3 ms·

He would be in great company. Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney come to mind. As does Obama and his fondness for drone stikes (and associated collateral damage). The b

He would be in great company. Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney come to mind. As does Obama and his fondness for drone stikes (and associated collateral damage). The biggest disappointment here is that even the respected New Yorker is now a card carrying member of the elites' shameless propaganda machine.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
smt88 5y ago
Can you remind me of the time Obama invaded a stable, democratic, sovereign country for the explicit purpose of conquest? I read the news every day, but I guess it's easy to miss a tiny story like that one.
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  This isn't March Madness. We're not here to do brackets. We all know who and what BO was. Trying to diminish that by hiding behind an oversimplification such as "Well, he's no Vlad" is anti-history. There's no need for that.
  - smt88 5y ago
    So you can't and won't answer my question then. Obama was no Putin. Shades of gray exist. Not every bad act is as bad as another.
    - chiefalchemist 5y ago
      I can answer you question. But it's off-topic and out of scope so I'm not going to entertain its laziness. You're caught up in the emotions of the moment. That's of no interest to me. The scope is war criminals. Full stop. At no point did I say one is better or worse than another. That's not how it works. Death is death. The type of cancer that does it is irrelevant.
- guilhas 5y ago
  There is no "explicit purpose of conquest". At no point Russia claimed that, they only said they want NATO far away from their borders. That is an assumption you're making, the same way I can claim USA/UK invaded Libya to create ISIS Obama destroyed Libyan lives, that still live worse today than before the invasion Russia will destroy Ukrainian lives They both claimed they did invade it for peace Which invader is a war criminal is not conditional on how advanced the country is
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
You're in a pretty big bubble if you think it was worth anyone's time to compare invading Ukraine for absolutely zero reason with ~30% of the world's second strongest army - to a few drone strikes in Syria that were not completely unprovoked.
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  The refernce point is war crimes. Full stop. It's not a bracketed competition (a la March Madness). That aside, I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone that Obama used a drone - and a creative WH legal team - to assassinate an American. So while that might not be a war crime in the international sense it might get y'all to read what was said. Obama - the Peace Prize guy - loved the War in Afghanistan as well. Don't be so naive. He didn't have a halo. He was pro undeclared war like the rest.
  - justin66 5y ago
    > loved the War in Afghanistan Nobody "loved" the war in Afghanistan.
    - chiefalchemist 5y ago
      Um...The Military Industrial Complex did. And fyi The MIC is not a conspiracy theory. You're naive to think that there are not empire builders and control freaks within our borders. And they are comfortable with most any means given their ends. Nobody? No way.
choko 5y ago
Total false equivalence here. I don't agree with what GW Bush or Obama did in regards to "stabilizing" the region, but this is a totally different situation. Ukraine was absolutely no threat to Russia and this was an unprovoked invasion.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

smt88 5y ago

Can you remind me of the time Obama invaded a stable, democratic, sovereign country for the explicit purpose of conquest? I read the news every day, but I guess it's easy to miss a tiny story like that one.

chiefalchemist 5y ago
This isn't March Madness. We're not here to do brackets. We all know who and what BO was. Trying to diminish that by hiding behind an oversimplification such as "Well, he's no Vlad" is anti-history. There's no need for that.
- smt88 5y ago
  So you can't and won't answer my question then. Obama was no Putin. Shades of gray exist. Not every bad act is as bad as another.
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    I can answer you question. But it's off-topic and out of scope so I'm not going to entertain its laziness. You're caught up in the emotions of the moment. That's of no interest to me. The scope is war criminals. Full stop. At no point did I say one is better or worse than another. That's not how it works. Death is death. The type of cancer that does it is irrelevant.
guilhas 5y ago
There is no "explicit purpose of conquest". At no point Russia claimed that, they only said they want NATO far away from their borders. That is an assumption you're making, the same way I can claim USA/UK invaded Libya to create ISIS Obama destroyed Libyan lives, that still live worse today than before the invasion Russia will destroy Ukrainian lives They both claimed they did invade it for peace Which invader is a war criminal is not conditional on how advanced the country is
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

You're in a pretty big bubble if you think it was worth anyone's time to compare invading Ukraine for absolutely zero reason with ~30% of the world's second strongest army - to a few drone strikes in Syria that were not completely unprovoked.

chiefalchemist 5y ago
The refernce point is war crimes. Full stop. It's not a bracketed competition (a la March Madness). That aside, I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone that Obama used a drone - and a creative WH legal team - to assassinate an American. So while that might not be a war crime in the international sense it might get y'all to read what was said. Obama - the Peace Prize guy - loved the War in Afghanistan as well. Don't be so naive. He didn't have a halo. He was pro undeclared war like the rest.
- justin66 5y ago
  > loved the War in Afghanistan Nobody "loved" the war in Afghanistan.
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    Um...The Military Industrial Complex did. And fyi The MIC is not a conspiracy theory. You're naive to think that there are not empire builders and control freaks within our borders. And they are comfortable with most any means given their ends. Nobody? No way.

choko 5y ago

Total false equivalence here. I don't agree with what GW Bush or Obama did in regards to "stabilizing" the region, but this is a totally different situation. Ukraine was absolutely no threat to Russia and this was an unprovoked invasion.