Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

War is not Fought for Profit

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you consider a thief stealing from a grandmother 'making a profit'? No, he is simply violently transferring the money from someone else to himself.

Similarly, the US steals (more specifically extorts) money from citizens via taxation, then gives a portion of that to weapons manufacturers who rely on the government for this income and compensate government officials with kickbacks in return. This is a dual parasitic relationship that violently transfers money from people in the productive sector to politicians and weapons manufacturers in the parasitic sector.

It is not profit, it is not production, it is extortion.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 8:44:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you consider a thief stealing from a grandmother 'making a profit'? No, he is simply violently transferring the money from someone else to himself.

Similarly, the US steals (more specifically extorts) money from citizens via taxation, then gives a portion of that to weapons manufacturers who rely on the government for this income and compensate government officials with kickbacks in return. This is a dual parasitic relationship that violently transfers money from people in the productive sector to politicians and weapons manufacturers in the parasitic sector.

It is not profit, it is not production, it is extortion.

.....Taxes are voluntary you mo'mo
Thank you for voting!
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 10:45:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you consider a thief stealing from a grandmother 'making a profit'? No, he is simply violently transferring the money from someone else to himself.

Similarly, the US steals (more specifically extorts) money from citizens via taxation, then gives a portion of that to weapons manufacturers who rely on the government for this income and compensate government officials with kickbacks in return. This is a dual parasitic relationship that violently transfers money from people in the productive sector to politicians and weapons manufacturers in the parasitic sector.

It is not profit, it is not production, it is extortion.

Do you consider a company selling a product for 50 times its production cost "highway robbery"? Why can a company do this? Because no one (i.e. no competition) can stop it. Same with thievery of an elderly woman.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 11:06:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you consider a thief stealing from a grandmother 'making a profit'? No, he is simply violently transferring the money from someone else to himself.

Similarly, the US steals (more specifically extorts) money from citizens via taxation, then gives a portion of that to weapons manufacturers who rely on the government for this income and compensate government officials with kickbacks in return. This is a dual parasitic relationship that violently transfers money from people in the productive sector to politicians and weapons manufacturers in the parasitic sector.

It is not profit, it is not production, it is extortion.

Corporate charity irritates me too.
Tsar of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 12:13:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you consider a thief stealing from a grandmother 'making a profit'? No, he is simply violently transferring the money from someone else to himself.


More like making an income then an actual profit. I wouldn't describe when I work that I make a profit. Profit is the return of investment on capital and doesn't include work/effort in that factor (A thief stealing from a grandmother does). If the person owned capital goods like weapons, and/or burglary gear then one can consider the profit.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 1:10:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 8:44:26 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you consider a thief stealing from a grandmother 'making a profit'? No, he is simply violently transferring the money from someone else to himself.

Similarly, the US steals (more specifically extorts) money from citizens via taxation, then gives a portion of that to weapons manufacturers who rely on the government for this income and compensate government officials with kickbacks in return. This is a dual parasitic relationship that violently transfers money from people in the productive sector to politicians and weapons manufacturers in the parasitic sector.

It is not profit, it is not production, it is extortion.


.....Taxes are voluntary you mo'mo

Going to jail if you don't do something doesn't make it voluntary. Either way you are being coerced.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 1:34:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 12:13:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Profit is the return of investment on capital and doesn't include work/effort in that factor (A thief stealing from a grandmother does).

I believe it's a tad more accurate to say that profit is the return on investment IN EXCESS of the costs (i.e. the work/effort).
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 1:50:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 8:44:26 AM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/7/2013 6:37:02 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you consider a thief stealing from a grandmother 'making a profit'? No, he is simply violently transferring the money from someone else to himself.

Similarly, the US steals (more specifically extorts) money from citizens via taxation, then gives a portion of that to weapons manufacturers who rely on the government for this income and compensate government officials with kickbacks in return. This is a dual parasitic relationship that violently transfers money from people in the productive sector to politicians and weapons manufacturers in the parasitic sector.

It is not profit, it is not production, it is extortion.


