Liberal Forum

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:21 am

Murder happens in many forms. How is invading countries that pose no threat to us and then bombing the **** out of them any better? We are still inducing fear in people that did nothing.

which country are you referring to?

maineman » 13 Oct 2023, 10:24 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:24 am

which country are you referring to?

Vietnam, Iraq...oh hell. It's easier to just refer to this. With the exception of WWII invasions, a lot of these are unwarranted  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... ted_States

The last time we were invaded was on 9/11. We got Osama. As soon as we killed him, we should have pulled out. 
 

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:19 am

How is invading other countries that pose no threat to us, then bombing the **** out of them, any better?
 

That's a bait-and-switch there.  I'm willing to debate the validity (or invalidity) of the US going to war with other countries, and the reasons for it.  But, I'm not willing to allow that to be the moral equivalent of sending American servicemen to rape women, butcher babies and slaughter as many innocents as they possibly can and take take civilians as hostages for ransom.  F-ing not even close.

Skans » 13 Oct 2023, 10:29 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:29 am

That's a bait-and-switch there.  I'm willing to debate the validity (or invalidity) of the US going to war with other countries, and the reasons for it.  But, I'm not willing to allow that to be the moral equivalent of sending American servicemen to rape women, butcher babies and slaughter as many innocents as they possibly can and take take civilians as hostages for ransom.  F-ing not even close.

Bull. It is not a false equivalence. So instead of raping civilians, we bomb them. And that is considered a false equivalence? Not a chance. 

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 10:26 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:26 am

Vietnam, Iraq...oh hell. It's easier to just refer to this. With the exception of WWII invasions, a lot of these are unwarranted  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... ted_States

The last time we were invaded was on 9/11. We got Osama. As soon as we killed him, we should have pulled out.

You act as if we killed Osama soon after the invasion of 9/11 when it was, in fact, just shy of a full decade later.

When America attacks, we go after strategic military targets.  When Hamas attacks, they go after teenager-filled rock concerts and nursery schools.  If you cannot see the difference between those two approaches, we have little left to discuss.

Really? When have we ever fired first for no reason. Defense is not a bad thing. I know Dems hate defense. Who shot rockets into what country indiscriminately.

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:31 am

Bull. It is not a false equivalence. So instead of raping civilians, we bomb them. And that is considered a false equivalence? Not a chance.

The United States military never intentionally targets civilians.

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 10:31 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:31 am

Bull. It is not a false equivalence. So instead of raping civilians, we bomb them. And that is considered a false equivalence? Not a chance.
 

Well I see a huge difference. So, I will throw this out there - Iraq.  Yeah, I have a problem with that war.  Even at the time, I said that if Iraq didn't have Nukes and was poised to use them, we had no business going into Iraq.  And, boy did we pay the price for it.  We got 8 years of Obama and so far, 4 years of Biden because of it.

But, Afghanistan - I think we had the absolute right to go in and annihilate that country as retaliation for the war they started with us.  And, I do mean Afghanistan and not just some small group of terrorists.  The country was clearly behind what they were doing, allowed them to train for years in camps to attack the US. So, ****-em.
 

maineman » 13 Oct 2023, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:34 am

You act as if we killed Osama soon after the invasion of 9/11 when it was, in fact, just shy of a full decade later.

When America attacks, we go after strategic military targets.  When Hamas attacks, they go after teenager-filled rock concerts and nursery schools.  If you cannot see the difference between those two approaches, we have little left to discuss.

We stayed a decade longer after we killed him. 

This is what Skans keeps saying. It's irrelevant. We go into areas with no justification, then kill. Strategic or not. Do you think we would even be having this conversation if we didn't invade in the first place? 

PhiloBeddo » 13 Oct 2023, 10:36 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:36 am

Really? When have we ever fired first for no reason. Defense is not a bad thing. I know Dems hate defense. Who shot rockets into what country indiscriminately.

**** you.  Democrats can be hawks.  Your orange clown is dissing Netanyahu and praising Hezbollah and you don't **** say ****.

Skans » 13 Oct 2023, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:38 am

Well I see a huge difference. So, I will throw this out there - Iraq.  Yeah, I have a problem with that war.  Even at the time, I said that if Iraq didn't have Nukes and was poised to use them, we had no business going into Iraq.  And, boy did we pay the price for it.  We got 8 years of Obama and so far, 4 years of Biden because of it.

But, Afghanistan - I think we had the absolute right to go in and annihilate that country as retaliation for the war they started with us.  And, I do mean Afghanistan and not just some small group of terrorists.  The country was clearly behind what they were doing, allowed them to train for years in camps to attack the US. So, ****-em.

I have no problem invading countries that invaded us. Afghanistan was justified up to killing Osama. After killing him, we should have left. But we stayed and killed some more. 

maineman » 13 Oct 2023, 10:37 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:37 am

The United States military never intentionally targets civilians.

The United States will always invade countries without justification. 

maineman » 13 Oct 2023, 10:37 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:37 am

The United States military never intentionally targets civilians.

You mean other than the ones you'd like to see being the victims of a firing squad?

You cant scrub your past posts clean enough to dodge being a hypocrit. 
 

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:38 am

We stayed a decade longer after we killed him. 

This is what Skans keeps saying. It's irrelevant. We go into areas with no justification, then kill. Strategic or not. Do you think we would even be having this conversation if we didn't invade in the first place?

I was completely supportive of going after OBL in the mountains of Afghanistan.  I was against our staying one minute longer than it took us to realize he had escaped at Tora Bora.  I was totally against the invasion of Iraq because I KNEW that Dubya was lying when he claimed "there is no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's".

Regardless, when America DOES use force, we do so as precisely as possible and our targets are NEVER intentionally civilian.

maineman » 13 Oct 2023, 10:42 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:42 am

I was completely supportive of going after OBL in the mountains of Afghanistan.  I was against our staying one minute longer than it took us to realize he had escaped at Tora Bora.  I was totally against the invasion of Iraq because I KNEW that Dubya was lying when he claimed "there is no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's".

Regardless, when America DOES use force, we do so as precisely as possible and our targets are NEVER intentionally civilian.

Civilians will die, targeted or not. It's the cost of war. If we stayed out of it, then no civilians would die, targeted or not. Period. 

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 10:39 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:39 am

I have no problem invading countries that invaded us. Afghanistan was justified up to killing Osama. After killing him, we should have left. But we stayed and killed some more.

I pretty much agree with your statement there. We should have killed Osama and annihilated Afghanistan.  As for what we did with the land, I say that was up to us, other than "nation re-building".  I would have been for making it "New Omaha", and stripping it of all of its resources, before burying all of our nuclear waste there.
 
 

RebelGator » 13 Oct 2023, 10:41 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:41 am

You mean other than the ones you'd like to see being the victims of a firing squad?

You cant scrub your past posts clean enough to dodge being a hypocrit.

Civilians who become domestic enemies of the Constitution.  Those are the only US civilians I would ever target.  There is nothing hypocritical about me wanting to uphold my oath.

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:44 am

Civilians will die, targeted or not. It's the cost of war. If we stayed out of it, then no civilians would die, targeted or not. Period.

profound.

profoundly obvious, that is.

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 10:44 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:44 am

Civilians will die, targeted or not. It's the cost of war. If we stayed out of it, then no civilians would die, targeted or not. Period.

so...when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor we should have just stayed out of it.

Got it.

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 10:40 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:40 am

The United States will always invade countries without justification.

we always have justification.  Whether you, personally, agree with it or not is really pretty irrelevant.