BF2S Forums "Heads they win, tails the taxpayers lose"

ATG wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

too bad you dont put the same value on the lives of those that were murdered by your hero mcveigh.  disgusting.

Too bad you are too reactionary to attempt to understand my point of view.


Did you ever hear me call them people combatants?
Did you not read what I wrote about McVeigh having commited a heinous crime?



America, fuck ya.

I must have missed that part and just skipped to the part where you wrote his praises calling him a patriot and a real man.  I must be the biggest fucking retard in the world if that wasnt the message you were sending. 


calling me reactionary when you hold a high regard for someone whose actions consist of sending a political message by murdering innocent people is kind of funny, dont you think?



I know illegals that have more love for this country than you seem to be displaying tonight.  Maybe you should be deported.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Wow that's awfully selfish of you. You'd rather dodge blame than make an effort to protect Children because they are not of your nationality. You preach here daily about not identifying yourself by your nation of origin. Yet you sure as hell have no problem hiding behind those borders when it comes to doing the right thing as a citizen of humanity. That's disgraceful.

No, it's practical.  The majority of us do it, but I'm one of the few with the balls to admit to it.  I have no delusions that the average person isn't selfish.  I also understand that, if the shoe was on the other foot, I really doubt the Iraqi people would go as far as we have in helping us.

This is a game of survival, and sometimes you have to make callous decisions to better your own country.  What happens to Iraq is their problem, not mine.  It only becomes our problem when we are directly involved.

They only delusion I see is that you think it takes balls to stand by while children are murdered (intentionally). I love it when people justify their beliefs by convincing themselves everyone does it, they just don't admit it. It is pompous and arrogant all together. Your whole ideal system is based on pretentious assumptions of people not really caring. What a pathetic way to justify inaction.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Wow that's awfully selfish of you. You'd rather dodge blame than make an effort to protect Children because they are not of your nationality. You preach here daily about not identifying yourself by your nation of origin. Yet you sure as hell have no problem hiding behind those borders when it comes to doing the right thing as a citizen of humanity. That's disgraceful.

No, it's practical.  The majority of us do it, but I'm one of the few with the balls to admit to it.  I have no delusions that the average person isn't selfish.  I also understand that, if the shoe was on the other foot, I really doubt the Iraqi people would go as far as we have in helping us.

This is a game of survival, and sometimes you have to make callous decisions to better your own country.  What happens to Iraq is their problem, not mine.  It only becomes our problem when we are directly involved.

They only delusion I see is that you think it takes balls to stand by while children are murdered (intentionally). I love it when people justify their beliefs by convincing themselves everyone does it, they just don't admit it. It is pompous and arrogant all together. Your whole ideal system is based on pretentious assumptions of people not really caring. What a pathetic way to justify inaction.

How about this then?  Which inaction do you prefer?  Spending another several hundred billion on Iraq?  Or... spending billions more on our own social programs?

People get left out either here or there.  It doesn't matter which position we take, because either way, people suffer and die.  When you realize that you can't save everyone, you have to prioritize people's lives.  I care more about lives here for the simple fact that people in this country have more of a connection to me than people in Iraq.  I'm sure if I lived in Iraq, I'd feel the opposite.

It's not arrogance.  It's reality.  If you can't handle that, that's your problem, not mine.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

No, it's practical.  The majority of us do it, but I'm one of the few with the balls to admit to it.  I have no delusions that the average person isn't selfish.  I also understand that, if the shoe was on the other foot, I really doubt the Iraqi people would go as far as we have in helping us.

This is a game of survival, and sometimes you have to make callous decisions to better your own country.  What happens to Iraq is their problem, not mine.  It only becomes our problem when we are directly involved.

They only delusion I see is that you think it takes balls to stand by while children are murdered (intentionally). I love it when people justify their beliefs by convincing themselves everyone does it, they just don't admit it. It is pompous and arrogant all together. Your whole ideal system is based on pretentious assumptions of people not really caring. What a pathetic way to justify inaction.

