@191: You claimed that before the revolution, poor people were dying, and after the revolution it was the rich people who were dying. EXACTLY HOW ELSE is one supposed to interpret that boneheaded assertion? Riddle me THAT.
"But, because there was violence, you seem ready to write them all off."
I guess the alphabet soup approach will be necessary, you DENSE motherfucker. I am not characterizing the French Revolution as a failure because it involved violence, but rather because the violence was:
-arbitrary, without purpose or rationale
-disproportionate, with the purported benefits of the revolution being far eclipsed in scope by the massive loss of life, and
-ultimately fruitless, with no clear improvements to show for the tremendous cost in lives
IT IS NOT VIOLENCE IN AND OF ITSELF THAT I OPPOSE, BUT THE SENSELESS AND WASTEFUL APPLICATION THEREOF. If you wish to argue with me, I shall have to insist that you READ what is WRITTEN.
"millions of lives have been extinguished"
Not actually true, buddy! The highest estimates of TOTAL CASUALTIES of the Iraq War top out at several hundred thousand to maybe one million. It's this careless, dare I say Trumpian, disregard for factual accuracy that gets you into trouble.
Also, you think I'm sugar-coating it by describing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a "repressive theocratic monarchy"? Bitch please. Are you even familiar with the meanings of those words, to make such a laughable claim?
And once more, I must remind you not to put your words in my mouth. My claim was never that the French Revolution was "unjustifiable", but rather that it was unsuccessful. (Compare to the War in Afghanistan: we had a perfectly good reason to go in there, but ended up screwing the pooch due in large part to rushing off to fight a whole different war.) Nor is it simply "she [Hillary Clinton] says she was lied to"; the deception practiced by the Bush Administration at the time is well-documented fact.
Yeah, never mind that she nearly a decade ago disavowed her vote
authorizing military force, that she pilloried George W. Bush
for having "rushed to war" even before that, or that she described her 2002 vote
AT THE TIME as a reluctant one, hoping that the authorization would serve as diplomatic leverage and that the situation would not come to armed conflict. Never mind any of that; it goes against your narrative of "Clinton secretly wants to bomb everyone" (paraphrased) to know or to admit such.