Japan vs Iraq

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Quit being an ass. I've explained my stance and you just disagree with it. But if it boosts you up to resort to petty insults, have at it.

That's the problem. You think it's "insulting" to be told that you are uninformed and confused. That's why you try so desperately to look otherwise. It really is an embarassing experience for you.

But consider that most people generally do not know what they're talking about. The problem is that most of those people pretend that they do and then act as though it's "insulting" when they're told that they don't.

Get over yourself and just admit when you're wrong. It's healthy and you'll be a better person because of it.

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

That's the problem. You think it's "insulting" to be told that you are uninformed and confused. That's why you try so desperately to look otherwise. It really is an embarassing experience for you.

But consider that most people generally do not know what they're talking about. The problem is that most of those people pretend that they do and then act as though it's "insulting" when they're told that they don't.

Get over yourself and just admit when you're wrong. It's healthy and you'll be a better person because of it.

Ok got it.

Not agreeing with spongers accepted solution = uninformed. Cool.

sponger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Your stance is the easier way out. Ours is the harder more noble path to follow...the one that has no one has found an answer to, and one that has no historical examples to read about and follow. For this I believe we cannot be faulted and should not be criticized for.

There's nothing noble about being inconsistent. It's nice to live in the ideal world of world peace, but it's just illogical to apply that to real world situations and expect to it be received as empirical.

After all, you just spent many posts discussing the circumstances where war is necessary, but then change your tune to "war should be avoided" as though the very sound of those words alone make you "noble". It's delusional and utterly self-righteous.

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

You said "take out Bin Laden and Co"

"Bin Laden and Co" amounted to a very large force situated in Afghanistan in the form of numerous training camps protected by the Taliban.

Therefore, the only way to "wipe them out" at the time was to invade.

Al Qaeda and the training camps ran away from Afghanistan.

That's why you support the invasion, but think it was poorly planned.

And we wiped them out, right. Your solution failed.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Ok got it.

Not agreeing with spongers accepted solution = uninformed. Cool.

I never offered a solution. Go find where I offered a solution.

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

I never offered a solution. Go find where I offered a solution.

You accepted the solution the US decided upon.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

And we wiped them out, right. Your solution failed.

Again, you're missing the point. I never offered a solution.

What I'm getting at is that you're not the righteous anti-war activitist that you think you are. You actually support war, but then cry anti-war when that war is waged improperly. There's a huge difference, and it's taking many, many posts to help you see that difference.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You accepted the solution the US decided upon.

What did I accept?

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

Again, you're missing the point. I never offered a solution.

What I'm getting at is that you're not the righteous anti-war activitist that you think you are. You actually support war, but then cry anti-war when that war is waged improperly. There's a huge difference, and it's taking many, many posts to help you see that difference.

No you're just hard headed. I couldn't say it anymore clearly than I already have. At this point it's only a waste of time to continue on putting up with your pretentciousness.

If Al quaeda had attacked us then I prefer using self defense in the way Clinton did....by striking the group (their camps and bases) who we are defending ourselves from...not invading Afghanistan. You can say that didn't work but neither did invading Afghanistan.

I don't know any anti-war activists who say you shouldn't defend yourself when attacked.

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

What did I accept?

That invading Afghanistan was the only way to get to Al qaeda.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

No you're just hard headed. I couldn't say it anymore clearly than I already have. At this point it's only a waste of time to continue on putting up with your pretentciousness.

If Al quaeda had attacked us then I prefer using self defense in the way Clinton did....by striking the group (their camps and bases) who we are defending ourselves from...not invading Afghanistan. You can say that didn't work but neither did invading Afghanistan.

I don't know any anti-war activists who say you shouldn't defend yourself when attacked.

Actually, there are plenty of anti-war activitists who say that we shouldn't defend ourselves when attacked.

Those are the people who sware up and down that Al Qaeda is the result of decades of US intervention in middle eastern affairs and that the only way to stop al qeada is to change our middle east policy and pull all of the troops out immediately.

You, on the other hand, say that military action is justified, but only when planned properly and only when it is successful.

By that rationale, the invasion would've been justified if it had achieved its goals. That's why you are for military action, but not for improperly planned military action.

