At 6/3/10 08:00 PM, RacistBassist wrote:
So several people have misread what you said, and not one person read it as you intended, but it is our fault?
(several people-two people-whaaat?) Also, it's not misreading, it's not reading at all.After the example, I clearly stated that "it's pretty much the same with modern armies, but it's done in a more diplomatic way"...you can't understand that?
Yes, and we are doing our part to eliminate it instead of sitting idly by like you are. I am almost 100% positive that Saddam is no longer in charge.
No, you're not.You're just doing your part in some of them, where you have something to gain from it...hey, I didn't say it was bad, but saying that the US army is a pack of Archangels going to save everyone is just...ugh.
And of course I'm sitting idly by, why should I get myself killed because some guys bombed another country?I'm not helping anyone but the army as a physical unit by going to war..
So me commenting on Abe Lincolns unkempt nature is a valid argument against the abolition of slavery?
Let me rephrase what I said: if someone's point of view is absolutist, agruing with him is pointless...
I hope it's clear now..
Nice logic. Also, no one is insulting you here, you are the aggressor and we are merely backing up our posts.
Hm, so saying that I am "mentally lacking" while I didn't even talk to you directly in the previous posts is me being agressive?Waaaait, whaaaat?
Yet you can do the reverse?
Erm, when exactly did I insult you?
Yes I did. How else was I supposed to look for it? The only shit on the news right now is pointless BS
Maybe on your news...
How didn't they appear happy? I see them going about their lives, living, and a few have praised us. We watched a video in AP Com Gov the other day about what people thought of us, and 8/10 ( believe) agreed with what we are doing, with 1/10 having no comment.
Oh yeah, a government site is not biased at all.AT ALL, I SAY.
You can't really listen to your own country when it comes to stuff like that..
So we were wrong for siding against Hitler? There are causes greater than ourselves out there.
RRRGHHH!This has to be the third time I say this: "I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT FUCKING WW2.America did its part there./end"
Well when you see the only way to attack a country is to invade, that means Pearl Harbor was never attacked. Your definition of the word is horribly flawed, as direct invasion isn't the only way wars are fought anymore. You also ignored the rest of the post I had there.
Again with WW2?Oh my god....
WHICH IS WHY WE INVADED YOU TWIT.
Indeed...that's what I was saying, no?
Also, someone's losing their temper :D
Or how about "The hijackers have direct links to these countries and this terrorist group that is based in xxx runs the country, and their leadership is currently residing their"
You are over simplifying things, a straw-man almost.
Over-simplifying..maybe, but that's the only way I can make you understand without posting a massive wall of text...
At 6/3/10 08:04 PM, Dubbi wrote:
If you think your posts are intelligent, you're delusional.
Yeah, your replies are so smart that they make my posts look like garbage..I especially like the part where you don't actually reply to my arguments, but you just go "LOL UR RONG".
No... The thread is: Would you die for your country? I'd die for my country because of the noble wars our soldiers died for, and because we've just been a great nation. The absence of any crucial modern wars doesn't negate the latter...
Okay, you're right about the thread part and indeed this whole thing was a bit out of context (not too much though)...so you're saying that you'd die if another WW2 were to happen, and that's fine..but not all wars are noble and just.
No, but I do admit that you're a jerk.
NO UR NOT.
YES I AM.
UR A JERK LOLOL I WON.
No, I'm using arguments and logic, while your just puling crap out of your ass. America is great because of our freedoms, economic system, innovation and the valor of our soldiers.
Oh my god, I actually laughed out loud there.
Then don't argue, retard!
Why not?Do I need to post millions of links to prove any point?
Also, for the last time, stop insulting me directly.
If we give terrorists a safe-haven, they will attack us. And if a WW2 analogy is relevant, I'm not leaving out just because it would hurt your case.
It wouldn't hurt my case at all, but I admitted that WW2 is an exception to what I'm talking about, so you shouldn't use it in every single one of your examples.
Indeed there a lot of people died for a just cause, and that's the end of it.
And what point may that be?
Read paragraph below
Nukes are meant to scare people, not to actually level whole countries...nobody would want that because of the consequences we all know nukes cause...Again, what's your point. We're not arguing common facts about nukes; we're arguing Iraq, Afghanistan and America as a whole.
Okay, okay, I'm done.
One guy is talking crap, and the other one's in a flame war mood (try to find who is who), and I'm tired of this shit.
Let's just agree to disagreeing and we'll just leave it at that...and, as far as the thread goes, we can pretty much agree on "I'd die, but only if it was a right cause"