Total Posts:121|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The troops are welfare whores?

imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 9:56:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.facebook.com...

I would like to hear the opinions of people from DDO about this page which puts the blame for corrupt politicians being in power entirely on the backs of US troops in a hateful manner by claiming that they are all just pawns and that they are the ones supporting the corrupt politicians in Washington DC and nobody else.

In addition to hearing your opinions I would like to hear your answers to the following questions regarding this hate group.

1) Does this page appear to be intending to spread a message, or to just spread hate?
2) Would the logic that the admins use to justify their opinions be of equal, lesser, or greater quality then we see here on DDO?
3) Do you think that there are better ways to spread the message of antimilitarism than by sh*tting on the troops?
4) If you met the admin in real life and he was shorter, smaller, and weaker than you, would you consider whipping his a**?

(its the first 3 questions I would like to hear feedback from the most)
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 9:58:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I really don't see how you could argue against it.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:03:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"The troops" shouldn't be some sacrosanct group where criticism is automatically labeled hate or misdirection from the "real" problem. It's not just politicians, the guys who actually carry out the orders certainly possess a fair share of the moral culpability. That's the point of the group and I'm guessing its style is simply a shock value way to bring such ideas to the popular consciousness.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:06:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 10:03:18 AM, socialpinko wrote:
"The troops" shouldn't be some sacrosanct group where criticism is automatically labeled hate or misdirection from the "real" problem. It's not just politicians, the guys who actually carry out the orders certainly possess a fair share of the moral culpability. That's the point of the group and I'm guessing its style is simply a shock value way to bring such ideas to the popular consciousness.

This, for sure.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:11:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And I just "liked" that page from both of my FB accounts.

While I certainly don't agree with everything the page says (i.e. "Yes [the troops] are bad people because they overwhelmingly support and vote for bad people"), I agree with the underlying point of view that the troops are part of the problem, both directly and indirectly.
President of DDO
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:25:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 10:03:18 AM, socialpinko wrote:
"The troops" shouldn't be some sacrosanct group where criticism is automatically labeled hate or misdirection from the "real" problem.

Im not saying they should be, all im asking if you think this page goes too far and is using hate and misdirection as a means of conveying their message

It's not just politicians, the guys who actually carry out the orders certainly possess a fair share of the moral culpability.

Do you think they carry all of the orders and are the only ones responsible like the page claims?

That's the point of the group and I'm guessing its style is simply a shock value way to bring such ideas to the popular consciousness.

You dont need to denounce an entire group of people to spread a message that can easily be conveyed to a much wider audience without using hate though wouldnt you agree?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:27:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 10:11:31 AM, Danielle wrote:
And I just "liked" that page from both of my FB accounts.

While I certainly don't agree with everything the page says (i.e. "Yes [the troops] are bad people because they overwhelmingly support and vote for bad people"), I agree with the underlying point of view that the troops are part of the problem, both directly and indirectly.

Im not saying they arent part of the problem, im asking if you think that irrationally and hatefully blaming a mostly innocent third party for a problem they did not cause nor support a good way to advocate the message of antimilitarism.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:32:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most of them just don't know any better. They're pawns.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:33:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 10:27:42 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:11:31 AM, Danielle wrote:
And I just "liked" that page from both of my FB accounts.

While I certainly don't agree with everything the page says (i.e. "Yes [the troops] are bad people because they overwhelmingly support and vote for bad people"), I agree with the underlying point of view that the troops are part of the problem, both directly and indirectly.

Im not saying they arent part of the problem, im asking if you think that irrationally and hatefully blaming a mostly innocent third party for a problem they did not cause nor support a good way to advocate the message of antimilitarism.

wut
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:37:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 10:25:21 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:03:18 AM, socialpinko wrote:
"The troops" shouldn't be some sacrosanct group where criticism is automatically labeled hate or misdirection from the "real" problem.

Im not saying they should be, all im asking if you think this page goes too far and is using hate and misdirection as a means of conveying their message

No I don't.

It's not just politicians, the guys who actually carry out the orders certainly possess a fair share of the moral culpability.

Do you think they carry all of the orders and are the only ones responsible like the page claims?

Did I say that? No. Like I said, the point of the page is to bring a specific point to light, the idiocy of automatically respecting someone just because they said they "served". Obviously I think Obama or Bush are bigger threats to innocent life than any specific soldier. But that doesn't mean soldiers ought to be ignored as definitely part of the problem.