BTW, I guess you still don't understand that Al Qaeda had training all over the country. Also, the Taliban had struck a deal to support Al Qaeda. This means that even if a bombing campaign alone had been successful in wiping out Al Qeada, then it is possible that the Taliban would've supported the resurrection of those training camps as soon as the campaign ended.

Not to mention, most of Al Qaeda went for the mountains when the US showed up. This means troops on the ground would've been the only alternative.

Regardless, it didn't work. I'm not saying that it did. I'm saying that the US intentions at the time were to take out "Bin Laden and Co" the best way that they could think up.

Therefore, you support military action, but disagree with the manner in which it was carried out.

Lastly, you first said to use "assassinations". Now you've stepped it up to "bombing campaigns". Again, it's a huge difference, and only supports my guess that you're sort of lost on this issue.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

sponger wrote:

There's nothing noble about being inconsistent. It's nice to live in the ideal world of world peace, but it's just illogical to apply that to real world situations and expect to it be received as empirical.

After all, you just spent many posts discussing the circumstances where war is necessary, but then change your tune to "war should be avoided" as though the very sound of those words alone make you "noble". It's delusional and utterly self-righteous.

You again miss entirely the direction my sail is pointing. You missed the part about me seeking a solution and not having textbook examples to follow...not having all the answers because they don't exist yet.

This is where your approach falls flat and mine shines.

Metaphorically you are the guy snickering at the kids in class learning and asking questions...the ones who are trying to formulate and propagate something entirely new which will make things better for everyone.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That invading Afghanistan was the only way to get to Al qaeda.

I never said tht it was.

I said that if al qaeda and bin laden had not run away from afghanistan, then they would've been wiped out by the invasion. In which case, the invasion would've been success- and in which case your views would be very different.

That's why you are for the invasion, but not for a poorly planned invasion. Again....huge difference...not sure why you don't see that.

sponger

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

You again miss entirely the direction my sail is pointing. You missed the part about me seeking a solution and not having textbook examples to follow...not having all the answers because they don't exist yet.

This is where your approach falls flat and mine shines.

Metaphorically you are the guy snickering at the kids in class learning and asking questions...the one who is trying to formulate and propagate something entirely new which will make things better for everyone.

Wrong, you are the one kid who thinks every should have pizza for lunch but ignores the fact that pizza is unhealthy and makes people fat.

That is, you aren't really searching for a solution, but you think just knowing what you want is all the justification you need to start a call for pizza.

I never said I had a solution. I'm only trying to figure out what your point of view really is. I've long since learned that you don't really have a point of view. You just like to act like you do, and when someone calls you on it, you resort to the above.

You keep saying "no war" "no war" but you actually for war. You just ignore the fact that the war was improperly carried out. What you should be saying is "no improperly planned wars".

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

I never said tht it was.

I said that if al qaeda and bin laden had not run away from afghanistan, then they would've been wiped out by the invasion. In which case, the invasion would've been success- and in which case your views would be very different.

That's why you are for the invasion, but not for a poorly planned invasion. Again....huge difference...not sure why you don't see that.

No, even if it did wipe out Al qaeda, I wouldn't be pro invading Afghanistan. I don't accept the civilian casualties. Afghanistan did not attack us. I believe we could have went after Al quaeda with the help of other countries, the UN, international law. If you hold a different opinion, so be it. No country attacked us...a group did that is spread out in many countries. It's not as simple as you make it out to be. If a country had attacked us I would support our right to defend ourselves but that doesn't mean by any means either. Perhaps there could be more precisional type attacks that could cripple the attacking country's ability to do harm to us.

catefrances

for fucks sake.