.....Taxes are voluntary you mo'mo

Argue that taxation is justified if you wish, but don't insult our intelligence by arguing that it's voluntary.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 2:06:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do people make profits from war? If the answer to this is yes, then wars cause profits to happen. So wars are fought for profit, at least a little. I didn't say that wars are CAUSED for profit, just that fighting them creates business opportunities for people who participate a certain way.
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 2:30:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 2:06:34 PM, Beverlee wrote:
Do people make profits from war? If the answer to this is yes, then wars cause profits to happen. So wars are fought for profit, at least a little. I didn't say that wars are CAUSED for profit, just that fighting them creates business opportunities for people who participate a certain way.

^^this
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.

I dispute this claim.

The US benefited via successful prosecution of the various wars it's found itself involved in since WWII. If Korea and Vietnam were not successful, then that entire region would be under USSR influence today.

I remember someone (I think wnope) on a different thread made a point as to how the US projects power through advantageous trade relationships with "nations of the free world".

Ah, here it is.
http://www.debate.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.

I dispute this claim.

The US benefited via successful prosecution of the various wars it's found itself involved in since WWII. If Korea and Vietnam were not successful, then that entire region would be under USSR influence today.

I remember someone (I think wnope) on a different thread made a point as to how the US projects power through advantageous trade relationships with "nations of the free world".

Ah, here it is.
http://www.debate.org...

Hence the keyword of most, vietnam, korea, and afghanistan were for our benefit. Korea arguably, and in analysis, benefired south korea more then it did us.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.

I dispute this claim.

The US benefited via successful prosecution of the various wars it's found itself involved in since WWII. If Korea and Vietnam were not successful, then that entire region would be under USSR influence today.

I remember someone (I think wnope) on a different thread made a point as to how the US projects power through advantageous trade relationships with "nations of the free world".

Ah, here it is.
http://www.debate.org...

Hence the keyword of most, vietnam, korea, and afghanistan were for our benefit. Korea arguably, and in analysis, benefired south korea more then it did us.

I still disagree with your statement, and at this point, you haven't brought forth anything to refute any of my assertions. I would say that most US wars have been fought FOR our benefit.

IMHO the key word of disagreement in your original statement is "not".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 2:48:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.

I dispute this claim.

The US benefited via successful prosecution of the various wars it's found itself involved in since WWII. If Korea and Vietnam were not successful, then that entire region would be under USSR influence today.

I remember someone (I think wnope) on a different thread made a point as to how the US projects power through advantageous trade relationships with "nations of the free world".

Ah, here it is.
http://www.debate.org...

Hence the keyword of most, vietnam, korea, and afghanistan were for our benefit. Korea arguably, and in analysis, benefired south korea more then it did us.

Vietnam arguably would have had the same effect if we were succesful. Afghanistan was imo, as I said, the closes to being purely for our benefit. We had a score to settle, and we settled it. The following rebuilding phase was imo an equal split for our benefit as much as theirs. If we had the balls to follow through and not back out when it became too difficult, the following occupation could have been a positive result
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.

I dispute this claim.

The US benefited via successful prosecution of the various wars it's found itself involved in since WWII. If Korea and Vietnam were not successful, then that entire region would be under USSR influence today.

I remember someone (I think wnope) on a different thread made a point as to how the US projects power through advantageous trade relationships with "nations of the free world".

Ah, here it is.
http://www.debate.org...

Hence the keyword of most, vietnam, korea, and afghanistan were for our benefit. Korea arguably, and in analysis, benefired south korea more then it did us.

I still disagree with your statement, and at this point, you haven't brought forth anything to refute any of my assertions. I would say that most US wars have been fought FOR our benefit.

Really? So South Korea being a thriving democracy and a strong capitalistic economy isn't self-evident? Are you purposely ignoring this?

IMHO the key word of disagreement in your original statement is "not".
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.

I dispute this claim.

The US benefited via successful prosecution of the various wars it's found itself involved in since WWII. If Korea and Vietnam were not successful, then that entire region would be under USSR influence today.

I remember someone (I think wnope) on a different thread made a point as to how the US projects power through advantageous trade relationships with "nations of the free world".

