>>That's a cop-out answer. By that measure most conversations are pointless because the other person is mostly likely not going to be convinced by your arguments. Conversations like this aren't usually all that useful for convincing the person you're talking with to change their position. They're for convincing the people who may also be "listening in" who haven't made a decision one way or another. You don't have to convince him, just give your reasons why YOU believe the US is justified in using military force for our business interests.
>>
>>(and in this case, it wasn't a "mistake" - or if it was, it shows such a level of incompetence that a lot of heads should roll for it)
>
>I'll tell you what's a cheap stunt - putting words into my mouth. I never said "using military force for our business interests".

I didn't. Re-read the thread:

>You: But the U.S. "does" have business interests outside the U.S. It is a fact of life.

>Hugo: Such as? What are the U.S. "business interests outside the U.S" and why do they require the use of military force?

That was literally Hugo's question that you said you wouldn't answer because it wouldn't satisfy him.