That's the point of the group and I'm guessing its style is simply a shock value way to bring such ideas to the popular consciousness.

You dont need to denounce an entire group of people to spread a message that can easily be conveyed to a much wider audience without using hate though wouldnt you agree?

No I wouldn't. I think purposeful hyperbole can be warranted, especially when the mere mention of disrespect for troops often elicits hugely negative reactions.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:46:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 10:27:42 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:11:31 AM, Danielle wrote:
And I just "liked" that page from both of my FB accounts.

While I certainly don't agree with everything the page says (i.e. "Yes [the troops] are bad people because they overwhelmingly support and vote for bad people"), I agree with the underlying point of view that the troops are part of the problem, both directly and indirectly.

Im not saying they arent part of the problem, im asking if you think that irrationally and hatefully blaming a mostly innocent third party for a problem they did not cause nor support a good way to advocate the message of antimilitarism.

Can you say they don't support it? If they volunteered within the last decade wouldn't they know what they were getting in to?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:49:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 10:37:31 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:25:21 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:03:18 AM, socialpinko wrote:
"The troops" shouldn't be some sacrosanct group where criticism is automatically labeled hate or misdirection from the "real" problem.

Im not saying they should be, all im asking if you think this page goes too far and is using hate and misdirection as a means of conveying their message

No I don't.

You dont think it goes too far or dont think it uses hate and misdirection to convery their message?

It's not just politicians, the guys who actually carry out the orders certainly possess a fair share of the moral culpability.

Do you think they carry all of the orders and are the only ones responsible like the page claims?

Did I say that? No. Like I said, the point of the page is to bring a specific point to light, the idiocy of automatically respecting someone just because they said they "served".

The point of the page isnt to say that you shouldnt automatically respect the troops though, the point of the page is that troops are responsible for the corruption of washington.

Obviously I think Obama or Bush are bigger threats to innocent life than any specific soldier.

Agreed, but the page argues the exact opposite of that

But that doesn't mean soldiers ought to be ignored as definitely part of the problem.

Im not saying they shouldnt, im just saying they shouldnt be the only ones held accountable

That's the point of the group and I'm guessing its style is simply a shock value way to bring such ideas to the popular consciousness.

You dont need to denounce an entire group of people to spread a message that can easily be conveyed to a much wider audience without using hate though wouldnt you agree?

No I wouldn't. I think purposeful hyperbole can be warranted, especially when the mere mention of disrespect for troops often elicits hugely negative reactions.

Im not asking if using hate CAN be warranted, im asking if you HAVE to use hate and misdirection to advocate a message
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:55:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 10:46:48 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:27:42 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:11:31 AM, Danielle wrote:
And I just "liked" that page from both of my FB accounts.

While I certainly don't agree with everything the page says (i.e. "Yes [the troops] are bad people because they overwhelmingly support and vote for bad people"), I agree with the underlying point of view that the troops are part of the problem, both directly and indirectly.

Im not saying they arent part of the problem, im asking if you think that irrationally and hatefully blaming a mostly innocent third party for a problem they did not cause nor support a good way to advocate the message of antimilitarism.

Can you say they don't support it?

I can safely assume that a large majority of them dont join the military to preserve the corruption in DC, yes.

If they volunteered within the last decade wouldn't they know what they were getting in to?

People dont volunteer to join the army or military to use their new power to preserve corruption in DC, nor do they purposefully continue to serve solely because they believe they are keeping those people in power. People join the military to fight the fights that other people dont or cant fight because they are willing to put their lives on the line so that others dont have to
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 10:57:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 10:27:42 AM, imabench wrote:
Im not saying they arent part of the problem, im asking if you think that irrationally and hatefully blaming a mostly innocent third party...

By saying the page is "irrationally" and "hatefully" attacking people, you're not legitimately inquiring about whether or not I believe the page is irrational or hateful. You're stating your own opinion in the form of a question.

for a problem they did not cause nor support a good way to advocate the message of antimilitarism.