How about this then?  Which inaction do you prefer?  Spending another several hundred billion on Iraq?  Or... spending billions more on our own social programs?

People get left out either here or there.  It doesn't matter which position we take, because either way, people suffer and die.  When you realize that you can't save everyone, you have to prioritize people's lives.  I care more about lives here for the simple fact that people in this country have more of a connection to me than people in Iraq.  I'm sure if I lived in Iraq, I'd feel the opposite.

It's not arrogance.  It's reality.  If you can't handle that, that's your problem, not mine.

Iraq?


We fucked the place up, it is our miserable responsibilty to stay, unfortunately. You don't invade a country, depose their leaders and then go " oh well, your fault your nation is so fucked up, bye! "


As much as I want to leave we can't. I just want oil revenue to pay Haliburton so I don't have to.

If the economy belly-ups, I'm still going to buy Spore, even if I have to go without food, medicine and power for a week.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-05 22:58:28)

ATG wrote:

Iraq?


We fucked the place up, it is our miserable responsibilty to stay, unfortunately. You don't invade a country, depose their leaders and then go " oh well, your fault your nation is so fucked up, bye! "


As much as I want to leave we can't. I just want oil revenue to pay Haliburton so I don't have to.

We didn't do that.  We've stayed for 5 years (so far).  It's time to go.

ATG wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

Iraq?


We fucked the place up, it is our miserable responsibilty to stay, unfortunately. You don't invade a country, depose their leaders and then go " oh well, your fault your nation is so fucked up, bye! "


As much as I want to leave we can't. I just want oil revenue to pay Haliburton so I don't have to.

We didn't do that.  We've stayed for 5 years (so far).  It's time to go.

So then, where is Saddam?
Who arrested him?

That was meant by "We didn't just leave."  We tried to fix it for about 5 years now.  Again, it's time to go.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

No, it's practical.  The majority of us do it, but I'm one of the few with the balls to admit to it.  I have no delusions that the average person isn't selfish.  I also understand that, if the shoe was on the other foot, I really doubt the Iraqi people would go as far as we have in helping us.

This is a game of survival, and sometimes you have to make callous decisions to better your own country.  What happens to Iraq is their problem, not mine.  It only becomes our problem when we are directly involved.

They only delusion I see is that you think it takes balls to stand by while children are murdered (intentionally). I love it when people justify their beliefs by convincing themselves everyone does it, they just don't admit it. It is pompous and arrogant all together. Your whole ideal system is based on pretentious assumptions of people not really caring. What a pathetic way to justify inaction.

How about this then?  Which inaction do you prefer?  Spending another several hundred billion on Iraq?  Or... spending billions more on our own social programs?

People get left out either here or there.  It doesn't matter which position we take, because either way, people suffer and die.  When you realize that you can't save everyone, you have to prioritize people's lives.  I care more about lives here for the simple fact that people in this country have more of a connection to me than people in Iraq.  I'm sure if I lived in Iraq, I'd feel the opposite.

It's not arrogance.  It's reality.  If you can't handle that, that's your problem, not mine.

It doesn't take several hundred billion dollars to protect children. Your argument is faltering so you just add more elements. No you can't save everyone, but shame on you for putting a dollar sign on the life of a child. Damn, your sounding no different than those corporations you chastise everyday. Comparing the American situation to the Iraqi situation is a joke.

I have no problem... see that's the thing about reality, it's relative. You are a self admitted pessimist. I've wondered for a long time how you even manage to get out of bed everyday. To me that sounds like a problem.

Turquoise wrote:

ATG wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

That was meant by "We didn't just leave."  We tried to fix it for about 5 years now.  Again, it's time to go.

I'd like to agree, but as long as we all agree we leave our credibility at the border when we go.

Imagine the headlines. Osamas speech.

The Feds would likely try an divert attention by rounding up some more pligs.