if a man declares war on your country by apparently masterminding an horrrendous act of terrorism, then your target is the MAN.
if you find out where this man is, you ask that country harbouring him to give him up.
when they ask you for evidence that this man is in fact guilty of the charges levelled at him, you give them that evidence. you don't expect your word to be taken as irrifutable evidence. you negotiate with said country to turn the man over to a neutral country once you have provided the evidence.
you seek help from countries who have a respectful relationship with the harbouring country.
you do this as a show of good faith and because your own reputation is not worth squat outside your own borders, except for a few close personal friendlies.
you never assume thy enemy of thy enemy is thy friend.
you do everything you can to avoid war because you know from extensive experience that when it comes to warfare you basically suck at it because apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word tact or overkill.
you also do everything in your power to avoid war because you also know that civilians will get killed needlessly.
if the country does not give up the wanted man after you have provided the irrefutable evidence, then you squeeze them dry until they do. you offer them no aid AT ALL. that means military aid especially. you offer the government of that country no support.
what you do not do is invade the country and then just when you've gotten close enough to grab the sonofabitch, pull your resources out and go invade another country.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

No, even if it did wipe out Al qaeda, I wouldn't be pro invading Afghanistan. I don't accept the civilian casualties. Afghanistan did not attack us. I believe we could have went after Al quaeda with the help of other countries, the UN, international law. If you hold a different opinion, so be it. No country attacked us...a group did that is spread out in many countries. It's not as simple as you make it out to be. If a country had attacked us I would support our right to defend ourselves but that doesn't mean by any means either. Perhaps there could be more precisional type attacks that could cripple the attacking country's ability to do harm to us.

OK, if you wouldn't support the invasion even if it wiped out Al Qeada, then why did you say "It didn't even stomp out Al Qeada".

Why does it matter either way?

And why did you support a bombing campaign if you're so worred about civilians? Don't you know that bombing campaigns always kill civilians?

sponger

catefrances wrote:

for fucks sake.


if a man declares war on your country by apparently masterminding an horrrendous act of terrorism, then your target is the MAN.
if you find out where this man is, you ask that country harbouring him to give him up.
when they ask you for evidence that this man is in fact guilty of the charges levelled at him, you give them that evidence. you don't expect your word to be taken as irrifutable evidence. you negotiate with said country to turn the man over to a neutral country once you have provided the evidence.
you seek help from countries who have a respectful relationship with the harbouring country.
you do this as a show of good faith and because your own reputation is not worth squat outside your own borders, except for a few close personal friendlies.
you never assume thy enemy of thy enemy is thy friend.
you do everything you can to avoid war because you know from extensive experience that when it comes to warfare you basically suck at it because apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word tact or overkill.
you also do everything in your power to avoid war because you also know that civilians will get killed needlessly.
if the country does not give up the wanted man after you have provided the irrefutable evidence, then you squeeze them dry until they do. you offer them no aid AT ALL. that means military aid especially. you offer the government of that country no support.
what you do not do is invade the country and then just when you've gotten close enough to grab the sonofabitch, pull your resources out and go invade another country.

by that rationale, you think the US should not have invaded europe to stop hitler. instead, it should've had hitler assasssinated. that is what you're saying.

Also, 9/11 was planned by many of bin laden's captains, and the people who carried out 9/11 were trained in afghanistan, where more terrorists were being trained.

do you honestly believe that removing bin laden alone would've stopped al qeada activities in afghanistan?

Abookamongstthemany

sponger wrote:

OK, if you wouldn't support the invasion even if it wiped out Al Qeada, then why did you say "It didn't even stomp out Al Qeada".

Why does it matter either way?

Because that was the point of going there and I'm saying it didn't even accomplish that.

sponger wrote:

And why did you support a bombing campaign if you're so worred about civilians? Don't you know that bombing campaigns always kill civilians?

If we were being attacked by another country, I believe the best idea would be to make precision air strikes on their military bases and facilities....that way it would result minimal civilian deaths.

sponger

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Because that was the point of going there and I'm saying it didn't even accomplish that.

But, that implies that if they did accomplish that, you wouldn't be so against it. It shouldn't really matter to you either way if it did accomplish that.

If we were being attacked by another country, I believe the best idea would be to make precision air strikes on their military bases and facilities....that way it would result minimal civilian deaths.

But, most of the deaths occurring in afghanistan right now are being caused by bombing campaigns. This is because the taliban blend in.

You don't think al qaeda would've blended in just the same? Not to mention, most of al qaeda went for the mountains, thus requiring troops.

So, effectively, bombing campaign alone would not have worked, yet you find yourself suggesting it. why?