Liberal Forum

maineman » 13 Oct 2023, 10:49 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:49 am

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

Lol. No, we don't.

maineman » 13 Oct 2023, 10:48 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:48 am

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

Got it.

Did you miss the part where I said "with the exception of WWII?"  So now you have stooped to strawmans. Got it. 

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 10:49 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:49 am

Lol. No, we don't.

Like I said, whether YOU believe that our rationale was sufficient justification is irrelevant.  

You also are incapable of recognizing the difference between military operations and targeted terrorism against children, so, from my perspective, your opinions on just about everything are irrelevant.

Z09, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

I told this stupid **** a long time ago that I would no longer engage in conversation with her, and I explained, in great detail, the rationale behind my decision. That rationale has not changed, nor has my decision.
 

Sumela » 13 Oct 2023, 10:59 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:59 am

Biden is a catlick.

I'm sure you hate them too.

 
 

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 9:10 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 9:10 am

The level of ego that our society has is unparalleled. America and Israel has done some dark and evil **** to other countries in the name of oil and resources. Yet, we have the audacity to call other groups terrorists. I think Hamas is scum, just like the other camel **** out in that area. However, so are some of our actions. 

Pot...Kettle...Black.

Do as we say and not as we do...
 

RedheadedStranger » 13 Oct 2023, 9:26 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 9:26 am

I was just looking for clarification.

There are quite a few on the board that only want to denounce it when it comes from one side, and condone it as "justifiable" when it comes from the other.

Neonazis come to mind?
 

maineman » 13 Oct 2023, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 10:55 am

Like I said, whether YOU believe that our rationale was sufficient justification is irrelevant.  

You also are incapable of recognizing the difference between military operations and targeted terrorism against children, so, from my perspective, your opinions on just about everything are irrelevant.

 

1.  Your logical fallacy is your inability to know what 'defense' means. This is what we call our military: "Defense." What do you think "defend" means? It is not military 'offense.' We call it military defense. See how that works?
2. You are incapable of seeing the difference between two things: 1. Defense vs offense. 2. Bombing civilians leads to the same end as targeted them. 

Here comes your deflection about unjustified invasions. If you evade, then guess what? I win, you lose. 

RedheadedStranger » 13 Oct 2023, 9:45 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 9:45 am

**** started way before 2000.

 Aren't you supposed to be out killing Joos today?

 
 

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 11:05 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 11:05 am

1.  Your logical fallacy is your inability to know what 'defense' means. This is what we call our military: "Defense." What do you think "defend" means? It is not military 'offense.' We call it military defense. See how that works?
2. You are incapable of seeing the difference between two things: 1. Defense vs offense. 2. Bombing civilians leads to the same end as targeted them. 

Here comes your deflection about unjustified invasions. If you evade, then guess what? I win, you lose.

I am not deflecting anything.  I firmly believe in the assets of the Department of Defense being used as a muscular arm of our nation's foreign policy.  The world is a dangerous and violent place. We cannot exist as a nation if we are incapable of defending ourselves and defending our national interests around the world.  If we refused to participate in conflicts overseas that impact our national interest and, instead, withdrew to behind our own national borders and let the world come unglued without us taking any steps to avert that, simply waiting for the nasty old world to come calling at OUR borders and take our stand there, we would certainly be doing exactly that sooner than later.  This globe is a connected place, and we cannot be isolationists and expect the rest of the world to forget we're here.

And, for someone as naive as you are, you really like to unilaterally claim victory a lot, don't you?  

maineman » 13 Oct 2023, 11:14 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 11:14 am

I am not deflecting anything.  I firmly believe in the assets of the Department of Defense being used as a muscular arm of our nation's foreign policy.  The world is a dangerous and violent place. We cannot exist as a nation if we are incapable of defending ourselves and defending our national interests around the world.  If we refused to participate in conflicts overseas that impact our national interest and, instead, withdrew to behind our own national borders and let the world come unglued without us taking any steps to avert that, simply waiting for the nasty old world to come calling at OUR borders and take our stand there, we would certainly be doing exactly that sooner than later.  This globe is a connected place, and we cannot be isolationists and expect the rest of the world to forget we're here.

