Should I provide a translation so English speakers can share in the Varq Snarq?
Maybe later. 
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
(Sorry I brought in so many countries at once, I know that confuses ya.)
[/quote]
Both of you came into this with a risible and obvious unpreparedness. You stepped into the big leagues with a minor-league eye, and you got burned by fastballs down the middle.
Edited to add finality.[/quote]
Writes this…
Does not address a single point I made about the different countries involved in Obama’s flawed foreign policy disaster.
Claims to be a big league player in PWI.
lol[/quote]
I tried to assess Obama’s foreign policy in the ME objectively and the same way I’d assess anyone else; didn’t blame him for the civil war in Syria; didn’t blame him for Assad using chemical weapons and so on. But in Libya? How can anyone deny what a fuck up that was? But for some people Obama can do no wrong. It’s interesting. It’s always the people who voted for Obama who are like that. They may think it was a mistake and they’re going to vote for a Republican next time or whatever but they just can’t admit that this man has wreaked devastation upon the country domestically and on the world stage. It’s a shame when it gets personal and / or excessive though.
[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
The conspiracy level is stankin up this thread. It is like someone took Glenn Beck, Hannity, Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones, combined them like a master dog breeder and created a new Hybrid, foaming at the mouth hound ready to guard against imagined communist and anti gun state overlords everywhere.
[/quote]
Which ones would they be? The only conspiracy theorists I’ve encountered around here are a few central banking Fed conspiracy theorists on the libertarian right, the occasional truther who comes along, LIFTICVSMAXIMVS and a thread going now about vaccines. None of that is in this thread. Where are these conspiracy theories you’re talking about?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Interesting development.[/quote]
I think in all seriousness Christian leaders should call for a Crusade. Not against Islam but against the international terrorist militias. They’re committing abominations. If ever there was a righteous war this would be it.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You completely ignored the part about Gadaffi giving up his nuclear program, arresting and taking on terrorists like al-qaeda, which Sexmachine and I both talked about. [/quote]
Except I didn’t ignore that. [/quote]
If you did not ignore this, it’s significance was lost because you missed the whole point. If not, your logic is flawed.
But at least less people are dying in Libya now than during the civil war in 2011. At least the civil war’s not dragged on like the one in Syria.
That’s the only points you seem to continue make.[/quote]
What do you mean? The civil war is dragging on to this day and things just got a lot worse with ISIS capturing large parts of the country. It could be the beginning of a collapse into anarchy like Syria:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2014â??present)
And Libya so close to Italy:
Is Italy “occupied territory” yet? I don’t know. I know Cyprus is. And I hear ISIS have their eyes on Andalusia and now they’re talking about the Eternal City? Maybe when they’re battering on the Vatican doors the Pope might put down his volume of Das Kapital and start to take notice of the spiritual war of annihilation being waged against Christians.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Last night before bed, I was going to thank you for the lack of snark, but now I’m curious about this.
[/quote]
Oh, you want snark? How’s this?
Omae ha sonnani Nippon ga kirai nara, Amerika ni itte sumeba dou? Omae ya Buritonii Supiiazu ya, Kimu Kaadashian ya, gunsanfukugoutai no zentai to issho ni, kokki ni mi wo tsutsumi, fouku de hottodoggu to appurupai wo tabenagara, amefuto no shiai de douseiaisha to fuhouimin wo seishou de uchinomesu koto ga dekiru. Nippon–aisuru no ka, satte iku no ka!
[/quote]
Ha!
Did it hurt you to write that in Romaji as much as it did me to read it? :-)[/quote]
Yes.
I was actually considering writing it in Japanese, taking a screenshot, and posting the resulting graphic, but decided it was too much trouble for the amount of snarq to be conveyed.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Look, if we just put ISIS on Gov’t assistance, food stamps, a pathway to citizenship and free college tuition, we can influence them. You see, we can’t kill them. We can’t defeat them. Only government is the answer. We just don’t all have the intellictual capacity of Marie Harf. [/quote]
I see … Straw people.[/quote]
Hilarious coming from you.
