm not sure how I can argue with you further about this. Democracy in Germany was barely fifteen years old when it began to be eroded in '33. I'd hardly say that it was an established doctrine waiting to resurge. Most people alive in 45 in Germany would have been born in either a kingdom or a fascist government. Similarly most of Western Europe was under various quasi-democratic systems and gradually evolved into full democracies post-WW2.

 

Vis-a-vis Iraq, the demographic fact that there are more Shia than Sunni, combined with tribalist politics, leads to a Shia dominated parliament. However it is unequivocally NOT a dictatorship. There are elected parties which are in competition. It is somewhat divided by religious lines, but arguably that is situational due to the deep sectarian violence in the country at present. It doesn't mean that this will *always* be the case. And what is the alternative? Dictatorship? Division? Iraq is a democracy with deep issues facing it, but it's no longer a dictatorship. Therefore it is unarguably more democratic than it was before. Despite deep corruption issues, which plague all countries in the middle east, it has a legal system which on paper is fair and just, and a constitution which enshrines basic rights and duties. In other words, it has a framework to build on. It's not fair to judge the success of Iraqi democracy in the long term when it is a mere 12 years old and has been faced with a civil war for most of that period.

 

Why pre-emptively blame me of being prone to dismiss your potential metrics when you have made the funny claim that "it is indisputable that Iraq is more democratic now?" You can bring any statistics you would like; I am sure there will be ones we can agree on. I don't see how the example of Germany helps your case given that the Weimar Republic gave way to Hitler (whoops, Godwin's law invoked for a second time). We can discuss how democracy can endogenously develop in a country in another debate, since it is not really related to the current discussion. I think we both agree that imposing democracy top-down in states like Iraq simply do not work, let alone the fact that it is a resource rich country, which inevitably suffers from the Dutch disease.

 

The fact that Iraq is ruled by the Shia cannot be explained by demographics. According to this survey the Shia-Sunni numbers are 55% to 45%. Do we observe a roughly 55%-45% distribution of power? No. So we debunked that. As for whether it is a dictatorship or not, please tell me what has actually changed. Things might have changed on the paper, but what has actually changed? If you see elections as a source of justification, even Saddam had them. They were sham elections, just like the current ones are. The Shia are showing favoritism for their own just as much as Saddam did for Sunnis back in the day. Actually, it has been mentioned by experts many times that ISIS was fueled by disillusioned Sunnis who felt that they were no longer represented in the new government, and joined ISIS to restore Iraq even though they weren't religious fundamentalists. Hell, even the architect of the ISIS's organizational patterns and strategies was a former Baathist who was an atheist (I think there was an article about this in a German magazine/newspaper; I forgot the name).

 

Even if we used Freedom House's metrics, the democracy score has improved from 7/7 to 6/7. Even Rumsfeld thinks it didn't work. Give me a break.

[James Hequ]

No, non white pillows suck

[Spite]

 

Why pre-emptively blame me of being prone to dismiss your potential metrics when you have made the funny claim that "it is indisputable that Iraq is more democratic now?" You can bring any statistics you would like; I am sure there will be ones we can agree on. I don't see how the example of Germany helps your case given that the Weimar Republic gave way to Hitler (whoops, Godwin's law invoked for a second time). We can discuss how democracy can endogenously develop in a country in another debate, since it is not really related to the current discussion. I think we both agree that imposing democracy top-down in states like Iraq simply do not work, let alone the fact that it is a resource rich country, which inevitably suffers from the Dutch disease.

 

The fact that Iraq is ruled by the Shia cannot be explained by demographics. According to this survey the Shia-Sunni numbers are 55% to 45%. Do we observe a roughly 55%-45% distribution of power? No. So we debunked that. As for whether it is a dictatorship or not, please tell me what has actually changed. Things might have changed on the paper, but what has actually changed? If you see elections as a source of justification, even Saddam had them. They were sham elections, just like the current ones are. The Shia are showing favoritism for their own just as much as Saddam did for Sunnis back in the day. Actually, it has been mentioned by experts many times that ISIS was fueled by disillusioned Sunnis who felt that they were no longer represented in the new government, and joined ISIS to restore Iraq even though they weren't religious fundamentalists. Hell, even the architect of the ISIS's organizational patterns and strategies was a former Baathist who was an atheist (I think there was an article about this in a German magazine/newspaper; I forgot the name).

 

Even if we used Freedom House's metrics, the democracy score has improved from 7/7 to 6/7. Even Rumsfeld thinks it didn't work. Give me a break.

Disproportionate control of legislature is also a matter of the electoral system. In the UK, the conservatives polled 36% of the vote but gained over 50% of the seats.

 

In most cases the ruling party in Iraq has needed to form coalitions to establish a government. There have been periods where both sunni and Shia parties have not participated in legislature by boycotting it. Obviously a significant chunk of Iraq is currently not under the control of Baghdad, that makes democracy a difficult process.

 

As I said the country is a very young democracy and has faced a lot of challenges. With the right support, it has the potential to grow stronger. A legitimate opposition doesn't exist because a significant proportion of the opposition is in the field shooting at the government.

 

However the government is by no means a monopoly. It relies on kurdish votes for its majority (KDP) and PUK/Gorran are in opposition. Quite a lot of power is devolved regionally.

 

The framework is there for it to improve, when before that was an impossibility. Whether it will or not will probably be something determined over decades of peace.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Disproportionate control of legislature is also a matter of the electoral system. In the UK, the conservatives polled 36% of the vote but gained over 50% of the seats.

 

In most cases the ruling party in Iraq has needed to form coalitions to establish a government. There have been periods where both sunni and Shia parties have not participated in legislature by boycotting it. Obviously a significant chunk of Iraq is currently not under the control of Baghdad, that makes democracy a difficult process.

 

As I said the country is a very young democracy and has faced a lot of challenges. With the right support, it has the potential to grow stronger. A legitimate opposition doesn't exist because a significant proportion of the opposition is in the field shooting at the government.

 

However the government is by no means a monopoly. It relies on kurdish votes for its majority (KDP) and PUK/Gorran are in opposition. Quite a lot of power is devolved regionally.

 

The framework is there for it to improve, when before that was an impossibility. Whether it will or not will probably be something determined over decades of peace.

 

Yes, the UK is crazy in that regard. You should agree that it is less democratic than a proportional system.

 

The government is divided along ethnic and sectarian lines, so in effect the Sunnis are not represented. You can claim that's just how it works, majority, etc., but disenfranchising roughly one third of the population is not a sign of being democratic. There are several articles trying to tackle with this problem, and all of them accept that the Shia are focusing on lining their own pockets and strengthening their own while ignoring the question of how the Sunnis will be represented in a meaningful way. The failure to do so is predicted to strengthen ISIS support among the Sunnis.

 

The way you evaluate the current situation is that in time the Sunnis will stop being disenfranchised. I think the opposite is the case. In the long run, the Shia will create their own Saddam and solidify power even more. Iraq is a resource rich country. It doesn't need to levy taxes on its populace, hence centralization of power is much easier than countries which rely on taxation. If people want some of the government handouts, they need to get in line and behave. I do not envision a prospering democracy by any means. Democracy has a hard time prospering under the best of conditions. In Iraq it would be a goddamn miracle.

 

Coming back to my original argument, do you think this excuse of a democracy was worth millions dead, displaced or impoverished due to the invasion? We need to get back to the actual topic at some point, xdxd.