>>2640942> That line came from Sinclair which is a rightoid company that's been buying up local news outlets.so how is it /pol/? you're the one pushing the bullshit idea in this conversation that Obama was this anti-interventionist with good intentions who merely got wrecked by his cabinet and constantly appealing to the authority of the mainstream media to prove your point. It's clear what you're doing in this conversation. Let's revisit your post:
>>2640934>it was reported oh wow it was reported, y'all!!! case closed
>that he did not want because intentions matter more than results!!!
>regime change in Libyahe always was fine with it
>until the Arab SpringUS backed color revolution which was planned all along
> and pressure within the cabinetplausible deniability so he could say he was "forced" to do what he was going to do all along.
>and he saidoh !!! he said!!!! he said!!!! but what did the bloodthirsty imperialist
DO???>only with UN action should action be donewell that's not what happened and it makes no difference to me whether libya is couped by America directly or indirectly through the medium of the UN whose headquarters are in NYC and which helped america destroy korea.
>Sabo is right about hawkishness of dems compared to reps.no he wasn't and in any case the conversation moved on and my post was in response to YOU saying
>>2640881>It isn't saying they are anti-imperialist but we can acknowledge the differencethe difference is that the republicans will decapitate your country while the democrats will torture it to death with 1000 cuts. cRiTicAl sUpPoRt fOr ThE lEsSeR eViL
>A republican would have went and did the intervention themselvesi'm sure gaddafi cared deeply that the president was a black democrat as US-backed reactionaries LITERALLY raped him to death and brought open air slave markets to libya