Both boogeymans have issues that they need to work out, but banning only one boogeyman doesn't make the world better. It could very well make the world worse, because the incumbent boogeyman would have no rival to keep its power and abuse in check.
It is not at all whataboutism to say that we must tackle problems holistically.
It does when is one is orders of magnitude worse than the other. eg. China's 1989 vs Trump's "sent the army to suppress protesters against racism".
The US didn't kill millions of civilians in the Middle East as you've been attempting to claim. It did attempt to prevent the Iraq civil war however, an inevitable result of the fall of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. I'm curious if your premise is that Saddam, or his family, was going to rule as a dictator forever - denying all human rights to the Iraqi people - so as to prevent that civil war from ever happening.
And if you really want to talk orders of magnitude: Mao genocided 45 million people in just four years from 1958 to 1962.
Washington Post: "Remembering the biggest mass murder in the history of the world"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
Brought about by an unprovoked invasion, in violation of international law.
> Mao genocided 45 million people in just four years from 1958 to 1962.
Mao seriously mismanaged the economy, leading to famine. Life expectancy also increased from 40 years at the time of the revolution to 60 years at the time of his death. A lot of Chinese people have mixed feelings about him.
The US does NOT have the moral high ground here. At least acknowledge that the US sucks. China sucks too. Everybody sucks.
The US didn't kill millions of people in the Middle East. In fact it lost thousands of soldiers and a trillion dollars trying to keep the Iraqis from killing eachother. The US stepped inbetween two warring factions that have been killing eachother for hundreds of years and tried to stop it.
> and which is sterilizing women in border camps
The US doesn't have border camps, it has detention facilities for illegal immigrants, which most every nation with a border possesses. Trying illegally sneaking into Canada (or Australia, or most any nice country), you will be detained at a facility until they can remove you from their country for violating their immigration laws.
The US Government doesn't force sterilize women at the border or at non-existent border camps.
There is one specific doctor - Mahendra Amin - at one facility that has performed eight surgeries over three years, with wide debate still on-going as to whether all or none of those surgeries were requested. From that basis you're attempting to proclaim the US Government is broadly doing something, which is obviously exceptionally misleading.
I'd suggest reading more about the subject:
https://apnews.com/article/georgia-archive-only-on-ap-immigr...
This must be one of the most apologist takes I have ever read. Deeply disturbing that people can actually convince themselves this for something that's relatively recent.
Trump did not send the army. He sent federal law enforcement agencies to defend federal property against rioters when local governments failed to do so.
> sterilizing women in border camps
The allegations of forced hysterectomies were not supported by the evidence, which is why the story dropped out of the news so quickly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/ice-detainee-hyst...