If the problem is war (violence - aggressive force using weapons supplied by and on behalf of America), then yes, the troops are the cause (root) of the problem. Without them, Congress could not - or would not - legislate war. Clearly their decision to get paid to train and kill people for antagonistic reasons other than self-defense means they support notions of war.
President of DDO
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:08:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 10:57:25 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:27:42 AM, imabench wrote:
Im not saying they arent part of the problem, im asking if you think that irrationally and hatefully blaming a mostly innocent third party...

By saying the page is "irrationally" and "hatefully" attacking people, you're not legitimately inquiring about whether or not I believe the page is irrational or hateful. You're stating your own opinion in the form of a question.

Sorry, Ill try ask the question without my bias then. Do you believe the page is irrational or hateful?

for a problem they did not cause nor support a good way to advocate the message of antimilitarism.

If the problem is war (violence - aggressive force using weapons supplied by and on behalf of America), then yes, the troops are the cause (root) of the problem.

But 1) If troops are in this scenario the tools that are used to fight war then its not the tools that should be blamed for starting the war, its the person or people utilizing the tools for what they think is a legitimate cause (that may in reality not be legitimate at all). If a hammer is used to break a lamp you cant blame the hammer because the hammer has always been around not doing anything until someone came along and decided to use the hammer to break the lamp. If you are arguing that troops cause people to declare war then that can be disproven by looking into the past.

For a long period of time America did not have a standing army (that was all prior to WWII) and only when the nation declare war were men enlisted to fight. Prior to WWII America did not have a standing army yet declared war countless times which shows that even without there being standing troops on hand, war can still be declared.

2) The problem isnt war though, the problem is corruption at the national level and who is to blame for them being there.

Without them, Congress could not - or would not - legislate war. Clearly their decision to get paid to train and kill people for antagonistic reasons other than self-defense means they support notions of war.

Congress could declare an unjust war (unjust in the eyes of the people but just to them) and then force a military draft. Who is more to blame here then for causing war, the troops or the government?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TUF
Posts: 21,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:10:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The people who created this page, and support it, completely lack any sort or form of substantial argumentative foundation to back up their statements. First of all what we did in the Iraq war was incredible. You make it sound like we just went over their and forced ourselves on blind , deaf, and dumb Iraqi's, who had no ability to defend themselves. You don't truly know why we went to war do you? Do you not understand that we had received threats of weapons of mass destruction, that sadam was planning to use on the United States? It was either strike, or be striken. That aside, the majority of their country WANTED us to be there. When we captured Baghdad 21 days after the start of the wasr on Iraq on March 19th, People cheered, and tore down statues of their leader. Until then they had only known opression and tyranny from an overwhelming dictator. We lost many American lives bringing peace and liberty to both our country, and theirs, though what should really count is all the good we have done their. Every day we sent resources and supplies to afghanistan to help out the citizens, and police their streets fairly from the constant terrorist attacks they receive almost daily.

At 8/30/2012 9:56:50 AM, imabench wrote:
http://www.facebook.com...

I would like to hear the opinions of people from DDO about this page which puts the blame for corrupt politicians being in power entirely on the backs of US troops in a hateful manner by claiming that they are all just pawns and that they are the ones supporting the corrupt politicians in Washington DC and nobody else.

In addition to hearing your opinions I would like to hear your answers to the following questions regarding this hate group.

1) Does this page appear to be intending to spread a message, or to just spread hate?

Definitely to spread hate. Their is no point to this page, it is a flawed, and very illogical attack on the men and woman who support our country, as well as other countries.

2) Would the logic that the admins use to justify their opinions be of equal, lesser, or greater quality then we see here on DDO?

10x's lesser. None of them even have a substantial argument for their cause, from what I have seen. They seem to be ill-informed, and those bandwagoning on this, have no clue what they are even talking about.

3) Do you think that there are better ways to spread the message of antimilitarism than by sh*tting on the troops?

Anti-Militarism, in this day and age, is complete and utter bull-crap.

4) If you met the admin in real life and he was shorter, smaller, and weaker than you, would you consider whipping his a**?

