I need some more help

[1jfuddle]

I am engulfed in a growing argument online with someone who basically sees everything precicly the opposite as I do(and most if not all of you). Here is his latest...

And again response to 1Jfuddle:

First: Taken in pure context the government of the United States has the responsibility of the "common defense" of its citizens. (We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.) Failure to protect us could be considered a treasonous act. If going to war is required to provide for the safety and common defense of all of us then it is "constitutional".

Second: We have the moral imperative to protect those that can not protect themsevles. We are not perfect at it, and we are inconsistent at best. But, we try and should continue to try to make the world a better place.


Quote "Yes, no other president had the balls to get 500 U.S. citizens killed in one year in Iraq.
And don't even bring up how many people were killed on 9/11. Osama Bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein are not the same person. They don't even like each other. And terrorism -- it's been around forever. It will never go away as long as the United States continues to force itself on other countries. There is a reason other countries hate us. Americans think they are better than everyone else. We aren't."

We lose people all the time in peace time training missions. We lost thousands in only a couple of hours on D-day, and tens of thousands over the last century when we came to the rescue of people calling for our help. The only people that attacked us were the Japanese. Measuring an operational success by counting the dead is short sited and does not take into account the people we have savedor the good we have done. Freedom is not free my friend. Blood gets spilled so that we can complain that they are doing it all wrong.

'Osama/Saddam are not the same person...'
True, but I showed the link between them in the first timeline. With Saddam in power we can't leave the middle east. With him gone we can eventually leave.


'Terrorism will continue/United States forcing itself on other countries....'

I defy you to list these "other" countries. We are not anywhere in the world where we are not suppose to be. Either the UN wants us there (like Kosovo), the country wants us there (ie South Korea), or we are required to be there to fullfill treaty obligations (NATO countries like Germany). When we send our boys in it is because we have been begged to go in.


"Americans think they are better than everyone else."

Absolutely we are. We are the only empire in the world that dosn't rape and pillage the conquered. We are the only ones that allow people to come here illegally and get medical help, an education, jobs etc. We put our lives on the line for peoples we don't know, and don't matter to us. We welcome the "huddled masses". We are hope. We are the light at the end of the tunnel. I have lived outside the US, and my family has traveled EVERY continent and I can tell you most poeple want to be Americans, and everyone respects us even if it is grudgingly.



That should just about cover every single point that everyone has brought up. Rebuttal?”

[NMDemDist2]

1. i just stole this off someone else's sig line (CorporateWhore's)

but it kinda says it all, look up our deeds in some of the countries listed and tell us again how they "beg" us to come in?

And don;t forget the Phillipines in 1900 there's a whole nother century to work with.

[WMliberal]

2. haha, that idiot says a LOT that can be refuted...

I love his line "When we send our boys in it is because we have been begged to go in."
I'm sure the Panamanians, Vietnamese, Nicaraguans, Guatamalans Mexicans, Cubans, etc BEGGED us to go in...

[1jfuddle]

3. Lets do it

Lets shut this one down.

[WMliberal]

4. let's take one of his non-sequitors...

"Failure to protect us could be considered a treasonous act. If going to war is required to provide for the safety and common defense of all of us then it is "constitutional"
OK, what about when we go to war and it ISN'T required for our safety and defense.
Going into Iraq had nothing to do with that. Going into Afghanistan still hasn't gotten Bin Laden. I just listed a bunch of historical examples where we went in and it did not provide safety or defense.

[WMliberal]

5. hmm, is he/she anti-semitic?

"We lost thousands in only a couple of hours on D-day, and tens of thousands over the last century when we came to the rescue of people calling for our help. The only people that attacked us were the Japanese"
Sounds like he doesn't see why we should have stopped the Nazis during World War II, since they didn't attack us. 6 million jews dead just isn't enough for him. Our own security would be threatened by a powerful Germany that declared war on US. But he's still willing to drape his position in a flag by referring to D-Day... confused logic there.