And secondly, he’s taking a swipe at the moron’s this administration sends out to talk to the press. [/quote]
Marie Harf isn’t incorrect. In 2008, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen Stated "We can’t kill our way to victory, and no armed force anywhere – no matter how good – can deliver these keys alone. Her’s is not a controversial position within the intelligence and national security communities. Also, Harf was a CIA analyst before she became a spokesperson for that agency and then the State Department. Ad hominem attacks from those whose areas of expertise are far removed from foreign affairs in general and counter terrorism in particular do not an argument make.[/quote]
I guess the same argument could have made concerning the Nazis. “Hey, we can’t kill them all. You can’t kill
Fascism. Let’s compromise and just give em a job. Make that a union job with a pension.”
Harf is an embarrassment. Who cares if she is a pencil-pushing “analyst”? BFD. She worked on Obummer’s campaign, that’s why she is a apologist for this administration. NOT because she is a brilliant strategist.
Please. [/quote]
Not really because the situations in which these movements exist and operate are incredibly different. A good example is Irish Republican terrorists and how there really was no military solution to it. Guerrilla wars, geo politics and nationalism or sectarianism make unique cases and require unique methods to deal with them.
We didn’t deal with Stalinism the same way we dealt with Fascism, we didn’t deal with Tribal insurgencies the same way we dealt with Republican terrorists.
Trying to kill Islamic terrorism the same way Germany was beaten (but not fascism as many nations were later under fascist rule and Junta with CIA backing) is silly, it is like giving AIDS patients Chemo because it worked for cancer patients and when a qualified doctors says it lacks merit, you go apeshit and accuse them of being pro AIDS.
When someone spells Obama as Obummer, Obomber, Osama or any other way they have never done with any other president you know they are either racist, ultra right wing fringe or both. So embarrassing.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
(Sorry I brought in so many countries at once, I know that confuses ya.)
[/quote]
Both of you came into this with a risible and obvious unpreparedness. You stepped into the big leagues with a minor-league eye, and you got burned by fastballs down the middle.
Edited to add finality.[/quote]
Writes this…
Does not address a single point I made about the different countries involved in Obama’s flawed foreign policy disaster.
Claims to be a big league player in PWI.
lol[/quote]
Other than Libya?
What are you talking about? We chose to focus on Libya. In fact, you’re the one who shifted to Libya after I laughed at you about your fatuously having listed Tunisia.
More importantly, do you for one second think that what this thread needed was more points of disagreement – other countries with distinct specifics for you to misunderstand? You haven’t even gotten a basic handle of Libya. Your posts tend to require not response but CORRECTION. More complexity would surely mean more error on your part. Do you think I want to know what you don’t understand about Syria or Egypt, now that I have at least a general idea of what you don’t understand about Libya?
No, I don’t answer to your Gish Gallops.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You completely ignored the part about Gadaffi giving up his nuclear program, arresting and taking on terrorists like al-qaeda, which Sexmachine and I both talked about. [/quote]
Except I didn’t ignore that. [/quote]
If you did not ignore this, it’s significance was lost because you missed the whole point. If not, your logic is flawed.
But at least less people are dying in Libya now than during the civil war in 2011. At least the civil war’s not dragged on like the one in Syria.
That’s the only points you seem to continue make.[/quote]
What do you mean? The civil war is dragging on to this day and things just got a lot worse with ISIS capturing large parts of the country. It could be the beginning of a collapse into anarchy like Syria:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2014â??present)
And Libya so close to Italy:
Is Italy “occupied territory” yet? I don’t know. I know Cyprus is. And I hear ISIS have their eyes on Andalusia and now they’re talking about the Eternal City? Maybe when they’re battering on the Vatican doors the Pope might put down his volume of Das Kapital and start to take notice of the spiritual war of annihilation being waged against Christians.
[/quote]
The pope is a marxist now? Have you ever actually spoke to a marxist about the pope oe even looked on a marxist website, forum or blog about the new pope? The attitude is normally one of utter hate.
It is impossible to be a Marxist and believe in god too as the materialist conception of history is at complete odds with well, the opposite view, one based on opposite and according to Marxists, oppressive and false views of the world, leading to the “bad” social relations and economic system we see today.
The pope is ultra conservative compared to most of the civilised world.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
What do you mean? The civil war is dragging on to this day and things just got a lot worse with ISIS capturing large parts of the country. It could be the beginning of a collapse into anarchy like Syria.
