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?”
Yeah man so much mass rape that the UN found it to be baseless:
I’m so glad that you chose to respond to my bait. I have to admit I played a trick on you. There is nothing in that Amnesty Internation article about rape. It’s about the murder of bound prisoners of war. I just wanted proof that you aren’t reading the proof and therefore aren’t arguing in good faith. Now I don’t need to waste my time engaging with a liar and a fraud anymore.
I’m arguing in better faith than you dude. At least I engage with what you write.
And would I read the your “sources”? I know the stories, I’ve read them too. You seem to think I believe Gaddafi was some sort of Saint, which is odd, because that’s not what I have written at all - Which you would understand if you argued in good faith.
It’s about the murder of bound prisoners of war.
Which, again, happened after the intervention. You still fuck up at this step. You’re using the things happening after the US colour revolution to justify the colour revolution.
So you’ve been arguing with a child this whole time? Lmao what a loser you are
Anyway. I think you forgot the “… and here’s why you are” part. But you are quite forgetful, like how you constantly forget what I write and respond to something I didn’t! Or like when you forget to respond to parts of what I write! Whoops there came some the reasons why again, my bad
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?”
I’m so glad that you chose to respond to my bait. I have to admit I played a trick on you. There is nothing in that Amnesty Internation article about rape. It’s about the murder of bound prisoners of war. I just wanted proof that you aren’t reading the proof and therefore aren’t arguing in good faith. Now I don’t need to waste my time engaging with a liar and a fraud anymore.
I’m arguing in better faith than you dude. At least I engage with what you write.
And would I read the your “sources”? I know the stories, I’ve read them too. You seem to think I believe Gaddafi was some sort of Saint, which is odd, because that’s not what I have written at all - Which you would understand if you argued in good faith.
Which, again, happened after the intervention. You still fuck up at this step. You’re using the things happening after the US colour revolution to justify the colour revolution.
“No, you are” is the only answer you have. Lol. What a child.
So you’ve been arguing with a child this whole time? Lmao what a loser you are
Anyway. I think you forgot the “… and here’s why you are” part. But you are quite forgetful, like how you constantly forget what I write and respond to something I didn’t! Or like when you forget to respond to parts of what I write! Whoops there came some the reasons why again, my bad