Hell yes.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:14:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:10:27 AM, TUF wrote:
The people who created this page, and support it, completely lack any sort or form of substantial argumentative foundation to back up their statements. First of all what we did in the Iraq war was incredible. You make it sound like we just went over their and forced ourselves on blind , deaf, and dumb Iraqi's, who had no ability to defend themselves. You don't truly know why we went to war do you? Do you not understand that we had received threats of weapons of mass destruction, that sadam was planning to use on the United States? It was either strike, or be striken. That aside, the majority of their country WANTED us to be there. When we captured Baghdad 21 days after the start of the wasr on Iraq on March 19th, People cheered, and tore down statues of their leader. Until then they had only known opression and tyranny from an overwhelming dictator. We lost many American lives bringing peace and liberty to both our country, and theirs, though what should really count is all the good we have done their. Every day we sent resources and supplies to afghanistan to help out the citizens, and police their streets fairly from the constant terrorist attacks they receive almost daily.




At 8/30/2012 9:56:50 AM, imabench wrote:
http://www.facebook.com...

I would like to hear the opinions of people from DDO about this page which puts the blame for corrupt politicians being in power entirely on the backs of US troops in a hateful manner by claiming that they are all just pawns and that they are the ones supporting the corrupt politicians in Washington DC and nobody else.

In addition to hearing your opinions I would like to hear your answers to the following questions regarding this hate group.

1) Does this page appear to be intending to spread a message, or to just spread hate?

Definitely to spread hate. Their is no point to this page, it is a flawed, and very illogical attack on the men and woman who support our country, as well as other countries.

2) Would the logic that the admins use to justify their opinions be of equal, lesser, or greater quality then we see here on DDO?

10x's lesser. None of them even have a substantial argument for their cause, from what I have seen. They seem to be ill-informed, and those bandwagoning on this, have no clue what they are even talking about.

3) Do you think that there are better ways to spread the message of antimilitarism than by sh*tting on the troops?

Anti-Militarism, in this day and age, is complete and utter bull-crap.

4) If you met the admin in real life and he was shorter, smaller, and weaker than you, would you consider whipping his a**?

Hell yes.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:24:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 10:55:06 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:46:48 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:27:42 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:11:31 AM, Danielle wrote:
And I just "liked" that page from both of my FB accounts.

While I certainly don't agree with everything the page says (i.e. "Yes [the troops] are bad people because they overwhelmingly support and vote for bad people"), I agree with the underlying point of view that the troops are part of the problem, both directly and indirectly.

Im not saying they arent part of the problem, im asking if you think that irrationally and hatefully blaming a mostly innocent third party for a problem they did not cause nor support a good way to advocate the message of antimilitarism.

Can you say they don't support it?

I can safely assume that a large majority of them dont join the military to preserve the corruption in DC, yes.

If they volunteered within the last decade wouldn't they know what they were getting in to?

People dont volunteer to join the army or military to use their new power to preserve corruption in DC, nor do they purposefully continue to serve solely because they believe they are keeping those people in power. People join the military to fight the fights that other people dont or cant fight because they are willing to put their lives on the line so that others dont have to

I thought the argument was that they were pawns, not joining to "preserve the corruption in DC" which makes no sense at all.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:27:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:10:27 AM, TUF wrote:
The people who created this page, and support it, completely lack any sort or form of substantial argumentative foundation to back up their statements. First of all what we did in the Iraq war was incredible. You make it sound like we just went over their and forced ourselves on blind , deaf, and dumb Iraqi's, who had no ability to defend themselves. You don't truly know why we went to war do you? Do you not understand that we had received threats of weapons of mass destruction, that sadam was planning to use on the United States? It was either strike, or be striken. That aside, the majority of their country WANTED us to be there. When we captured Baghdad 21 days after the start of the wasr on Iraq on March 19th, People cheered, and tore down statues of their leader. Until then they had only known opression and tyranny from an overwhelming dictator. We lost many American lives bringing peace and liberty to both our country, and theirs, though what should really count is all the good we have done their. Every day we sent resources and supplies to afghanistan to help out the citizens, and police their streets fairly from the constant terrorist attacks they receive almost daily.

Was that sarcastic or just completely wrong?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:29:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:24:14 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:55:06 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:46:48 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:27:42 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/30/2012 10:11:31 AM, Danielle wrote:
And I just "liked" that page from both of my FB accounts.

While I certainly don't agree with everything the page says (i.e. "Yes [the troops] are bad people because they overwhelmingly support and vote for bad people"), I agree with the underlying point of view that the troops are part of the problem, both directly and indirectly.