[/quote]
Sex, I made the same point.
I also wanted to know people’s take on which is better for Libya & the world: Qaddafi’s entire reign (1969-2011) or the current state (2011-2015) of civil war, warring militias and tribes, & failed state but got no reply.
Smh seems to rationalize since Qaddafi “lost control of his country” it was justifiable for the West to take him down regardless of the facts that he gave up his nuclear campaign, arrested terrorists and was an ally in the WOT.
And so what if he tortured people. We’re allies with China, one of the biggest prison states in the world. How many millions are in concentration camps there and yet we trade with them like nobody’s business.
And if it was justifiable for the West to bomb Libya to stop the long protracted bloody civil war, how come we haven’t done so in Syria, where there’s been even more deaths and is the birthplace of ISIS?
[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
We didn’t deal with Stalinism the same way we dealt with Fascism.
[/quote]
Ah- because Stalin had a vast nuclear arsenal.
Saddam was a Stalinist…took him down same as Hitler.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
We didn’t deal with Stalinism the same way we dealt with Fascism.
[/quote]
Ah- because Stalin had a vast nuclear arsenal.
Saddam was a Stalinist…took him down same as Hitler.[/quote]
Sadam was not a Stalinist and such claims of every psychotic dictator being either Stalin or Hitler is infantile.
We also did not deal with Sadam the same way we did with Hitler.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Other than Libya?
What are you talking about? We chose to focus on Libya.
[/quote]
I believe YOU did, on 1 single point.
It’s hilarious that Tunisians have been joining ISIS and taking part in the Syrian civil war & Iraq crimes against minorities. Real funny.
You glossed over that fact.
YOU didn’t. Anything to take you away from your one argument would weaken your position.
Same could be said in regards to yourself.
[quote]
No, I don’t answer to your Gish Gallops. [/quote]
Because you’ve entered the big leagues with a minor league mentality.
[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
We didn’t deal with Stalinism the same way we dealt with Fascism.
[/quote]
Ah- because Stalin had a vast nuclear arsenal.
Saddam was a Stalinist…took him down same as Hitler.[/quote]
Sadam was not a Stalinist and such claims of every psychotic dictator being either Stalin or Hitler is infantile.
We also did not deal with Sadam the same way we did with Hitler.
[/quote]
He certainly was a Stalinist. If not, what exactly is your definition of a Stalinist?
Didn’t deal with Saddam the same way as Hitler? Please, explain.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
We didn’t deal with Stalinism the same way we dealt with Fascism.
[/quote]
Ah- because Stalin had a vast nuclear arsenal.
Saddam was a Stalinist…took him down same as Hitler.[/quote]
Sadam was not a Stalinist and such claims of every psychotic dictator being either Stalin or Hitler is infantile.
We also did not deal with Sadam the same way we did with Hitler.
[/quote]
He certainly was a Stalinist. If not, what exactly is your definition of a Stalinist?
Didn’t deal with Saddam the same way as Hitler? Please, explain.
[/quote]
Stalinism relates to very specific people and regimes:
- They must be Marxist - Leninist - Anti “revisionist”.
- They must support state collectivisation, centralisation.
- They must be post left marxism and supporters of socialism in one country, a specific sect of the right wing Bolshevik split post Kronstadt.
- They must promote the material conception of history, ban all religious institutions and enforce public bans on organised worship.
Sadam was not a Marxist, he actually killed so many communists the Communist party of Iraq supported the U.S invasion.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
It’s hilarious that Tunisians have been joining ISIS and taking part in the Syrian civil war & Iraq crimes against minorities. Real funny.
[/quote]
[quote]
FATUOUS
: complacently or inanely foolish[/quote]
That, and the laughing, was directed toward you. It wasn’t about what’s happening in Tunisia. It’s about your having listed Tunisia as a FP blunder for Obama and, when I asked you to describe how and why, you tucked your tail in and ran to Libya. That’s how we got to Libya.
Edited.
[quote]Musashi92 wrote:
When someone spells Obama as Obummer, Obomber, Osama or any other way they have never done with any other president you know they are either racist, ultra right wing fringe or both. So embarrassing.[/quote]
So when I refer to GW as “Bushy” I’m what? Lemme guess… Sexist?