I’d rather a lessor evil framework than… Oh wait your not suggesting anything because you’re an empty vessel for campist brain rot.
Any failure to meet their own standards pales in comparison to actual terrorists who don’t have those standards to begin with, so your use of that word really exposes your ignorance.
Sorry to say this to you lib, but if Saddam wasn’t toppled, ISIS would not even have come out in the first place. Saddam’s secular regime was what was stopping the theocratic terrorism that you yourself had been criticising. So if you want to talk about “lessor evil”, then maybe you should not be doing your own terrorism. You created ISIS simply because your country wanted oil at the obvious pretense of “spreading freedom”.
Lmao, yea Saddam was a great guy, everyone was cheering for him during the Al-Khald Hall purge. Glad to hear you defend a dictator so openly while speaking about the evils of a secular democracy from the other side of your mouth.
It’s really gross how you remove all agency from literal terrorists because apparently you think so little of Arabs. “ISIS had no choice but to fill a power vacuum with civilian blood, they’re just poor little guys :(”
And again, you are lying about what terrorism is to suit your obvious propaganda.
You’re the one who harped and promoted about choosing “lessor evil” and when it’s turned to you, you are now denying it. In reality, US plays Superman who may have defeated an enemy, but the material destruction and collateral casualties are left to others to clean it all up.
Yes you’re right, the standard we should hold for the US is being able to see into the future, but for ISIS the standard is not killing some women they can sex traffic because you think they are savages with no moral agency. Very woke of you.
the material destruction and collateral casualties are left to others to clean it all up.
You’re lies aren’t even convincing, like why do you think America spent so much time there after Saddam was deposed? They were pumping billions into the country trying to stabilise it. Iraqi leaders had every opportunity to capitalise on that but chose to pursue sectarianism and corruption instead.
Again, your country and your tacit support of an illegal invasion is what made ISIS in the first place. There are warnings already of what could happen if Saddam was toppled but the clanging sounds of coins and the alluring green dollar notes to grab Iraqi oil, drowned and blinded all the warnings.
the material destruction and collateral casualties are left to others to clean it all up.
You’re lies aren’t even convincing, like why do you think America spent so much time there after Saddam was deposed? They were pumping billions into the country trying to stabilise it.
And all the cost with nothing to show for except for few oil companies to profit? The trillions of dollars that could have gone to healthcare and housing? A wasteful and illegal war that became the sticking point to populism, which led to Donald Trump because you support imperialism? Fascism is always the next logical step of economic liberalism. The liberals love of money always leads to imperialism with the end result being the undoing of democracy.
You reap what you sow. The world may get collateral damage, but the imperial boomerang you threw always comes back to hit your head, and that bump on your head is fascism in the form of Donald Trump.
You’re talking points are so dated. Oil? Really? Iraqi oil remained the property of the Iraqi government, and nothing close to the trillions the US spent in the conflict was recouped by US oil companies. Iraq sold their oil on the open market without preferencing the US, China benefitted more from the market then America did.
Clinton made regime change in Iraq official policy because Saddam kept invading his neighbours, but I guess that doesn’t enter into your calculus about instability in the middle east because you’re a campist hack. Keep acting like money was the reason, all evidence to the contrary.
As for the rest of your rambling talking points that leap from one schizophrenic slogan to the next, all I can say is your handlers need to teach you better. Maybe you can learn the the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending, some history lessons from WWII, and a bit of polysci to help you understand the slopulist here is you.
Did Clinton want to invade Iraq? It was the Bush family that got involved with Iraq. Bush Jr’s vice president, Dick Cheney, is connected to oil companies. They benefitted from it briefly until much of the influence went to Iran. Which is the theocratic mortal enemy that you so much rail against. US loves to larp as superhero and being bad at it and did not even benefit from it.
If you are not liberal imperialists, you may be the remaining 64% Russian bots on the net sowing discord. You love to accuse someone as bot for a barely old account that only posted two months ago. You did not even get your facts right on whose policy was it to make enemies with Iraq.
Wtf kind of Russian bot defends liberal democracy? The Russian bots all sound exactly like you, ahistoric anti-west trolls. You’re literally glazing Saddam Hussein just to be able to hate America more.
“They benefitted briefly” look how far you’ve fallen. I thought it was all about the money and oil? All that rhetoric smashed against the rocks of reality. A worthless analysis abandoned at the slightest pushback.
I guess that brief benefit was the reason they spent years and trillions of dollars in the region distributing aid, building civilian infrustrature, and propping up the Iraqi government, all so they’re adversaries in the region could benefit more than them. How selfless.
I absolutely got my facts right, Clinton didn’t plan to invade the country but he sure as hell made it his policy to make Saddam an enemy and work towards regime change in Iraq.
Wtf kind of Russian bot defends liberal democracy?
You tell me. Russian trolls are known to pretend all sides.
The Russian bots all sound exactly like you, ahistoric anti-west trolls. You’re literally glazing Saddam Hussein just to be able to hate America more.
