And looking at the numbers up to that point, Obama wins it in a walk. The real reason Trump stopped publishing the numbers is he was embarrassed that he couldn’t outdo Obama.
Yeah like they did with Libya, Syria, Iraq and Russia. Like they did when they sent Pelosi to Taiwan and like they did when they whipped up a frenzy about a Chinese “spy balloon” they then themselves admitted was just meteorological equipment.
Libya - we acted as part of a NATO mission to assist a popular revolution in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi (dictator, war criminal, torturer, and rapist)
Syria - we acted in support of a civil war to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, a dictator who ran a brutal police state and committed numerous war crimes including using chemical weapons on civilians.
Iraq - a war started by Republican President Bush. The rest was trying to clean up his mess.
Russia - negotiations and economic pressure only. Unless you mean supporting Ukraine,v the ally Russia INVADED.
Chinese “spy balloon” - kinda grasping at straws to paint Democrats as warmongers there, aren’t you?
Libya - we acted as part of a NATO mission to assist a popular revolution in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi (dictator, war criminal, torturer, and rapist.
lmao alright, go watch some more CNN. And the iraqis had WMDs and were throwing babies out of incubators. In actual observable reality Ghaddafi ruled over a relatively stable country, he had managed to ensure fresh drinkable water for all citizens, housing, education and healthcare. This was then replaced by a bombed out hole with open slavery markets, with the soon-to-be democratic presidential nominee bragging about laughing when she saw him sodomised with a bayonet. What a peaceloving party.
Anyway the argument was that the democrats are warmongers, which your line of reasoning still supports. You just like it when they’re the ones doing the wars because the rhetoric around them makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. You’re not actually against what’s going on right now, you just need John Kerry to come out and say that Khamenei is an authoritarian or the palestinians are actually a terror group.
Chinese “spy balloon” - kinda grasping at straws to paint Democrats as warmongers there, aren’t you?
Kinda struggling to engage with the argument I gave you there, aren’t you? I mean, you messed it up with Iraq too, what’s going on?
Iraq - a war started by Republican President Bush. The rest was trying to clean up his mess
Yeah, that’s why the democrats ran on a platform of “the war is good actually” in 2004. That’s why Obama had the surge and everything, because they just soooo really do not want to do war.
Wasn’t it you who argued they used “negotiations”? Seems like that whole thing falls apart immediately, which is what my comment pointed out. Yet rather than admit fault, you decide to move goalposts to discussing wether or not the wars felt justified to you.
“Shelling of civilians” is hard to take seriously when we celebrate Ukraine bombing civilian targets in Russia. Especially when the oh-so-saintly US seems every male over the age of 14 to be an “enemy combatant”. Kind of hard to take accusations from organisations affiliated with them seriously.
Not to say it did not happen. It is unfortunate, but something that happens during war. Incidentally, something that only started happening after the US went from a color revolution to being directly involved. Same goes for “mass killings” - The mass graves found, excluding the one from the 1996 prison riot - they started after the US escalated the colour revolution.
And lets look at how the war was fought, since your argument is that it was legitimate: It followed the typical “shock and awe” tactic which led to the absolute destruction of the great libyan river, civilian dwellings and power stations. Buildings that, like in Iraq, still haven’t been rebuilt. And here I was thinking it was a humanitarian intervention… Seems like the goal was just to knock Gaddafi out of power.
Speaking of Iraq, that was also a humanitarian intervention, led by a “coalition of the willing” consisting of a bunch of NATO-members. So I take it you find that one to be legitimate too? After all we also had people accusing Saddam of having children thrown out of incubators, mass rape and so much other stuff.
One gets to wondering though… If the US intervened in Libya as the spearhead of a bunch of good-guy-countries that were just oh so concerned about the evil evil ghaddafi, why does the US have the allies it has? Why does it give so much to Israel which actually, probably, does enact mass rapes? Why does it give so much support to the Emirates, which make use of slave labour?
But no, youre right, Libya was totally different! It was a humanitarian intervention when we destroyed freshwater access to the majority of the country!