Our credibility left us when it was determined that Colin Powell spewed a load of horseshit to the U.N. in his justifications for the war.  Credibility isn't even part of the picture now.  At this point, it's about financial solvency.  We can't afford to stay.

Can we if we take their oil? A fair portion?

I could have sworn that part of the deal is that they would reimburse us.
Credibility is everything.

And...if we had any Sadr would be dead and heavy bombers would have flown over Iran two years ago.


So maybe you're right.

ATG wrote:

Can we if we take their oil? A fair portion?

I could have sworn that part of the deal is that they would reimburse us.
Credibility is everything.

And...if we had any Sadr would be dead and heavy bombers would have flown over Iran two years ago.


So maybe you're right.

You're mistaking credibility for insanity.

Turquoise wrote:

If you really hold the lives of children to be that sacred, where is your outrage at the jack shit we're doing for Darfur?

Gee I havent heard that before. I've talked about darfur numerous times. Stop reading from your playbook and pay attention to who you are talking to.(The devil came on horseback comes to mind)

Turquoise wrote:

There are numerous other tragedies throughout this world that happen everyday that are far worse than Iraq.  So don't give me that humanitarian line.

It's not a line. I see how you can think that it is. You have absolutely no trust in anything.

We rarely are humanitarians.  We focus on our economic interests, as we should.  I just wish we were willing to admit to it.

No, you focus on economics in nearly everything you voice your opinion on.  I see the problems also, but I don't allow my discontent to influence my morals. Apparently you do. $>Children= clear conscience. The good people do is rarely reported. It's not nearly as entertaining as corporate scandals though. Broaden your intellectual horizon and try to understand the world might not be as crappy as you allow yourself to believe. And if it is, be the change you wish to see in it. Don't submit and convince yourself that it's not worth the effort. I swear I hear a violin playing in the background every time I read one of your replies.

And about adding elements...  it's called perspective.  In order to rationally assess the situation, you must take in all of the external factors.  We put a dollar sign on the lives of children everyday through our foreign policy when we choose to ignore certain crises while intervening in others.  I don't expect us to be the world's savior, but I do wish we could just admit that it all comes down to money.  It always has, and it always will.

So you choose to completely toss out the moral consequence because of the cost involved. I've never said money isn't involved. Your not telling any of us something we don't know. It's unfortunate that it is often the initial motivation. But if along the way the Average Joe Marine can provide a safe route for children to get home from school than I think that's something worth fighting for. That is what separates them from the those making money off the war. You sound more like the profiteers when you say it's always about money. Most soldiers believe in what they are doing. They have far more ground knowledge than you or I could ever obtain in a url. They don't choose to risk their lives for corporations, they know what they are doing and see it first hand.  You make your calls about moral implication while sitting behind your keyboard balancing your checkbook.

Turquoise wrote:

I'm not so much a pessimist as I am a cynic.  Maybe that also makes me an asshole, but at least I'm honest.

That kinda brutal honesty lost it's "shock value" when the first wave of emo's hit the internet. I don't see you as an asshole. If anything it's just depressing.

If our economy completely collapses it will be from self inflicted wounds. As hard as it is to believe, the money we've spent in Iraq is nothing compared to the trillions we have stacked up in debt. If we are to really take on the task of fixing our economy it should begin with the trade imbalance. Maybe (big Maybe) one day Iraq will become self sufficient financially and it may actually benefit us in the long run. The Marshall Plan certainly has. This does not circumvent my concern with children irregardless of nationality though.

Turquoise wrote:

H.L. Mencken is one of my idols because of his volatile cynicism.  Pat Condell and George Carlin are up there too.  But if you really think I resemble emos in any way, I'll gladly change my tact.  Emos disgust me in more ways than I can explain....

H.L. Mencken was an anti-Semite and the other two guys are comedians. I don't know if thats idol territory but whatever floats your boat..lol
We are similar in some ways Turq... some things we just clash on.  I get confused sometimes because you have talked about decentralizing government, but it seems like you are advocating national id's (bio) in the other thread. To me that just screams police state.