No becuase
A: The utterly pathetic way you are arguing.
B: Becuase of your reliance on sterotypes and insults.
If you were confused about why I left the debate earlier, you have answered your own question. I concentrate on forming coherent, sensible arguments (as proven by some members noting them specifically), and you simply palm them off with "that's pathetic because (silence); or some other form of unrelated and invalid response. Then, you claim victory because you drive your opponents away out of sheer ignorance and stubbornness. That is not a victory. You just refuse to listen to our consistently repeated arguments for such a period of time that we find it pointless to continue the debate.
See it isn't my job to prove you're bigoted mind right or wrong. Only you can do that. If you want to be a backwards bigot then that is your decision. No one elses.
You misunderstand. I would LOVE to think that nobody behaves exactly the way their stereotype dictates, but you have proven repeatedly that this is not the case. If you still don't understand me, I am saying
you are the Texan stereotype in human form. I can back that up with quotes from your posts, not just because you're from Texas.
That is fine, if you do not want it then that is utterly fine with the United States. How about the United Nations actually work to fix this world. They cannot fix one simple genocide that has gone on for 5 years. They couldn't fix Iraq, they are having troubles over simple sanctions over Iran, and they turned a blind eye to Afghanistan. Even worse they cannot even fix the Palestine/Isreal issue. So how about the UN proves itself, and step up, and the US will back down.
Just because the UN isn't doing it the same way that USA would doesn't mean it isn't doing anything at all. Violence and death isn't ALWAYS the answer you know
I really do not need support when it comes to my arguments. Especially if it comes in the form of you.
I appreciate the support also, though I do not rely on it. But thanks for the insult, I would invite I mod to the thread to 'moderate the outrageous insulting which goes beyond aggressive' but luckily you have taken the liberty to do so already.
That is a pretty big stretch, just becuase I am justifying some very stupid arguments does not mean that I believe there is nothing bad about America. Mainly since I live here, I get a perspective on things that are bad, that a outside observer like yourself probably shrugs off or has not seen.
Alright then, since this is a debate about the problems of America, and you are so adamant that you don't believe America is perfect, then name problems with it. Name some REAL things that would make people hate America.
And just because I don't live in America doesn't mean I don't have a perspective on it. Obviously, it's a different perspective. But I suppose in line with your approach to life: if it isn't your perspective, it isn't a perspective at all.
See the thing is the same can be said for your sources as well. But just for the sake of argument I did do some research on Outfoxed. So far things do not seem too promising seeing how they seeked out to find 10 old employees out of 2,000 that were burned, as well as had a decidedly liberal slant as the Washinton post puts it.
The Washington Post is not a Liberal source. If a Liberal person admitted that x source was Liberal, then that would be valid. But otherwise, you can always put the response down to someones political opinion.
I mean really, anyone can say "Your source isn't valid because I think it's right-wing". It doesn't consititute a rebuttal (not a valid one anyway).
I do not need to view either to know what each says. Outfoxed is a Liberal video built on showing that Fox News has a right wing slant. Loose Change is a video made by idiots to show that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Both do not need to be viewed to provide a full rebuttle.
Great, you know what they're about. But how can your refute the individual facts stated by each source unless you watch it?
Never said Gave Up, I said that as long as prices for heroin out price the money the Government is giving out for food crops, the starving farmers will choose heroin.
Here's what economical genius Bush should have done then: subsidised more money. The Bush Administration has spent hundreds of billions 'bringing peace and stability to Iraq' through warfare, why can't they do the same to farmers in Afghanistan in the form of money so they will grow food?
Ahh and there you go, you claim the money ends back up in America becuase of donations. When not only your article just mentions "Western Countries". But it also mentions nothing about donations. Part of the money of course will be recycled when it comes to things like the payment of translators that go over there, private workers, money paid to corperations like Haliburton for their services, and etc. I still see nothing about donations by the Afghanistan Government.
Are you serious? Why on Earth would Afghanistan donate its aid money back to the donor countries? That's preposterous! No, I meant that too much of aid money donated by x country ends up back in x country, which is not an effective approach.
Care to explain, one is about the Geneva Convention and events on the battlefield. The other is about personal protection and the ability to change the Government if the public feels so.
If being able to maim people during wartime is barely justifiable under the Geneva convention, then why is it sensible that it be legal for any person in America to hold a weapon at any time?
No you are pathetic for putting up a failed argument.
In your opinion, my argument is pathetic. Therefore, in your opinion, I am pathetic. But if my pathetic posts are receiving praise from independent members, then why aren't your glorious words being worshipped by everybody?
So suddenly I justify the entire American Public? Mind you the news services have their own teams in Iraq. It isn't the Government filming things, it is the news companies themselves. Also becuase of the filming of bad events in Iraq, support for the was has dropped to what 40%?