So you support letting ISIS overthrow the peaceful government running Iraq but that isn’t warmongering?
There’s always something dumbass. I assume you supported the invasion of Afghanistan then? Considering that’s the same line of reasoning. One might also start to think about where isis came from, how they were financed, how they were supplied and so on. Or not, after all this was a legitimate war, as opposed to all those the popular zeitgeist has gone against.
I think you might also be under some misapprehension about what The Surge was. The increased troop count was not due to isis, but Iraqi “insurgents” (ie. People fighting against foreign occupiers and their puppet government). Isis came after the surge. The surge was initiated by Bush and carried out by Obama. Then in 2014 ISIS became the reason to continue the occupation - Odd how bombing the shit out of iraqis didnt work those three previous times.
Starting a war and helping the victims of a state terrorism are different things.
“Shitting my pants is totally different from defecating my pantaloons.”
Do you think republicans didnt use bullshit reasons to legitimise their wars?
Yeah because it’s moronic to call a weather balloon popping a war crime.
Oh, so its because you can’t read. At least that must be the conclusion to the question: “Why would you argue against something I didnt say?”
I wonder what the genocide scoreboard looks like between dems and repubs? Probably pretty even.
no, you don’t understand - Biden killed as many, but Trump was RUDE about it!
Biden didn’t kill USAid which killed more people that Israel.
And didn’t plan to build a golf course and hotels instead of Gaza
But sure, appearances is the only difference in the world
I love this, liberals apparently think the bad thing isn’t the genocide, but the fact they want to build a golf course instead of settlements.
Tell me honestly, do you think Harris would have had us fighting a war with Iran?
Yeah, I think the chances are pretty fucking good.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/8/kamala-harris-says-iran-is-greatest-adversary-of-us
Totally ignoring that Democratic presidents have consistently used negotiations and economic pressure rather than military force.
Yes. I also ignored how they used magical powers to force opponents to the negotiating table, and how they can all fly and run at supersonic speeds.
Here in the real world, Obomber dropped way more bombs than Trump.
You can’t prove that because Trump stopped publishing those numbers.
And looking at the numbers up to that point, Obama wins it in a walk. The real reason Trump stopped publishing the numbers is he was embarrassed that he couldn’t outdo Obama.
Okay, then why are we running out of ammo?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9gk58xgng0vo
Because Trump is a worse administrator who can’t keep the wheels of empire turning as efficiently as other presidents could.
Yeah like they did with Libya, Syria, Iraq and Russia. Like they did when they sent Pelosi to Taiwan and like they did when they whipped up a frenzy about a Chinese “spy balloon” they then themselves admitted was just meteorological equipment.
Libya - we acted as part of a NATO mission to assist a popular revolution in overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi (dictator, war criminal, torturer, and rapist)
Syria - we acted in support of a civil war to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, a dictator who ran a brutal police state and committed numerous war crimes including using chemical weapons on civilians.
Iraq - a war started by Republican President Bush. The rest was trying to clean up his mess.
Russia - negotiations and economic pressure only. Unless you mean supporting Ukraine,v the ally Russia INVADED.
Chinese “spy balloon” - kinda grasping at straws to paint Democrats as warmongers there, aren’t you?
lmao alright, go watch some more CNN. And the iraqis had WMDs and were throwing babies out of incubators. In actual observable reality Ghaddafi ruled over a relatively stable country, he had managed to ensure fresh drinkable water for all citizens, housing, education and healthcare. This was then replaced by a bombed out hole with open slavery markets, with the soon-to-be democratic presidential nominee bragging about laughing when she saw him sodomised with a bayonet. What a peaceloving party.
Anyway the argument was that the democrats are warmongers, which your line of reasoning still supports. You just like it when they’re the ones doing the wars because the rhetoric around them makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. You’re not actually against what’s going on right now, you just need John Kerry to come out and say that Khamenei is an authoritarian or the palestinians are actually a terror group.
Kinda struggling to engage with the argument I gave you there, aren’t you? I mean, you messed it up with Iraq too, what’s going on?
Yeah, that’s why the democrats ran on a platform of “the war is good actually” in 2004. That’s why Obama had the surge and everything, because they just soooo really do not want to do war.
