I’m not making anything up. Regardless of your views on Mother Theresa, hardly anyone even knows who Esquivel is. I didn’t even touch on the irony of an Argentine holding up his own country as an example of how peaceful states behave.
I’m not even sure it’s the first reason; I think it was a directed snub at Bush by the Committee for the Iraq invasion. Embarrassing for Obama, to be sure; I suspect he too would have preferred to have done something to earn it.
Depends on who you’re bombing - the UK and France actually asked the US to bomb Libya.
That Cameron failed to make his case in Parliament is not overly surprising; he’s already in a weak position as the leader of a coalition government and there isn’t a clear-cut course of action with regard to Syria, so he had an uphill struggle as it was. And a sizable percentage of the British public are also still miffed about being dragged into the Iraq conflict and require a more obvious objective than “we’re gonna bomb some stuff - we’re not sure what yet - and see how that goes” before they say yes to a US-led initiative again.
I’m well aware that many people around the world share the writer’s opinions- that doesn’t change the fact that his opinions are largely stupid, poorly thought out, and are a mish-mash of contradictory sentiments mixed with resentment of the US.
Foreigners often like to complain (with some justice) that Americans know little or nothing about the rest of the world and are absurdly proud of their ignorance. But you know what? Foreigners typically know little or nothing about the USA, but THINK they know a lot, and are absurdly proud of their bogus “knowledge.”
Until you write down what has he done that is much worse than Mother Therese, I’d say you’re just making stuff up.
Hardly anyone in US you mean?
As for the irony - I think as a community organizer, peace activist and all around humanist he is well regarded in Argentine and Latin America and whose major work was in the shadow of Argentine Army dirty war and coup supported by US.
You got some balls dude …
Ah, well… :rolleyes:
No, you are just reading things into my statements that aren’t there. I didn’t say he’d done anything worse than Mother Theresa. I said he wasn’t a Mother Theresa type - meaning universally renowned.
Yes. Perhaps you’re unaware that Barack Obama is the president of the US.
“All around humanist”? You mean he believes in rational thought and rejects the idea of a supreme being everywhere he goes? 
I’m well aware his “major work” was opposing the military government. Unfortunately, he is now supporting a democratically elected government that has begun a new, barely less ridiculous campaign of saber rattling over the Falklands.
Spin, change subject, move the goalposts … good job!
Perhaps you’d care to quote where I did any of those things.
Makes sense. Thanks.
It’s worth noting that even people who agree with the author on the issue still think he’s an idiot. That’s not a debate device. It’s an important distinction. Of course, someone who is a die hard Obama supporter who is in favor of intervention in Syria is going to be opposed to the letter.
Conversely, one can think the author is an idiot and disagree with the letter without being a diehard Obama supporter who is in favor of intervention in Syria.
Or, one can think author is not an idiot, disagree with the letter all the while being average supporter of Obama and on the fence when it comes to intervention in Syria.
What’s your point?
That too.
That I didn’t want to leave the potential implication of Debaser’s statement - that opposition to the letter was merely the result of being a diehard Obama supporter - lie unexpanded. That’s all.
I’ll just note that summarily dismissing a letter is kind of a douche argument that I interpret only as “attack on Obama’s integrity” therefore, letter author is an idiot.
Let’s make it interesting - look up at OP (edited by mod) tell me he’s not right about MLK?
Can I have that again in parsable English?
Why?
You’re joking, right? He seems to be accusing the US government of assassinating MLK because of his opposition to the Vietnam War.