Your fixation on numerical specifics and word choices misses the point entirely. The issues here are clear-cut patterns of global interventionism, both recent a

Your fixation on numerical specifics and word choices misses the point entirely. The issues here are clear-cut patterns of global interventionism, both recent and historical, that have wide-reaching impacts. Nitpicking about base counts or who funded whom doesn’t change the reality of these policies’ effects on actual people, nor does it excuse moral double standards. It's telling that you’d rather split hairs on specifics than engage with the ethical implications of systemic militarization and the resulting destabilization worldwide. I’d hoped for a meaningful discussion about the costs and consequences of these actions on a global scale, but you seem more invested in technicalities that derail any serious dialogue. So, if the best you can offer is dismissive corrections and patronizing asides, then I think we’re done here.