Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Maybe he’s not actually smart enough. That is basic ignorance right there, and there doesn’t seem to be any context missing that might excuse it.
And that's just part I.
Don't know how reliable these sources are but they do suggest that Iran also had some chemical weapons during that era.
I’ve only scanned them briefly, but from what I can see neither claims that the Soviets supported Iran’s CW program.Given that it’s widely known that the Soviet Union was Iraq’s biggest supporter during the war, that’s Obama’s entire framing of international involvement in the Iran-Iraq War in that paragraph out the window.
Considering you're the Historiographer, I'll trust you on this.
All this is common knowledge, it doesn’t take a historian to get it right.
But he’s so eloquent and seems so warm?!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
A podcast I listen to pointed out that Obama's worldview is very much shaped by the Tom Freidmans and Fareed Zakarias of the world, and I then remembered he took time, as president, to address criticism from either Freidman or David Brooks in the NYT. So you're right, ignorance/being in a kind of bubble is a plausible explanation.
Wasn’t he very publicly pictured reading a Zakaria book not long after becoming President? The Post American World or something like that.
I was remembering this:
the article itself is really worth a read to get a sense of his administration's priorities - they talk abut cutting social security, which biden denied in a debate - (and how untethered from reality current arguments about his progressive ideas being stymied are).
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
From 2 wars to 7? I assume Syria is the 3rd, what are the others?
They consider any country where the US is vaguely involved to be a US war, which of course isn't true. The other 4 being Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya.
That's not exactly what was said though was it? I hate clickbait... The "thank you" came a while later and was in reference to something else.
The US bombed Libya, I'd say that's being more than vaguely involved.
That was a UN sponsored campaign, not a US war.
Pretty much. There is a culture difference between the two parties but really they are far more similar than different.
Sure, but so was Korea, and that was definitely a US war still. That's not to say that this was anything like the scale of Korea, but it was something. Norway bombed Libya too, so we're also complicit - as are a whole host of other nations.
No one is complicit in anything. Wars simply happen from time to time. In this case it was backed by the UN, which means it wasn't unilateral. Afghanistan has also been a NATO effort for at least 7 years. These are all largely campaigns with the backing of multi-lateral organizations.
That's hands down one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said.
It happens to be true, and is a natural consequence of living an an anarchic international system without laws that everyone follows. Larger states are therefore incentivized to project power to advance their interests. This is a central tenet of structural realism, which is the predominant theory in international relations.
War goes in, War goes out. You can’t explain that
None of that is the same as saying "no one is complicit in anything". Actually, none of that is the same as saying "wars simply happen from time to time" either, like that answers anything. The fact that you're trying to distance the US from Afghanistan of all things is bad enough.
What precisely is Norway "complicit" in ? The Libya campaign had UN backing.
