Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Well, about the only thing you got right was my quote. You keep referring to my insistence that the Libyan government blocked the movement of US troops to respond to the attack.
The Libyan government actually offered to fly the 4 special ops to Benghazi on one of their own planes, though it wouldn't have taken off until after everything was over.
I'm not sure if you've just made up so much crap you can't remember your own bull#^&#^&#^&#^& or if your effort to understand the situation is just that shallow.
Jim, there was no cavalry to send in because neither the US nor Libya wanted a strong military posture in country. This isn't rocket science.
The context for the word is obviously from the perspective of those being invaded.
There's a fine line between, oh thank you for removing that dictator...and...by the way, this is my country.
Yes, I was comparing us to Vikings. I didn't think you were going to catch that one.
Hey, I'm sure there are a lot of Iraqi's thankful that Saddam is gone...but you combined "vast majority" with "benevolent?"
Keep making things up.
-spence
|
"The context for the word is obviously from the perspective of those being invaded."
I agree. And in any rational perspective, we helped the people in Iraq, we did not conquer them. Spence, is Saddam not gone? Did the US military confiscate the oil fields? Did we rape all the women, and murder all the men?
"There's a fine line between, oh thank you for removing that dictator...and...by the way, this is my country."
And we didn't routinely do anything to cross that line. They have free elections, which we don't try to influence.
"Yes, I was comparing us to Vikings"
Then tell me what you were doing. You said that Libyans want partners rather than invaders, obviously implying that invaders are not partnering with those they are invading. Where in our recent history have we invaded, where our intention was to conquer, rather than liberate? You tell me...I'm all ears.
Threaded Mode