[ijk]

12. Actually...

I've more than once seen conservatives make the claim that only the Japanese attacked us in WWII, but we went after the Germans for moral reasons. Without debating the moral reasons to get into the European war (which are unquestionable) or the validity of the analogy (which is extremely questionable), this statement is simply not historically true.

Germany declared war on us, four days after Pearl Harbor. The Germans attacked us first, well before that - there were several U-boat attacks in the summer and fall of 1941. And I'm not entirely certain, but I strongly suspect they were the first to attack after the declaration of war as well. You can look it up.

If your opponent can't manage to get the most basic facts of 20th century american military history straight, I wouldn't take too seriously his opinion of something like why we had bases in Saudi Arabia.

[WMliberal]

13. right on. trying to get the logic right would make their heads explode!n/t

[WMliberal]

6. does he/she still want to apply this line...

"Measuring an operational success by counting the dead is short sited and does not take into account the people we have saved or the good we have done."
... to devious endeavors that did not further freedom? If he's going to drape our successful wars in this crap, then he's kind of stuck with it when we go into morally ambiguous escapades like Vietnam, Iraq, Bay of Pigs, etc.

[WMliberal]

7. this one is just utter BS

"True, but I showed the link between them in the first timeline. With Saddam in power we can't leave the middle east. With him gone we can eventually leave"
What link is he referring to? The guy who we claim went into Iraq to get a leg amputated? BTW, that guy, it turns out was found recently. He has two legs, so unless he started with three, there was no amputation like Powell said.
What timeline, this must be from another conversation. The only thing I can think of is that the BFEE was supporting both OBL and Saddam at the same time in the 1980's.
With Saddam in power we can't leave? BS. Our army just proved how weakened he was. He was not capable of threatening his neighbors.

[silverlib]

8. I'm not very good at this.

I hope you will get better response from others.

"Failure to protect us could be considered a treasonous act."

* did fail to protect us. His administration was aware and ignored the possibilities they were warned about for Bin Laden due to obsessiveness with Iraq. Check testimony from the 9/11 Commission.

"But, we try and should continue to try to make the world a better place."

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the administration or the U.S. has the authority to determine what makes the world a better place. We have allies, that when invited, we have aided. In these cases, as members of world organizations, whose objective is to make the world a better place, we have fought genocide and atrocities leveled on humans.

'Osama/Saddam are not the same person...'
True, but I showed the link between them in the first timeline.

I didn't see his timeline, but Bin Laden and Saddam were bitter enemies. Bin Laden's people were in Iraq, but a part of the country that Saddam had little or no control.

"With Saddam in power we can't leave the middle east. With him gone we can eventually leave."

When and why does he think we are leaving. The constitution being proposed does not give Iragis much control.

"Americans think they are better than everyone else."
"Absolutely we are. We are the only empire in the world that doesn't rape and pillage the conquered. We are the only ones that allow people to come here illegally and get medical help, an education, jobs etc

How pompous! Does he not watch the news? Yes, we have raped and pillaged. Medical help? - our own citizens do not receive adequate medical help. Jobs? - as soon as corporations start paying immigrants the same wages they would pay citizens, then I will think we are treating immigrants fairly. The immigrants are hired to fill the pocketbooks of the wealthy.

And here's something pulled from slate.com

On 10/8/03, Bush declared: "Iraq is free of rape rooms and torture chambers." As recently as 5/3/04, Bush declared: "Because we acted, torture rooms are closed, rape rooms no longer exist, mass graves are no longer a possibility in Iraq." Slate.com has the full list of Bush's torture chamber lies.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2100014

[WMliberal]

9. next line of attempted logic

"I defy you to list these "other" countries. We are not anywhere in the world where we are not suppose to be. Either the UN wants us there (like Kosovo), the country wants us there (ie South Korea), or we are required to be there to fullfill treaty obligations (NATO countries like Germany). When we send our boys in it is because we have been begged to go in"

Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Qatar, Oman, Yemen... i'm sure a quick google search will give you a good list. I think we have military presence in over 100 countries.
In the case of treaties, we were not begged in, we volunteered. South Koreans don't want us there, this moran does not follow East Asian news obviouly. He should check out popular opinion of U.S. soldiers in Okinawa.
"UN wants us there" is a matter of collective security, just like NATO. It's voluntary.
All in all, I don't see where he's going with this. He seems to imply that we shouldn't be in these places, yet he's ALL FOR the W.O.T.?

