4 ms·

> Turns out, that isn't Obama's only military campaign. We were talking about the bombings in the post a few further up though. Let's stick with one topic for

> Turns out, that isn't Obama's only military campaign. We were talking about the bombings in the post a few further up though. Let's stick with one topic for now. E: And if you want to bring in further topics, at least do more than "here's a link to an list of attacks" without at least exploring why they were made and how they're a sign of belligerence (i.e. what better options existed). E2: I've seen your response below and it is not worth adding another post to this. Sad to see someone drop any pretense of good faith and jump straight into rethorical warfare.

lend000 10y ago
> We were talking about the bombings in the post a few further up though. Let's stick with one topic for now. Ugh. You responded to my comment which stated "There's a lot of denial on HN about the magnitude of Obama's foreign policy belligerence." Trolling/nitpicking is not welcome here, please. > And if you want to bring in further topics, at least do more than "here's a link to an list of attacks" without at least exploring why they were made and how they're a sign of belligerence (i.e. what better options existed). Would you like me to write you a thesis? I don't think you would appreciate it enough to justify the effort. The facts are there -- there are an overwhelming number of topics to explore related to Obama's use of aggressive foreign policy (aggressive defined as leading to people dying). If you truly do not believe Obama was a belligerent, you really should read through some of that. Sorry to burn down your idol.