I tend to agree. But interference against genocide only happens when other political issues are at stake. I can't think of a single war in all of history that was based soley on a genocide in action, and there's a good dozen genocides happening right now that no major power is doing anything to prevent. It pulls the teeth out of attempting to justify a war on a genocidal power, no matter who wants to declare it.

You folks need to define genocide, before you start making rules about it. ^^

Well that is part of the problem isn't it? Genocide has different definitions in different places. Vote me for world dictator and I'll clear it up as much as I can before someone kills me.

Here's an example... (just random numbers and countries)

Is it genocide for the US to nuke India into radioactive dust? Yes.

Is it genocide to kill the 5 million? East Indians (fictitious scenario), if they try to take over... Kentucky, and try to start India 2.0? No.

Is it genocide to kill the 5 million? East Indians that come to America to be Americans? Yes.

Pretty simple.

This post was edited by Ghot on Feb 26 2022 04:25pm

5 million is a pretty arbitrary number. Does that mean it's ok to kill the East Indians coming to America to be Americans as long as I keep it at 4.9 million?

checked those two reddits, no such thing, lmao.

maybe 2-3 videos of some corpses.

Now, let's do the Ukraine.

Is it legal for Russia to take over the Ukraine?
Well that depends.
Is the Ukraine a part of Russia that's trying to secede? If so, then it's legal for Russia to "take it back".
If the Ukraine was never a legal part of Russia, then no, it's not legal for Russia to take over the Ukraine.


Pretty much the same for the Uyghurs, btw. It depends.
If the Uyghurs are not "from China" and are trying to grab some land and make a Uyghurs 2.0, then China has the right to deal with that.
If the Uyghurs were a separate country that China took over (which they had no right to), then they should leave them alone.



I think the problem is... the "way" we make rules.
1. We make a rule
2. Countries A and B don't fit the rule.
3. So then we make sub-rules for those grey areas. (when what we should do is re-write the 1st rule)
4. Oh noes... there are these other countries that don't fit the 1st rule with sub-rules A and B
5. So now we make new sub-rules C and D.

After a while... the original rule and it's intention are lost in the BS.

This post was edited by Ghot on Feb 26 2022 04:41pm

Imagine during our civil war a major foreign power military intervenes to change the outcome cuz it's "genocide" but really because it suits their political and economical agenda.

Fact is we intervene on the world stage because it suits our political and economical agenda.

Is it any wonder that the sovereign countries we go to war with don't like it that we play this way and as an excuse say "yeah but we're righteous"?

So lets do a hypothetical. Canada suddenly experiences a coup, and in the immediate aftermath Quebec and Alberta declare independence, as well as a bunch of cities in Ontario on the US border. Cities that happen to be mostly or largely populated by Americans. The entirety of the great lakes, so the US cannot send ships up and down the St. Lawrence anymore. This is of great strategic importance to the US. Civil war breaks out. Maybe there's a rumour that China backed the coup. There's no proof just rumour. The new Canadian government is decidedly pro Chinese. The break away regions are decidedly pro America. What do you do? My money is on the US invading and deposing the pro Chinese government. It's a radically impossible scenario, but for Russia it is current events.