[WMliberal]

10. damn right we're the best

"Absolutely we are. We are the only empire in the world that dosn't rape and pillage the conquered. We are the only ones that allow people to come here illegally and get medical help, an education, jobs etc. We put our lives on the line for peoples we don't know, and don't matter to us. We welcome the "huddled masses". We are hope. We are the light at the end of the tunnel. I have lived outside the US, and my family has traveled EVERY continent and I can tell you most poeple want to be Americans, and everyone respects us even if it is grudgingly"

sorry, i'm an america lover too. but at least I'm no jingoist like this moran. he is wrong about the "we don't rape and pillage the conquered." I refer to Okinawa, the prison scandal going on, and practically any war we've ever been in. Occupying armies rape and pillage, it's hard to find any occupying force in history that doesn't exploit the vanquished. we're no exception.

[WMliberal]

11. lastly and most importantly

* should be tried for treason under his own line of logic.
"Failure to protect us could be considered a treasonous act"
Bush failed to protect us on 9/11... DUH!

[No2W2004]

14. Points

1. If going to war is required to provide for the safety and common defense of all of us then it is "constitutional".

Since "Iraq presents an imediate threat to the US" has been proven to be a lie, how is invading Iraq providing for the safety and common defense of the US?

2. We have the moral imperative to protect those that can not protect themsevles. We are not perfect at it, and we are inconsistent at best. But, we try and should continue to try to make the world a better place.

Explain where it is written that the US must "protect those that can not protect themsevles." Who determines where the US should go and protect? What if the people don't want the US to protect them? Do they have the right to say no?

3. Measuring an operational success by counting the dead is short sited and does not take into account the people we have saved or the good we have done.

Operational success it a war term. Please describe the verifiable success the US has had in Iraq. Show the thousands of Iraqis throwing flowers at their liberators. Show us how women are free to walk the streets or go shopping by themselves wearing whatever they want.

4. True, but I showed the link... OK, get this thru your very thick head...Osama=religous fundimentalist who likes to kill infedels. Saddam=infedel secular dictator who likes to kill religous fundimentalist. Osama+Saddam=bloodbath. THEY FUCKING HATE EACH OTHER...THEY WANT TO RIP EACH OTHER'S LUNGS OUT....THEY WOULD LIKE NOTHING MORE THAN TO HAVE EACH OTHER'S HEAD ON A PIKE OUTSIDE THEIR HEADQUARTERS....THERE....IS....NO....LINK!!!! So just stop it ok?

5. Absolutely we are. We are the only empire in the world that dosn't rape and pillage the conquered. We are the only ones that allow people to come here illegally and get medical help, an education, jobs etc. We put our lives on the line for peoples we don't know, and don't matter to us. We welcome the "huddled masses". We are hope. We are the light at the end of the tunnel.

Yep, you're about to see graphic video of how our empire rapes and pillages. BTW, why use the word "conquered"? Are you implying the US is out to conquer the Iraqis? The US INS does not allow people to come here illegally and get medical help, an education, jobs etc. True, many people slip thru undetected, but the US does not invite imigrants to just walk in and take advantage of all our free give aways. The US puts the lives of its soldiers on the line for profits. Sorry to say, but that is what Iraq is about...profits.

Hope this helps with your "buddy" :D

[NMDemDist2]

15. ROFL "buddy" is right eom