Im not saying they arent part of the problem, im asking if you think that irrationally and hatefully blaming a mostly innocent third party for a problem they did not cause nor support a good way to advocate the message of antimilitarism.

Can you say they don't support it?

I can safely assume that a large majority of them dont join the military to preserve the corruption in DC, yes.

If they volunteered within the last decade wouldn't they know what they were getting in to?

People dont volunteer to join the army or military to use their new power to preserve corruption in DC, nor do they purposefully continue to serve solely because they believe they are keeping those people in power. People join the military to fight the fights that other people dont or cant fight because they are willing to put their lives on the line so that others dont have to

I thought the argument was that they were pawns, not joining to "preserve the corruption in DC" which makes no sense at all.

This page is advocating exactly that, that the troops are responsible for the corruption in DC and use their position as troops to preserve that corruption, not that they are pawns (thats a different page).

I can see why someone would argue that troops are tools for war, what baffles me is someone arguing that troops are responsible for the corruption in DC and nobody else...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:31:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:27:33 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:10:27 AM, TUF wrote:
The people who created this page, and support it, completely lack any sort or form of substantial argumentative foundation to back up their statements. First of all what we did in the Iraq war was incredible. You make it sound like we just went over their and forced ourselves on blind , deaf, and dumb Iraqi's, who had no ability to defend themselves. You don't truly know why we went to war do you? Do you not understand that we had received threats of weapons of mass destruction, that sadam was planning to use on the United States? It was either strike, or be striken. That aside, the majority of their country WANTED us to be there. When we captured Baghdad 21 days after the start of the wasr on Iraq on March 19th, People cheered, and tore down statues of their leader. Until then they had only known opression and tyranny from an overwhelming dictator. We lost many American lives bringing peace and liberty to both our country, and theirs, though what should really count is all the good we have done their. Every day we sent resources and supplies to afghanistan to help out the citizens, and police their streets fairly from the constant terrorist attacks they receive almost daily.

Was that sarcastic or just completely wrong?

The part about Saddam saying he wanted to use WMD's against the US and a majority of people WANTING the US to invade seems a little sketchy to me but everything else in there seems legit unless I missed something
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TUF
Posts: 21,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:38:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:27:33 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:10:27 AM, TUF wrote:
The people who created this page, and support it, completely lack any sort or form of substantial argumentative foundation to back up their statements. First of all what we did in the Iraq war was incredible. You make it sound like we just went over their and forced ourselves on blind , deaf, and dumb Iraqi's, who had no ability to defend themselves. You don't truly know why we went to war do you? Do you not understand that we had received threats of weapons of mass destruction, that sadam was planning to use on the United States? It was either strike, or be striken. That aside, the majority of their country WANTED us to be there. When we captured Baghdad 21 days after the start of the wasr on Iraq on March 19th, People cheered, and tore down statues of their leader. Until then they had only known opression and tyranny from an overwhelming dictator. We lost many American lives bringing peace and liberty to both our country, and theirs, though what should really count is all the good we have done their. Every day we sent resources and supplies to afghanistan to help out the citizens, and police their streets fairly from the constant terrorist attacks they receive almost daily.



Was that sarcastic or just completely wrong?

What was wrong about it?

"Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Iranian and Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

We asked for Suddams assistance, and he flat out refused. It was a threatening, and daunting force. It's true that we didn't find any WMD's, but we didn't know that at the time. Anyways, I would have advocated attacking Iraq anyways, for freeing their people from oppression from the dictator.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:42:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:31:16 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:27:33 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:10:27 AM, TUF wrote:
The people who created this page, and support it, completely lack any sort or form of substantial argumentative foundation to back up their statements. First of all what we did in the Iraq war was incredible. You make it sound like we just went over their and forced ourselves on blind , deaf, and dumb Iraqi's, who had no ability to defend themselves. You don't truly know why we went to war do you? Do you not understand that we had received threats of weapons of mass destruction, that sadam was planning to use on the United States? It was either strike, or be striken. That aside, the majority of their country WANTED us to be there. When we captured Baghdad 21 days after the start of the wasr on Iraq on March 19th, People cheered, and tore down statues of their leader. Until then they had only known opression and tyranny from an overwhelming dictator. We lost many American lives bringing peace and liberty to both our country, and theirs, though what should really count is all the good we have done their. Every day we sent resources and supplies to afghanistan to help out the citizens, and police their streets fairly from the constant terrorist attacks they receive almost daily.

