On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:53:11 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 11/2/16 12:37 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 06:13:11 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 11/2/16 12:09 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:06:26 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

What diplomats? Surely, you are not referring to benghazi, because, if
you are, you know even less than the little I thought you knew.

The biggest thing you need to know about Benghazi is it was just
another example of the US sticking our nose is someone else's civil
war and getting our ass burned for it. In 70 years the closest thing
we have had to success was Korea and that war is still going on.


So, you are an isolationist, I suppose.

Perhaps. I notice you are an interventionist, until we actually
intervene, then you say it was wrong.

OK, you tell me the civil war we should have been in.
Cuba?
Vietnam?
Cambodia?
Laos?
Nicaragua?
Somalia?
Any of the middle eastern debacles over the last 40 years?
(far to many to list, all turned out to be disasters)


I think American corporate interests resulted in Castro, and I think we
could have turned it around there many decades ago if it weren't so
convenient for our military-industrial complex here. Having an enemy,
even a weak one, 90 miles away, is a good thing for the senators and
representatives.

The question was not "Castro", it was about US intervention in that
civil war and the half dozen others I mentioned. If JFK was not such a
warmongering asshole, we could have worked out a deal with Castro.
I think we agree ALL of the middle east, north African and south Asia
misadventures in the last 25 years were just that, including the
cluster**** we are involved in with Syria and Iraq.