ALTitan Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 reo, I've got you. When you were using Hitler as an example, you did not really mean Hitler, you mean somebody else who would be doing things like Hitler, except Hitler did not do those things. But it does not matter what Hitler actually did, since everyone knows that Hitler was a bad dictator, so it is Ok to compare him to other dictators regardless either they have anything in common with Hitler or not. Come on, it is Hitler. And Assad is just like Hitler, except they have nothing in common, but it is just a minor detail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 reo, I've got you. When you were using Hitler as an example, you did not really mean Hitler, you mean somebody else who would be doing things like Hitler, except Hitler did not do those things. But it does not matter what Hitler actually did, since everyone knows that Hitler was a bad dictator, so it is Ok to compare him to other dictators regardless either they have anything in common with Hitler or not. Come on, it is Hitler. And Assad is just like Hitler, except they have nothing in common, but it is just a minor detail. Pretty much yeah. It was used as an extreme example of how "never intervene in other country's affairs" could be bad. It wasn't used as a comparison. It was used as an extreme example to make a point. Glad you finally figured it out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALTitan Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Yeah, I've just found a picture of reo on the Internet. It might not be him and it might be an extreme example but it can definitely be used to make a point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Was Clinton right to intervene in the Balkans or right to ignore genocide in Rwanda? It's not a simple answer. But you will note that Clinton's regret for not helping in Rwanda is, in part, what led him to break international law and stop the killings in what was Yugoslavia. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALTitan Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 "Right" / "Wrong".... Blah, blah, blah... Of course, only the down syndrome brothers (aka Starkiller & reo) believe in this shit. The war on Balkans was about natural resources and American domination over the NATO and the region. Here is a good article about it. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-nato-military-intervention-in-kosovo/1666 If you trust more liberal sources, then google Chomsky's article on that subject. It has a similar message. Several thousand civilians have died from NATO bombing (some numbers go as high 4,000), That is 10 times more than the number of victims of war crimes that Miloshevits (sp?) was accused of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Sounds like bullshit... Yes, people died in the bombing. That doesn't mean that things didn't improve in the Balkans following the conflict. People were dying prior to NATO taking action, too, not to mention being forced from their homes and persecuted. Milosevic wasn't going to just play nice because we asked politely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALTitan Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Sources to disprove that? Oh, sorry, your brain just can't process that Clinton has lied to you and number of war crimes by Serbian regime were grossly overstated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Hell, where are the sources to prove it? Just because someone can write an anti-war conspiracy theory doesn't make it true. You can look at the other articles on the site and see that they are not exactly "fair and balanced". I'm all for a good anti-war argument, but I don't go for the conspiracy theories. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Was Clinton right to intervene in the Balkans or right to ignore genocide in Rwanda? It's not a simple answer. But you will note that Clinton's regret for not helping in Rwanda is, in part, what led him to break international law and stop the killings in what was Yugoslavia. No the red line there is kill all the babies you want as long as they're black. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALTitan Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 . When was the last war started by a Democratic president that Starkiller & reo did not like? But that is actually fairly normal, since Down syndrome leads to an aggressive behavior. BTW, here is what true liberal thinks about Kosovo war: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200005--.htm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 The fact that you can't make an argument without juvenile personal attacks only serves to undercut you. It's not as if anything someone like you says can be taken seriously enough to bother me. How many wars have been started by Democratic presidents that I am supposed to object to? I have no problem with Kosovo. You want me to go back to Vietnam? Sure I disagree with that one. I was for Bush invading Afghanistan, too. I guess that makes me biased in favor of Dubya... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Im glad we didnt do anything in Syria, I really am. Im glad the Russians swept in to pick up the mess Obama made. But ill say you get what you vote for, a community organizer trying to run a country, hows that worked out so far? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 What mess did Obama make, honestly? The threat of force (seemingly) did what it was supposed to do. Syria now appears to be hard pressed to use chemical weapons, even if all this turns out to be a delay by Assad and Russia. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Oh yeah Obama putting his foot in his mouth really helped out. Please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 What did he hurt? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.