Was that sarcastic or just completely wrong?

The part about Saddam saying he wanted to use WMD's against the US and a majority of people WANTING the US to invade seems a little sketchy to me but everything else in there seems legit unless I missed something

We didn't have credible evidence that there were WMD's in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was our pawn, trained and installed by the CIA. We didn't give a sht about his atrocities when they were happening, just when it became politically convenient.
Even members of the Bush administration like Collin Powell admit invading Iraq was a mistake.
They're military was third rate at best and while they weren't deaf, blind and dumb... they had no real planes, tanks or ships.

Afghanistan is a whole other unjustifiable issue.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:44:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:38:39 AM, TUF wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:27:33 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:10:27 AM, TUF wrote:
The people who created this page, and support it, completely lack any sort or form of substantial argumentative foundation to back up their statements. First of all what we did in the Iraq war was incredible. You make it sound like we just went over their and forced ourselves on blind , deaf, and dumb Iraqi's, who had no ability to defend themselves. You don't truly know why we went to war do you? Do you not understand that we had received threats of weapons of mass destruction, that sadam was planning to use on the United States? It was either strike, or be striken. That aside, the majority of their country WANTED us to be there. When we captured Baghdad 21 days after the start of the wasr on Iraq on March 19th, People cheered, and tore down statues of their leader. Until then they had only known opression and tyranny from an overwhelming dictator. We lost many American lives bringing peace and liberty to both our country, and theirs, though what should really count is all the good we have done their. Every day we sent resources and supplies to afghanistan to help out the citizens, and police their streets fairly from the constant terrorist attacks they receive almost daily.



Was that sarcastic or just completely wrong?

What was wrong about it?

"Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Iranian and Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

We asked for Suddams assistance, and he flat out refused. It was a threatening, and daunting force. It's true that we didn't find any WMD's, but we didn't know that at the time. Anyways, I would have advocated attacking Iraq anyways, for freeing their people from oppression from the dictator.

Who supplied him with the dual use technologies that made the gas? We gave it to him to use against Iran and we didn't do anything when he gassed the Kurds with helicopters we sold to him.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:45:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:42:17 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:31:16 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:27:33 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:10:27 AM, TUF wrote:
The people who created this page, and support it, completely lack any sort or form of substantial argumentative foundation to back up their statements. First of all what we did in the Iraq war was incredible. You make it sound like we just went over their and forced ourselves on blind , deaf, and dumb Iraqi's, who had no ability to defend themselves. You don't truly know why we went to war do you? Do you not understand that we had received threats of weapons of mass destruction, that sadam was planning to use on the United States? It was either strike, or be striken. That aside, the majority of their country WANTED us to be there. When we captured Baghdad 21 days after the start of the wasr on Iraq on March 19th, People cheered, and tore down statues of their leader. Until then they had only known opression and tyranny from an overwhelming dictator. We lost many American lives bringing peace and liberty to both our country, and theirs, though what should really count is all the good we have done their. Every day we sent resources and supplies to afghanistan to help out the citizens, and police their streets fairly from the constant terrorist attacks they receive almost daily.

Was that sarcastic or just completely wrong?

The part about Saddam saying he wanted to use WMD's against the US and a majority of people WANTING the US to invade seems a little sketchy to me but everything else in there seems legit unless I missed something

We didn't have credible evidence that there were WMD's in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was our pawn, trained and installed by the CIA. We didn't give a sht about his atrocities when they were happening, just when it became politically convenient.
Even members of the Bush administration like Collin Powell admit invading Iraq was a mistake.
They're military was third rate at best and while they weren't deaf, blind and dumb... they had no real planes, tanks or ships.

Just missing that it was without an UN mandate, which made the war illegal and brought the UN to it knees.
Afghanistan is a whole other unjustifiable issue.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:48:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:10:27 AM, TUF wrote:
The people who created this page, and support it, completely lack any sort or form of substantial argumentative foundation to back up their statements. First of all what we did in the Iraq war was incredible. You make it sound like we just went over their and forced ourselves on blind , deaf, and dumb Iraqi's, who had no ability to defend themselves. You don't truly know why we went to war do you? Do you not understand that we had received threats of weapons of mass destruction, that sadam was planning to use on the United States? It was either strike, or be stricken.

