Kmarion wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
Less than 560 deaths in an 8 year war is not bloody pulp? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't even our biggest issue anymore.
Okay, the following response was really crap:
Kmarion wrote:
Der.. Not exactly late breaking news. They intentionally wanted us in the ME to play the victim while at the same time bitching about American involvement. I know that. It doesn't play well for your poor innocent neglected afghan mentality though.
especially when your statement preceding my response was:
Kmarion wrote:
Again, these people are not stupid... just stupid enough to not understand the retribution following a terrorist attack.
You think we are a far superior force to the terrorists, and that we won in the Middle East. I say we didn't, you say der?
"Getting beat to a bloody pulp" is not the same thing at all.
Not the same thing as what? I don't know if it was intentional, but you left out the part of my post where I thought I quite clearly explained how utterly we have been beaten.
Please. The number of U.S. casualties in Iraq is well over 500. Don't insult my intelligence with spun sources. With as many people as we have over there it wouldn't be too outrageous to have that many people die just from working around all that heavy machinery.
Casualties are relevant in a war, but not to whether we have won this war. Even had we not lost a single soldier, we would have lost would the current circumstance still be true.
Kmarion wrote:
Your the one at best stereotyping and at worst being racist. I did not say afghans are probably smarter than most Americans, the leaders who put these plans together are the smart ones. The suicide bombers are about as intelligent as a sack of bricks, but the people running the suicide bombers should not be underestimated.
I was not the one who brought intelligence into the conversation. I was using rhetoric in response to your remarks.
"These people are not stupid by any sense of the word, and are probably smarter than the average American, and certainly the average American politician. They wanted us to attack the Middle East".
"These people" refer to the ones we are fighting. We are not fighting the brainwashed Islamic fundamentalists with c-4 strapped to their chest, we are fighting the brains of the operation.
Kmarion wrote:
If you are willing to die for that relationship that just shows how committed you are. If someone is fighting a war for you, you don't turn around and say "Ahahaha suck it bitch, we didn't sign a contract so I don't have to do jack shit!" That would motivate them to do very bad things to you, like say, I dunno, run planes into your really tall buildings.
My documentation is the aforementioned fact that they put us in a no-win situation.
Going into their country, killing their leaders, and reinstalling a government is not proof that they wanted us back in or a previous commitment. That is extremely illogical. After years of taking hostages and previous terrorist attacks they probably thought the risk of a full response was low. Your whole argument revolves around something you have yet to prove.
You refuse to acknowledge a point of no return in the time line. Things that I contend held true in 1989 do not necessarily hold true in 1990 and certainly not necessarily in 2001. The entire point here is if we had responded differently in 1989 then we would not have created so much trouble for ourselves in the future. Not before the war, not ten years after the war, directly after the war.
They thought the risk of a full response was low? This is just more American bravado, thinking that no one could ever want the U.S. military at their doorstep. We have numbers on most countries, we have technology on all countries, we have money on all countries, but we are not invincible. That is what these assholes wanted to prove, and they have done it exceedingly well.
Kmarion wrote:
You sure do like to stop repeating yourself a lot when you don't want to answer a point. There is a reason I don't agree with your point, and I am stating them. Come up with a new way of stating your point, or respond to my counterpoint, don't plug your ears and scream like a little kid until you get your way or run out of breath. Everything that comes out of your mouth is not instantaneously and totally correct.
You asked me if I thought the US government was infallible after I had told you three times prior that I thought it was a mistake to meddle. I'm not plugging my ears. I lose all desire to debate because of the things like what you wrote in your last reply. We might have trouble understanding each other, but to start comparing this lack of understanding to a child screaming is a cue for me to leave that person be (Overdue at this point). I'm not upset or anything, it's just not fun for me. I can go page after page debating with anyone so long as there is a certain level of courtesy between us. It's not screaming like a child. It's acknowledging the lack of respect and the irrelevance of wasting my time in explaining my position.
I'm not talking about before the war, we have already agreed on that point three times now. I want you to say the U.S. government made poor decisions directly after the war. You continue to miss or ignore this distinction.
As to the maturity issue, you started it.
Throwing old words back at me, mocking tones, saying lack of understanding is wasting your time (irony)...all the equivalent of my apparently trademark
. I don't mind it at all, but if you can't take what you dish, don't start in the first place. There is no reason there can't be a little amusement in an otherwise serious talk.