And, for someone as naive as you are, you really like to unilaterally claim victory a lot, don't you?

Aside from WWII and 9/11, how did any of our invasions contribute to our national security? 

For a service man who has been all over the world, you sure are naive to the difference between Defense and Offense.   

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 11:18 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 11:18 am

Aside from WWII and 9/11, how did any of our invasions contribute to our national security? 

For a service man who has been all over the world, you sure are naive to the difference between Defense and Offense. 

who did we invade on 9/11?

Do you believe in the efficacy of alliances?

And why would you think I don't know the difference?  

Do you understand what I meant when I said that I was fully supportive of DoD being used as the muscular arm of US foreign policy?  Y/N?

maineman » 13 Oct 2023, 11:22 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 11:22 am

who did we invade on 9/11?

 

Seriously? 

Do you believe in the efficacy of alliances?

Not on the expense of 'offense' and killing people in other countries (be in military or not) who haven't done a damn thing to us.

And why would you think I don't know the difference?  

Because you don't care if we invade other countries that are of no threat to us. 

Do you understand what I meant when I said that I was fully supportive of DoD being used as the muscular arm of US foreign policy?  Y/N?

Yes. But that has nothing to do with invading countries that are of no threat to us. Literally nothing. 

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 11:29 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 11:29 am

Seriously? 

Not on the expense of 'offense' and killing people in other countries (be in military or not) who haven't done a damn thing to us.

Because you don't care if we invade other countries that are of no threat to us. 

Yes. But that has nothing to do with invading countries that are of no threat to us. Literally nothing.

seriously.  YOu claimed we invaded some country on 9/11.  I asked which one.

And just because YOU are incapable of ascertaining threats to America, does not mean that we all should abandon our own discernment abilities and act as handicapped as you seem to be in that regard.

maineman » 13 Oct 2023, 11:43 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 11:43 am

seriously.  YOu claimed we invaded some country on 9/11.  I asked which one.

And just because YOU are incapable of ascertaining threats to America, does not mean that we all should abandon our own discernment abilities and act as handicapped as you seem to be in that regard.

So you don't know which country we went into in response to 9/11? If you are this uninformed, then why the hell am I talking to you?

Do you support closing our borders? If not, then your whole 'ascertaining threats' argument falls apart. 

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 11:49 am » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 11:49 am

So you don't know which country we went into in response to 9/11? If you are this uninformed, then why the hell am I talking to you?

Do you support closing our borders? If not, then your whole 'ascertaining threats' argument falls apart.

So now it's "In response to 9/11"?

You didn't say that.  

You said we invaded someone on 9/11.  I asked you to tell me which one, and all you can is tap dance and shuffle?

And I support controlling our borders, not closing them.

maineman » 13 Oct 2023, 12:05 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 12:05 pm

So now it's "In response to 9/11"?

You didn't say that.  

You said we invaded someone on 9/11.  I asked you to tell me which one, and all you can is tap dance and shuffle?

And I support controlling our borders, not closing them.

We did invade. There is no difference. We invaded in response to 9/11. What the hell is the difference? 

Controlling hasn't worked. It hasn't for years. There are too many coming over. That's a threat. A wall and closing would be the answer. 

I hate Muslims.

Vegas » 13 Oct 2023, 12:07 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Oct 2023, 12:07 pm

We did invade. There is no difference. We invaded in response to 9/11. What the hell is the difference? 

Controlling hasn't worked. It hasn't for years. There are too many coming over. That's a threat. A wall and closing would be the answer.

The difference is, we didn't invade anyone on 9/11.  You specificaly said we had.  

We didn't invade anyone on December 7th, 1941 either, and if you had said we had, I would have questioned that as well.

Your opinion about the border is another one of your opinions.  I don't really place much value on any of them, for good reason.