A bluff is not a justification for an all out assault. Yes, they didn't know whether it was a bluff, but there are much more better ways of making sure that A) There are in fact nuclear weapons and B) The war was justified. UN investigators actually went into Iraq and found no WMDs whatsoever.

Either way, it's revisionist to claim that the reason for invading Iraq was anything other than oil.

That aside, the majority of their country WANTED us to be there. When we captured Baghdad 21 days after the start of the wasr on Iraq on March 19th, People cheered, and tore down statues of their leader. Until then they had only known opression and tyranny from an overwhelming dictator. We lost many American lives bringing peace and liberty to both our country, and theirs, though what should really count is all the good we have done their. Every day we sent resources and supplies to afghanistan to help out the citizens, and police their streets fairly from the constant terrorist attacks they receive almost daily.

Right, the people really wanted a revolution.

http://www.buzzfeed.com...

When we invaded Iraq, we killed about 300 000 Iraqi civilians and about 5 000 US soldiers in a period of less than ten years. For the Iraqi war to be justified on solely utilitarian grounds, it needs to be proven that Hussein would have killed as many in the decade as we have. Since Hussein's last mass murder was about 15 years before the invasion, there is no indication that this would have ever happened. Trying to justify the war because Hussein was a meany-bo-meany is just a fail.

As well, I remember Chomsky saying that when we invaded Iraq, terrorism increased by a factor of seven towards US troops.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:52:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:48:28 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:10:27 AM, TUF wrote:
The people who created this page, and support it, completely lack any sort or form of substantial argumentative foundation to back up their statements. First of all what we did in the Iraq war was incredible. You make it sound like we just went over their and forced ourselves on blind , deaf, and dumb Iraqi's, who had no ability to defend themselves. You don't truly know why we went to war do you? Do you not understand that we had received threats of weapons of mass destruction, that sadam was planning to use on the United States? It was either strike, or be stricken.

A bluff is not a justification for an all out assault. Yes, they didn't know whether it was a bluff, but there are much more better ways of making sure that A) There are in fact nuclear weapons and B) The war was justified. UN investigators actually went into Iraq and found no WMDs whatsoever.

Either way, it's revisionist to claim that the reason for invading Iraq was anything other than oil.


That aside, the majority of their country WANTED us to be there. When we captured Baghdad 21 days after the start of the wasr on Iraq on March 19th, People cheered, and tore down statues of their leader. Until then they had only known opression and tyranny from an overwhelming dictator. We lost many American lives bringing peace and liberty to both our country, and theirs, though what should really count is all the good we have done their. Every day we sent resources and supplies to afghanistan to help out the citizens, and police their streets fairly from the constant terrorist attacks they receive almost daily.

Right, the people really wanted a revolution.

http://www.buzzfeed.com...

When we invaded Iraq, we killed about 300 000 Iraqi civilians and about 5 000 US soldiers in a period of less than ten years. For the Iraqi war to be justified on solely utilitarian grounds, it needs to be proven that Hussein would have killed as many in the decade as we have. Since Hussein's last mass murder was about 15 years before the invasion, there is no indication that this would have ever happened. Trying to justify the war because Hussein was a meany-bo-meany is just a fail.

As well, I remember Chomsky saying that when we invaded Iraq, terrorism increased by a factor of seven towards US troops.

Ya I forgot how Al-Qaeda is in Iraq now where they weren't before the war.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:52:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:42:17 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:31:16 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:27:33 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:10:27 AM, TUF wrote:
The people who created this page, and support it, completely lack any sort or form of substantial argumentative foundation to back up their statements. First of all what we did in the Iraq war was incredible. You make it sound like we just went over their and forced ourselves on blind , deaf, and dumb Iraqi's, who had no ability to defend themselves. You don't truly know why we went to war do you? Do you not understand that we had received threats of weapons of mass destruction, that sadam was planning to use on the United States? It was either strike, or be striken. That aside, the majority of their country WANTED us to be there. When we captured Baghdad 21 days after the start of the wasr on Iraq on March 19th, People cheered, and tore down statues of their leader. Until then they had only known opression and tyranny from an overwhelming dictator. We lost many American lives bringing peace and liberty to both our country, and theirs, though what should really count is all the good we have done their. Every day we sent resources and supplies to afghanistan to help out the citizens, and police their streets fairly from the constant terrorist attacks they receive almost daily.