Do you realise that surveys across the world have thought America is the biggest threat to the world, even Europeans? Have you asked the Filipinos, Vietnamese and Iraqis what they think about US after experiencing US militarism? Have you ask the victims of My Lai?
If you are so intent with deposing autocratic regimes, why not promote doing it to Saudis, Israel and North Korea?
Sorry to say this to you lib, but if Saddam wasn’t toppled, ISIS would not even have come out in the first place. Saddam’s secular regime was what was stopping the theocratic terrorism that you yourself had been criticising. So if you want to talk about “lessor evil”, then maybe you should not be doing your own terrorism. You created ISIS simply because your country wanted oil at the obvious pretense of “spreading freedom”.
Lmao, yea Saddam was a great guy, everyone was cheering for him during the Al-Khald Hall purge. Glad to hear you defend a dictator so openly while speaking about the evils of a secular democracy from the other side of your mouth.
It’s really gross how you remove all agency from literal terrorists because apparently you think so little of Arabs. “ISIS had no choice but to fill a power vacuum with civilian blood, they’re just poor little guys :(”
And again, you are lying about what terrorism is to suit your obvious propaganda.
You’re the one who harped and promoted about choosing “lessor evil” and when it’s turned to you, you are now denying it. In reality, US plays Superman who may have defeated an enemy, but the material destruction and collateral casualties are left to others to clean it all up.
Yes you’re right, the standard we should hold for the US is being able to see into the future, but for ISIS the standard is not killing some women they can sex traffic because you think they are savages with no moral agency. Very woke of you.
You’re lies aren’t even convincing, like why do you think America spent so much time there after Saddam was deposed? They were pumping billions into the country trying to stabilise it. Iraqi leaders had every opportunity to capitalise on that but chose to pursue sectarianism and corruption instead.
Again, your country and your tacit support of an illegal invasion is what made ISIS in the first place. There are warnings already of what could happen if Saddam was toppled but the clanging sounds of coins and the alluring green dollar notes to grab Iraqi oil, drowned and blinded all the warnings.
And all the cost with nothing to show for except for few oil companies to profit? The trillions of dollars that could have gone to healthcare and housing? A wasteful and illegal war that became the sticking point to populism, which led to Donald Trump because you support imperialism? Fascism is always the next logical step of economic liberalism. The liberals love of money always leads to imperialism with the end result being the undoing of democracy.
You reap what you sow. The world may get collateral damage, but the imperial boomerang you threw always comes back to hit your head, and that bump on your head is fascism in the form of Donald Trump.
You’re talking points are so dated. Oil? Really? Iraqi oil remained the property of the Iraqi government, and nothing close to the trillions the US spent in the conflict was recouped by US oil companies. Iraq sold their oil on the open market without preferencing the US, China benefitted more from the market then America did.
Clinton made regime change in Iraq official policy because Saddam kept invading his neighbours, but I guess that doesn’t enter into your calculus about instability in the middle east because you’re a campist hack. Keep acting like money was the reason, all evidence to the contrary.
As for the rest of your rambling talking points that leap from one schizophrenic slogan to the next, all I can say is your handlers need to teach you better. Maybe you can learn the the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending, some history lessons from WWII, and a bit of polysci to help you understand the slopulist here is you.
Did Clinton want to invade Iraq? It was the Bush family that got involved with Iraq. Bush Jr’s vice president, Dick Cheney, is connected to oil companies. They benefitted from it briefly until much of the influence went to Iran. Which is the theocratic mortal enemy that you so much rail against. US loves to larp as superhero and being bad at it and did not even benefit from it.
If you are not liberal imperialists, you may be the remaining 64% Russian bots on the net sowing discord. You love to accuse someone as bot for a barely old account that only posted two months ago. You did not even get your facts right on whose policy was it to make enemies with Iraq.
Wtf kind of Russian bot defends liberal democracy? The Russian bots all sound exactly like you, ahistoric anti-west trolls. You’re literally glazing Saddam Hussein just to be able to hate America more.
“They benefitted briefly” look how far you’ve fallen. I thought it was all about the money and oil? All that rhetoric smashed against the rocks of reality. A worthless analysis abandoned at the slightest pushback.
I guess that brief benefit was the reason they spent years and trillions of dollars in the region distributing aid, building civilian infrustrature, and propping up the Iraqi government, all so they’re adversaries in the region could benefit more than them. How selfless.
I absolutely got my facts right, Clinton didn’t plan to invade the country but he sure as hell made it his policy to make Saddam an enemy and work towards regime change in Iraq.
You tell me. Russian trolls are known to pretend all sides.
Do you realise that surveys across the world have thought America is the biggest threat to the world, even Europeans? Have you asked the Filipinos, Vietnamese and Iraqis what they think about US after experiencing US militarism? Have you ask the victims of My Lai?
If you are so intent with deposing autocratic regimes, why not promote doing it to Saudis, Israel and North Korea?