Ah, here it is.
http://www.debate.org...

Hence the keyword of most, vietnam, korea, and afghanistan were for our benefit. Korea arguably, and in analysis, benefired south korea more then it did us.

I still disagree with your statement, and at this point, you haven't brought forth anything to refute any of my assertions. I would say that most US wars have been fought FOR our benefit.

Really? So South Korea being a thriving democracy and a strong capitalistic economy isn't self-evident? Are you purposely ignoring this?

How does South Korea's thriving economy and similar political structure NOT benefit the US?

IMHO the key word of disagreement in your original statement is "not".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 2:56:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 2:48:43 PM, Buddamoose wrote:

Vietnam arguably would have had the same effect if we were succesful. Afghanistan was imo, as I said, the closes to being purely for our benefit. We had a score to settle, and we settled it. The following rebuilding phase was imo an equal split for our benefit as much as theirs. If we had the balls to follow through and not back out when it became too difficult, the following occupation could have been a positive result

I would say that Vietnam was successful in that it directly contributed to the fracturing of relations between the USSR and China. It structurally and strategically weakened the most significant alliance made by our "mortal enemy".

The only real unsuccessful war I can think of at this time is Iraq, although I'm sure there are others I'm leaving out.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 3:01:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit. The only one that comes close to that is afghanistan and that was because it was a safe haven for al-qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked us on our own soil. So we obviously had a score to settle.

I dispute this claim.

The US benefited via successful prosecution of the various wars it's found itself involved in since WWII. If Korea and Vietnam were not successful, then that entire region would be under USSR influence today.

I remember someone (I think wnope) on a different thread made a point as to how the US projects power through advantageous trade relationships with "nations of the free world".

Ah, here it is.
http://www.debate.org...

Hence the keyword of most, vietnam, korea, and afghanistan were for our benefit. Korea arguably, and in analysis, benefired south korea more then it did us.

I still disagree with your statement, and at this point, you haven't brought forth anything to refute any of my assertions. I would say that most US wars have been fought FOR our benefit.

Really? So South Korea being a thriving democracy and a strong capitalistic economy isn't self-evident? Are you purposely ignoring this?

How does South Korea's thriving economy and similar political structure NOT benefit the US?

We are not arguing whether or not it benefits the U.S. but whether or not it benefitd the U.S. more. The only conclusion one can draw is that it benefits South Korea more than the u.s. given the alternative is a single korean country in the same state as South Korea


IMHO the key word of disagreement in your original statement is "not".
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 3:11:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 3:01:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit.

We are not arguing whether or not it benefits the U.S. but whether or not it benefitd the U.S. more. The only conclusion one can draw is that it benefits South Korea more than the u.s. given the alternative is a single korean country in the same state as South Korea

Your assertion here is inconsistent with your original statement.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 3:14:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
*North Korea not South Korea

essentially Wrichrw we spend hundreds of trillions of dollars securing trade routes, providing the majority of defense capabilities for countries around the world, step in for violations of international laws, etc. and that benefits us more than it does those we do it for? Hardly
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 3:16:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 3:11:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:01:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit.

We are not arguing whether or not it benefits the U.S. but whether or not it benefitd the U.S. more. The only conclusion one can draw is that it benefits South Korea more than the u.s. given the alternative is a single korean country in the same state as South Korea

Your assertion here is inconsistent with your original statement.

Well I apologize for not being entirely specific in the message I was trying to convey. Are you going to persist in your semantical path or actually discuss the main issue at hand?
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 3:17:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 3:16:19 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:11:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:01:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit.

We are not arguing whether or not it benefits the U.S. but whether or not it benefitd the U.S. more. The only conclusion one can draw is that it benefits South Korea more than the u.s. given the alternative is a single korean country in the same state as South Korea

Your assertion here is inconsistent with your original statement.

Well I apologize for not being entirely specific in the message I was trying to convey. Are you going to persist in your semantical path or actually discuss the main issue at hand?

I was discussing the main issue at hand. Your statements are materially and significantly inconsistent.

At this point, I have fully refuted your original assertion, and agree with your new one.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 3:19:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 3:17:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:16:19 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:11:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:01:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit.