But you said that the news was designed to lower the support for the war, and you gave reasons why. But you support the war even more now! How can that be?
No, you certainly do not represent the whole American public. I would be VERY worried if you did; my point is that if the media is as effective as you say it is as getting people against the War then why are you not against it?
And yet we still have never seen things that the US Military is doing to help the civilians, something that could raise support for the war. Oh the Censorship!
No, the News Companies are only showing the bad stuff. So far there is no evidence of this censorship you claim.
Rofl!! Here's your sentence, reworded.
"The media obviously isn't censored, we only get to see bad things!"
Becuase of the past history of the past few years, where news gets out when Governments are trying to keep it from getting out. Look at the Prince Harry in Afghanistan news. The British Government worked with News Agencies to try and keep it from getting out, but in the end it made it's way to the blogs. Why? Becuase in this day in age of Blogs and 24 hour News Channels, news will get out no matter what.
How can anybody find out that there is news they aren't supposed to hear, if they never get to hear it?
That is exactly what is happening and it is really kind of sad, other countries have gotten to the mind set of "Well the US says its a priority then they will take care of it." But if you really want us to stop meddling, then really, start taking care of the world. What is keeping the nations of the world from doing so? It isn't the US, so what is stopping them from going and taking care of places like Afghanistan and Darfur.
Have you heard of the Stolen Generation? It was the result of a government who decided to take unrelated matters into its own hands, and decided to 'help' families who made no such requests.
First I do not have to go and fight the war to support it. And while those deaths are tragic, in the end they do serve the greater cause of bringing a democracy and peace to Iraq. Yes each death is horrible, especially the deaths of children, but in war time, those deaths do happen. It is horrible and it is tragic, and God knows every person on this planet wishes to avoid the deaths of children. But this is the real world, and those things happen in war time.
Does that make them right? You don't hesistate to call me inconsiderate or whatever, and here you are saying that everybody who dies during a war has no reason to be upset by it.
If the Eritrean government decided to go to war with America and your family ended up maimed or dead from it, would you be concerned at all? Or would you just accept that it was the for the better and move on with no complaint?
You will actually find that US Marines have alot of restrictions placed on them when it comes to firing while civilians are in the area. We have marines on trial right now for breaking those restrictions.
So my argument in this area wins and your rebuttal is moot. America goes around with reckless disregard killing all those in its path, much like the people you endless chase after.
There would be even more than two cities knocked down flat if we invaded. The Japanese had shown that they believed the Americans were monsters and willing to die before being captured. As shown in the mass suicide of the Battle of Okinawa. Not to mention fighting from house to house in close combat would have provided even more civilian cassuties. As well as the bombing and mortor attacks of Japan during the invasion would have totally desimated the country.
There is a reason why military estimates were placing the casulty list around 400,000 to 500,000.
Wait a minute, you are saying the US army is SO incompetent that it cannot invade a country without killing 500000 innocent people and destroying two cities? Well maybe it shouldn't be responsible for looking after the world's affairs then (its self-appointed job).
The reason why I said you cannot compare war time to peace time, is that during wars, there are things that happen to bring about the end of wars. The fire bombings of Japan, the nuking of Japan, the utter destruction of France. They are horrible things that happen, but are the effects brought about by war. During peace time you have no excuse for hurting civilians to that effect, you have no excuse to test chemical weapons on your own populous as Saddam did, or to abduct children and force them to train for the military as seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan. There can be found needs for that in war time, although disgusting uses of it. But during peace time there is absolutely no excuse.
Oh god. I seriously think you have gone beyond reason now. You are nothing but a gun-head with a mind about as narrow as my leg hair.
You at least acknowledge that what happens during wars is horrible, but amazingly, you do not think that wars are an unnecessary cause of suffering. You seem to think that wars are great, a wonderful answer to any dilemma, whatever the destruction that results. But if the same thing is done in peace time, well that's just a sin.
Your logic astounds me (and not in a good way).
First both cities were legitimate military targets. Second the US had three options at the time, invade and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Drop two nukes and take less lives although destroy two cities, or put in a blockage cause millions to starve and bring about a full surrender that way. Which version do you think is best?
None of them. In my opinion, the best option is to solve the problem diplomatically and without any form of violence. Your assumption that violent tactics are the only answer ever just reinforces my reason to believe that you are a war-head with no consideration to non-US life.
First becuase America was not at war with Al Qaeda at the time, they did that attack during peace time. Second the World Trade Center had no military significance to it, while those two Japanese cities did. Third the attack on the World Trade Center did not bring about the end to any war, or save lives. Al Qaeda was not in a position to invade the United States, they did not have a decision to make in what would ultimately bring about the end of the war with the least amount of casulties. The US on the other hand did.
Sorry, but how exactly did wiping out two whole cities save more lives than doing nothing? I don't believe what al Qaeda did to America is right, thus it follows that I also don't believe what America did to Japan is right. "It's war time" is not an excuse to kill anything and everything in sight. It just isn't.
