Not arguing...
I wouldn't dignify this exchange with that term. It is rather nothing more than a feckless political tirade by you to which I foolishly responded...Originally Posted by JMA
Contrary to your opinion, nuclear parity did and does have substance and the threat of a nuclear exchange and its effect on all of Europe also had substance. Still does.. The fact that you discount it in an effort to tar a nation in retribution for its humanitarian position in opposition to a later effort in which you were involved is in marked contrast to your stated position in favor of humanitarian activity but whatever you need to write to assuage your itches...Agreed. The first statement goes without saying and as is true of all of your positions, it does indeed remain. Illogical and misrepresented to make a point but remain they do...My position on Hungary remains...I appreciate this is all very humiliating for the US. Better to admit the mistakes and move on. One can't learn from the mistakes of the past unless they are acknowledged as such.
The second is correct as far as it goes but whether a given event or action is a mistake is viewpoint dependent. Your mistake is my good decision. You display a penchant for good decisions militarily and tactically. Politically and strategically, not so much IMO...What? Surely you joke. What precisely do such 'apologies' prove -- they change nothing, are rarely sincere but are indeed beloved by the previously mentioned twitisphere....Bush should have apologised to the Hungarian people for the most despicable betrayal in their greatest time of need.
Yet again, as several have pointed out, one cannot betray a group to or with whom has only a superficial relationship. Your use of the word 'betrayal' is not only tedious, it's plain incorrect and an example of the use of socialist rhetoric to belabor a point in demonizing an opponent. The US is not an opponent of JMA but you may certainly tilt at any windmills you wish to charge. I think your lance is broken, though...You were fooled? By whom? Who told you that? The media...Now the people of Misrata. I too was fooled into believing that the US really intended to take the necessary steps to protect civilians rather than just go through the motions in the most cynical manner.
Ah. Terrible thing when one hears or reads what one wants to believe (for real or for a lever).I'm unsure whether that 'plan' is inane or insane. In the interest of civility, I'll opt for inane. That's about as smart as apologizing decades later for something you didn't do.If this had been the plan all along would the humanitarian answer not have been to arrange for a Dunkirk type flotilla to evacuate those civilians who wanted it from the port rather than just leave them, Hungarian/Marsh Arab style to their fate at the hands of Gaddafi?You got no sympathy from me, JMA, I told you a month ago it wouldn't work, yet you insisted it must be done! It is likely that, as I said then, it will do more harm than good. These humanitarian deals most always do...The current biggest lie out of Libya does not come from Gaddafi but through the line taken hook, line and sinker by the western media that the use of air effort within Misrata is ineffective.Yeah. Long list that. It is heavily populated by persons, places and things that were involved with the US in efforts espoused by those with an overblown penchant for saving humanity from itself. Those fools have invariably caused more harm than necessary and forced ill conceived projects on an America that is entirely too willing too help others at some costs to itself and discovers, too late, that it was a really bad idea to begin with. Those efforts always fail for a variety of reasons, not least that their supporters rarely think the project through. Dunkirk indeed.Sadly for the people of Misrata on whose behalf ostensibly the US sought specific wording in the UNSC resolution to protect they have the dubious honour to be added to a growing list those betrayed by a US government.
Bookmarks