We are not arguing whether or not it benefits the U.S. but whether or not it benefitd the U.S. more. The only conclusion one can draw is that it benefits South Korea more than the u.s. given the alternative is a single korean country in the same state as South Korea

Your assertion here is inconsistent with your original statement.

Well I apologize for not being entirely specific in the message I was trying to convey. Are you going to persist in your semantical path or actually discuss the main issue at hand?

I was discussing the main issue at hand. Your statements are materially and significantly inconsistent.

At this point, I have fully refuted your original assertion, and agree with your new one.

Ah then I see we have essentially nothing to discuss lol, as it would simply be the choir preaching to itself. I apologize for the misunderstanding good sir
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 3:19:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Although, I will caveat that it is very difficult to imagine the Korean War proper helping South Koreans.

What helped South Koreans much more was reconstruction after the war. The war itself was a catastrophe for the entire peninsula.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 3:20:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 3:19:03 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:17:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:16:19 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:11:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:01:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit.

We are not arguing whether or not it benefits the U.S. but whether or not it benefitd the U.S. more. The only conclusion one can draw is that it benefits South Korea more than the u.s. given the alternative is a single korean country in the same state as South Korea

Your assertion here is inconsistent with your original statement.

Well I apologize for not being entirely specific in the message I was trying to convey. Are you going to persist in your semantical path or actually discuss the main issue at hand?

I was discussing the main issue at hand. Your statements are materially and significantly inconsistent.

At this point, I have fully refuted your original assertion, and agree with your new one.

Ah then I see we have essentially nothing to discuss lol, as it would simply be the choir preaching to itself. I apologize for the misunderstanding good sir

Np. Sorry for being a stickler for clarity. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 3:21:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 3:19:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Although, I will caveat that it is very difficult to imagine the Korean War proper helping South Koreans.

What helped South Koreans much more was reconstruction after the war. The war itself was a catastrophe for the entire peninsula.

But the reconstruction into the South Korea we know today was only possible because of the Korean war.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 3:23:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 3:21:43 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:19:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
Although, I will caveat that it is very difficult to imagine the Korean War proper helping South Koreans.

What helped South Koreans much more was reconstruction after the war. The war itself was a catastrophe for the entire peninsula.

But the reconstruction into the South Korea we know today was only possible because of the Korean war.

Well, would Korea needed to reconstruct itself if not for the horrors of that war? IMHO had it not been for the war, Korea's post WWII development may have resembled more Japan's Meiji era economic renovation, i.e. a lot less pain, a lot more reward.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 3:23:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 3:20:29 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:19:03 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:17:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:16:19 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:11:01 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 3:01:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:51:57 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:50:42 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:48:31 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:45:46 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:42:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 9/7/2013 2:33:24 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
Make no mistake, most "wars" or policing actions that the united states has participated in/lead have not been for our benefit.

We are not arguing whether or not it benefits the U.S. but whether or not it benefitd the U.S. more. The only conclusion one can draw is that it benefits South Korea more than the u.s. given the alternative is a single korean country in the same state as South Korea

Your assertion here is inconsistent with your original statement.

Well I apologize for not being entirely specific in the message I was trying to convey. Are you going to persist in your semantical path or actually discuss the main issue at hand?

I was discussing the main issue at hand. Your statements are materially and significantly inconsistent.

At this point, I have fully refuted your original assertion, and agree with your new one.

Ah then I see we have essentially nothing to discuss lol, as it would simply be the choir preaching to itself. I apologize for the misunderstanding good sir

Np. Sorry for being a stickler for clarity. =)

Bah was my fault for being unclear. Nothing to apologize for
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 3:26:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/7/2013 3:14:55 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
*North Korea not South Korea

essentially Wrichrw we spend hundreds of trillions of dollars securing trade routes, providing the majority of defense capabilities for countries around the world, step in for violations of international laws, etc. and that benefits us more than it does those we do it for? Hardly

It doesn't benefit us, it is about principal. People commonly claim we are not the world's police, is there anyone at this very moment who would do a better job that is willing to?