If you remove the war-time facade that you're hiding behind, then what aQ did to the WTC is exactly like what America did to Japan, except instead of killing a few thousands it was a few ten thousands, and instead of destroying two buildings it was destroying two cities.
We pressured Iraq to change it's ways becuase of the problems it presented to the middle east, both to the weapons it harbored, and the possible use of those weapons on civilians. Until Saudi Arabia graduates to Iraq style crimes, it is not the biggest priority. Maybe the rest of the world, could, well you know, step up and take care of Saudi Arabia though, pressure them fully to change their ways. I mean you want to say that America shouldn't do everything. So why not do this one thing?
I want to say America does nothing more than anyone else. YOU say that America should do everything because no one else will. So, why is there a complete lack if women's rights in Saudi Arabia? Why is there a problem even there are US troops there.
Gasp, the initial diplomatic tactics haven't worked, BOMB THE SH1T OUT OF THEM.
Ahh the typical argument of "Well if Iraq/Iran cant have nukes, no one can have nukes." Difference is Iraq was under sanctions not to have those weapons, countries like the US, France, Britain, etc have safeguards beyond safeguards on their nuclear weapons to protect them. They will not find their ways into the hands of terrorists, and will not be used on a whim. There is a very good reason why the world did not want Saddam to have nukes. How about you think about that before posting again.
If I remember correctly, the USA is the only country to have EVER killed civilians (or people) with nuclear weapons. With a record like that, you should be last people to be allowed them.
And if these weapons are too dangerous to let Iraq or North Korea or Iran or any other legitimate country have, then no one should be allowed them. Nuclear weapons are too clumsy to use only on military opponents. Using them will surely result in civilian death. The very nature of the way they are effective contravenes the Geneva convention.
Wha? You are complaining about us not treating Iraq as equals in the lead up to the invasion, and now saying we have no reason to treat them equally after the invasion and killing of Saddam. Either you completely did not get my point, or seriously have a reading disorder.
I have a reading disorder? Look at my quote, for a start.
"Therefore, you now have no reason to believe Iraq should not be treated equally."
If you had taken the time to actual pay attention to what I said, you notice I typed the opposite of what you just based your insult on.
But you know what? You know what I find absolutely freaking halarious, is that in this debate, the only way you can even try to claim victory is for it to be 3 on 1. The only way for it to be a fair fight is for it to be 3 on 1. And you want to talk about the greatness of australians, when you guys would get your asses kicked in a simple 1 on 1 debate. That is pretty pathetic.
You know what I find hilarious? That you just called us all pathetic losers and a few hours later you have a little cry and call a mod into the debate because we called you arrogant/Republican/redneck.
See I could, but then again you guys have yet to put up any valid points.
If by valid points, you mean points that help to prove your argument correct, then you're right.
MacArthur while a great general, was also a egomaniac nut that would rather spill as much blood as possible than to bring about a hasty end to the war.
Who does he remind me of...
Wanna try that again? It was one of the largest sea ports in Japan, and produced War time materials such as ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
Gasp!!!! They produced food too! Did you know food is used in war time?! We should bomb ALL food-producing cities when at war! =/
Whether a military city or not, that does not justify destroying it along with 80000 innocent civilians.
While the Nazi's did a horrible act during the war, do you believe we would look at it as less disgusting if they just decided to do it on a whim outside of war time, or more disgusting?
What the Nazis did was disgusting, full stop. Doesn't matter if it's war time or not, 'war time' is merely a status, just words. It was wrong, no matter how you look at it. So is all murder.
And thus the question is raised, what was the importance of the WTC? If they felt as if they were justified in attacking, which they have all right in feeling that way. What was the strategic importance of attacking the world trade center?
Well, their aim as terrorists was to put fear in the hearts of their enemies (in this case Americans) and it has certainly been proven that they succeeded in this.
Second, you have to understand the pure hatred that is in the hearts of people like Chuboy, May's brother, and bowspearer. I mean hell, bowspearer believes that America helped cause or caused 9/11, and Chuboy believes that we should have killed thousands more by invading Japan.
...
Dear me. Pure hatred? I really do think that is a bit of an overstatement. Calm down, BigLutz. We are criticizing your country's ways, that does not constitute pure hatred. But it's probably already too late for us, we'll be on a no-fly list by now
Also, I said you shouldn't have dropped the atom bomb on Japan. I DIDN'T say you should have invaded. Don't assume that because I'm not A I'm automatically B. I don't think you should have done either.
Stop having a sook and get on with the debate. So we disagree with you. Get over it. Just refute the content and ignore the petty insults like the rest of us.
@The_Panda: Thanks for bringing some sensibility back to this debate, it was starting to become more of a b1tch fight than an educated discussion.