Was that sarcastic or just completely wrong?

The part about Saddam saying he wanted to use WMD's against the US and a majority of people WANTING the US to invade seems a little sketchy to me but everything else in there seems legit unless I missed something

We didn't have credible evidence that there were WMD's in Iraq.

It was 2 years after 9/11 and the government didnt want to take a chance (evidently shown to be a really bad call)

Saddam Hussein was our pawn, trained and installed by the CIA.

I doubt thats true, Saddam came to power by getting rid of the last dictator.

We didn't give a sht about his atrocities when they were happening, just when it became politically convenient.

That is actually true....

Even members of the Bush administration like Collin Powell admit invading Iraq was a mistake.

Because of its after effects, how long it would last, and how much it would cost, not necessarily because Saddam was innocent

They're military was third rate at best and while they weren't deaf, blind and dumb... they had no real planes, tanks or ships.

They did, its just that ours were way better so I still agree with this point that they werent a threat to us. They were a threat to other neighboring countries in the Middle East but they were not a direct military threat to us
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 11:57:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:52:46 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:42:17 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:31:16 AM, imabench wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:27:33 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 8/30/2012 11:10:27 AM, TUF wrote:
The people who created this page, and support it, completely lack any sort or form of substantial argumentative foundation to back up their statements. First of all what we did in the Iraq war was incredible. You make it sound like we just went over their and forced ourselves on blind , deaf, and dumb Iraqi's, who had no ability to defend themselves. You don't truly know why we went to war do you? Do you not understand that we had received threats of weapons of mass destruction, that sadam was planning to use on the United States? It was either strike, or be striken. That aside, the majority of their country WANTED us to be there. When we captured Baghdad 21 days after the start of the wasr on Iraq on March 19th, People cheered, and tore down statues of their leader. Until then they had only known opression and tyranny from an overwhelming dictator. We lost many American lives bringing peace and liberty to both our country, and theirs, though what should really count is all the good we have done their. Every day we sent resources and supplies to afghanistan to help out the citizens, and police their streets fairly from the constant terrorist attacks they receive almost daily.

Was that sarcastic or just completely wrong?

The part about Saddam saying he wanted to use WMD's against the US and a majority of people WANTING the US to invade seems a little sketchy to me but everything else in there seems legit unless I missed something

We didn't have credible evidence that there were WMD's in Iraq.

It was 2 years after 9/11 and the government didnt want to take a chance (evidently shown to be a really bad call)

Saddam Hussein was our pawn, trained and installed by the CIA.

I doubt thats true, Saddam came to power by getting rid of the last dictator.

We didn't give a sht about his atrocities when they were happening, just when it became politically convenient.

That is actually true....

Even members of the Bush administration like Collin Powell admit invading Iraq was a mistake.

Because of its after effects, how long it would last, and how much it would cost, not necessarily because Saddam was innocent

They're military was third rate at best and while they weren't deaf, blind and dumb... they had no real planes, tanks or ships.

They did, its just that ours were way better so I still agree with this point that they werent a threat to us. They were a threat to other neighboring countries in the Middle East but they were not a direct military threat to us

All of your points hinge on the idea that the U.S. is police of the world, charged with unilaterally killing every bad guy, toppling every evil regime and making every country in the world a free democracy. Iraq posed no direct threat to the United States so invading them was never justified.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 12:13:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/30/2012 11:57:09 AM, lewis20 wrote:

All of your points hinge on the idea that the U.S. is police of the world, charged with unilaterally killing every bad guy, toppling every evil regime and making every country in the world a free democracy.

I apologize then, that was not my intention at all since I sincerely believe the US is not the police of the world

Iraq posed no direct threat to the United States so invading them was never justified.

They didnt pose a direct threat to the US, it could easily be argued that Iraq was a threat to the economic well being of the US due to its hostility to other nations in the Middle East that the US heavily depends on... Apart from economic interests it could also be argued that invading Iraq was justified because of human rights violations (but as you said the US has done a sh*tty job of caring about those elsewhere in the world)

Its never a good reason to invade a country for one primary purpose, but when you get a few good reasons and start adding them and adding them and adding them all together, then justifying going to war becomes a gray area...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015