"This is carpet-bombing, which has struck everything from playgrounds, to an emergency services HQ, schools, media buildings, and medical facilities," said one observer.
That is an unverifiable, unfalsifiable non sequitur that has nothing to do with the fact that American meddling and plunder in the Middle East enjoys bipartisan support. When it comes to the Middle East, yes: both sides are the same.
On the contrary, you know what’s an unverifiable and unfalsifiable non sequitur? Your apparent claim that a Democrat president would have invaded Iran.
Also, pointing out that Democratic presidents have continued wars started by their Republican predecessors is completely different from claiming that they would have unnecessarily began new wars if they had been in power at those times. Your point does not substantiate the claim you’re trying to make.
Blumaga: “American meddling in the Middle East is a new phenomenon that was invented solely by Republicans”
A Democrat in the white house wouldn’t have invaded Iran…
That is an unverifiable, unfalsifiable non sequitur that has nothing to do with the fact that American meddling and plunder in the Middle East enjoys bipartisan support. When it comes to the Middle East, yes: both sides are the same.
On the contrary, you know what’s an unverifiable and unfalsifiable non sequitur? Your apparent claim that a Democrat president would have invaded Iran.
Also, pointing out that Democratic presidents have continued wars started by their Republican predecessors is completely different from claiming that they would have unnecessarily began new wars if they had been in power at those times. Your point does not substantiate the claim you’re trying to make.
Do show me where I made this claim.
It was implicit in your original reply, don’t play dumb as if no one can read subtext.