3 ms·
I do not find it "a hell of a tangent". You said that not involvement is not really possible and I just brought an example where the West did not really get in
by FpUser 4y ago
I do not find it "a hell of a tangent". You said that not involvement is not really possible and I just brought an example where the West did not really get involved in rectifying one of the most horrible genocides.
Whether it "helped" to cause it is a totally different issue. I was not talking about that part. I was not even aware of that particular aspect.
- defrost 4y agoI'm a third party here, my comment above aside I've not said anything. You didn't bring an example where the West didn't get involved, you bought an example of an outcome arguably caused by the West (ie. involved from the get go). This reinforces the earlier point that "not involvement" is not really possible - global events are interconnected and penduluums swing both ways .. not giving a toss about the outcome of events someone had a large role in getting rolling is not an example of distance, just a lack of moral backbone.
- FpUser 4y ago>"I've not said anything." My bad. Sorry. I did not look at the sig. You are a different person.
- throwaway290 4y agoNon-involvement is a logically faulty/impossible position long term, you can find plenty of non-involvement very obviously, but I don't think you actually make an effort to understand what is written and by whom here so what does it matter.