Wasn’t it you who argued they used “negotiations”? Seems like that whole thing falls apart immediately, which is what my comment pointed out. Yet rather than admit fault, you decide to move goalposts to discussing wether or not the wars felt justified to you.
Libya proof-
Mass graves https://phr.org/our-work/resources/mass-graves-reveal-evidence-of-abuses-under-gaddafi/
War crimes - rapes https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2011/04/killing-captives-points-war-crimes-libyan-government-forces/
More war crimes - shelling civilians https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/10/16/death-dictator/bloody-vengeance-sirte
Crimes against humanity https://www.reuters.com/article/world/gaddafi-war-crimes-in-misrata-widespread-report-idUSTRE77T0J5/
Starting a war and helping the victims of a state terrorism are different things. It’s absurd to imply they are equal in any way.
Yeah because it’s moronic to call a weather balloon popping a war crime.
So you support letting ISIS overthrow the peaceful government running Iraq but that isn’t warmongering? Get the fuck out of here!
Yeah man so much mass rape that the UN found it to be baseless:
“Shelling of civilians” is hard to take seriously when we celebrate Ukraine bombing civilian targets in Russia. Especially when the oh-so-saintly US seems every male over the age of 14 to be an “enemy combatant”. Kind of hard to take accusations from organisations affiliated with them seriously.
Not to say it did not happen. It is unfortunate, but something that happens during war. Incidentally, something that only started happening after the US went from a color revolution to being directly involved. Same goes for “mass killings” - The mass graves found, excluding the one from the 1996 prison riot - they started after the US escalated the colour revolution.
And lets look at how the war was fought, since your argument is that it was legitimate: It followed the typical “shock and awe” tactic which led to the absolute destruction of the great libyan river, civilian dwellings and power stations. Buildings that, like in Iraq, still haven’t been rebuilt. And here I was thinking it was a humanitarian intervention… Seems like the goal was just to knock Gaddafi out of power.
Speaking of Iraq, that was also a humanitarian intervention, led by a “coalition of the willing” consisting of a bunch of NATO-members. So I take it you find that one to be legitimate too? After all we also had people accusing Saddam of having children thrown out of incubators, mass rape and so much other stuff.
One gets to wondering though… If the US intervened in Libya as the spearhead of a bunch of good-guy-countries that were just oh so concerned about the evil evil ghaddafi, why does the US have the allies it has? Why does it give so much to Israel which actually, probably, does enact mass rapes? Why does it give so much support to the Emirates, which make use of slave labour?
But no, youre right, Libya was totally different! It was a humanitarian intervention when we destroyed freshwater access to the majority of the country!
There’s always something dumbass. I assume you supported the invasion of Afghanistan then? Considering that’s the same line of reasoning. One might also start to think about where isis came from, how they were financed, how they were supplied and so on. Or not, after all this was a legitimate war, as opposed to all those the popular zeitgeist has gone against.
I think you might also be under some misapprehension about what The Surge was. The increased troop count was not due to isis, but Iraqi “insurgents” (ie. People fighting against foreign occupiers and their puppet government). Isis came after the surge. The surge was initiated by Bush and carried out by Obama. Then in 2014 ISIS became the reason to continue the occupation - Odd how bombing the shit out of iraqis didnt work those three previous times.
“Shitting my pants is totally different from defecating my pantaloons.”
Do you think republicans didnt use bullshit reasons to legitimise their wars?
Oh, so its because you can’t read. At least that must be the conclusion to the question: “Why would you argue against something I didnt say?”
Aside from proving your absolute willingness to accept US State Department lies at face value, did you have a point with any of that?
Where’s the lie?
The point is there is a difference between defending allies at their request and invading a country unilaterally.
Characterizing is geopolitical adversaries as “brutal dictators”
Characterizing color revolution as “popular revolution” or “civil war”
Characterizing grinding Ukraine to make the bread for a proxy war as “defending an ally”
Like I said, you’ve made it obvious you’ll accept any US State Department narrative at face value without giving it a moment’s critical thought.