Quote from: muppet on August 26, 2016, 12:20:48 PM
Asked and answered.
No you didn't you just compared her to someone else. Is she an interventionist or not?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: muppet on August 26, 2016, 12:20:48 PM
Asked and answered.
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2016, 02:20:33 PM
You said she is a war mongerer responsible for Iraq, ISIS, Libya no Syria that and she is the biggest threat to world peace since WW II.
After all the above, this logical fallacy is the equivalent of now asking me if she has a sneaky smoke now and then.
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2016, 01:59:40 PMQuote from: Ulick on August 25, 2016, 01:48:01 PMQuote from: muppet on August 25, 2016, 01:47:26 PMQuote from: Ulick on August 25, 2016, 01:37:36 PM
"She said the United States should consider sending more special-operations troops to Iraq than Obama had committed, to help the Iraqis and Kurds fight the Islamic State."
"She came out in favor of a partial no-fly zone over Syria."
Wow!
Worse than Cromwell.
Stripping out the opinion of a journalist you are left with the above. 'Should consider sending more troops' and 'partial no-fly zone'. Well damn me but war-mongerers aren't what they used to be.
So is she an interventionist or not?
This is another of your logical fallacies.
First, the black or white question. Usually loaded, obviously without context or mitigating circumstances.
Then comes the false cause. 'Interventionist' will obviously have to equal evil war-mongerer and thus prove that she was responsible for all of the woes in Iraq, Syria, ISIS and Libya.
Quote from: muppet on August 25, 2016, 01:47:26 PMQuote from: Ulick on August 25, 2016, 01:37:36 PM
"She said the United States should consider sending more special-operations troops to Iraq than Obama had committed, to help the Iraqis and Kurds fight the Islamic State."
"She came out in favor of a partial no-fly zone over Syria."
Wow!
Worse than Cromwell.
Stripping out the opinion of a journalist you are left with the above. 'Should consider sending more troops' and 'partial no-fly zone'. Well damn me but war-mongerers aren't what they used to be.
Quote from: T Fearon on August 24, 2016, 05:57:22 PM
Legend.His goalscoring record in the green jersey will never be equalled and few lads will ever play for giant clubs like Spurs,Celtic and Inter
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2016, 09:35:59 PM
What has Hillary got to do with it?
This classic from Ulick: "IMO Clinton getting into the White House will be the biggest threat to world peace since WWII."
I can understand that Trump has his supporters, but must they imitate his lunacy?
Hillary will be about as big a threat to World Peace as her husband was. Which makes her equally the least dangerous likely President since before the Cold War.
So Ulick, what is your real problem with her?
Quote from: muppet on August 24, 2016, 08:28:01 PMQuote from: Ulick on August 24, 2016, 08:00:21 PM
I didn't mention Gaddifi or Saddam, I said she is responsible for the current situation in Libya by facilitating the arming of Libyan jihadis and then facilitating the transfer of arms to northern Iraq to the people who are now ISIS. If you was to misread what I saying that's your problem but it's pretty much a part of the public record now. I'm not going to spend my evening digging out "proof" for you on something that is irrelevant to the original discussion but here's the first Google search return on Clinton and Libyan rebels: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/29/arms-libya-rebels
As I said, she's an interventionist meddler directly responsible for a lot of the chaos going on in the world today. Oh I also think it's cute that you think there's even a fag papers worth of difference between US Republicans and Democrats when it comes to foreign policy.
Your article doesn't say what you think it does. You should read it.
As for Republicans and Democrats, I see one as right wing and the other as ultra-right wing. But as for a 'fag papers worth of difference', there is at least one very significant difference. The last two Republican Presidents invaded countries for oil, while the last two Democrat Presidents didn't. Over 100,000 dead is the difference, which you might call 'even a fag papers worth'.