Which side makes a better case?
avatar
64 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • a year ago

    So happy about the existence of this resolution. I'm the daughter of an army veteran of three decades of service. And I seriously think this discussion is needed.
    But on a more humorous note: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMePJM86Ueo

  • a year ago

    Willing to take this debate right after, let me know

  • a year ago

    @daniel_jongeward thank you for the debate, it was a pleasure.

      • a year ago

        @troysimons31 I remember that one poll. It's cherry picked data and people were told they had weapons of mass distraction. Tune changed in 2005 and 2006

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward So wait... you are claiming the data was cherry picked here then used gallup news to discredit my gallup news article. Only to realize your article strengths my argument here.

      • a year ago

        @troysimons31 actually I was trying to show all the data including the 72 percent poll. To show how opinion changed almost right away. Since we don't have data before the 72 percent poll, I would question if it's just an outlier of the half sample size at the time of the poll. Wish I could find more info on the sample size. Although it makes sense for the time, people were legitimately scared of the unknown, and prone to be more in favor of wars.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward that isn't really a great argument. That it drop from 3% the percentage fluxuated for nearly seven years. Your argument was that a majority of the country didn't agree with us going into Iraq this polling data discredits that claim. It makes sense that people would want us out once we didn't find what we claimed. However, war is like wrestling with a friend, you can't yell time out or just tap out and have it be done that quickly. Unfortunately, once it begins there are process that must be followed to pull out.

      • a year ago

        @troysimons31 who cares what a majority of American thinks? A majority of Americans are mentally retarded.

      • a year ago

        @bronsonkaahui His facts were false here. So be as hyperbolic as you wish but stick to the material.

      • a year ago

        @troysimons31 I know I'm saying that doesn't matter. It's important to get your facts right but I would argue this is completely irrelevant and not a good indicator of good policy.

    • a year ago

      I don't like how this is worded, but basically, yes. And veterans themselves will tell you the same thing.

      https://www.salon.com/2017/07/12/please-stop-thanking-me-for-my-service/

      • a year ago

        @arkle awesome article thank you for sharing!

      • a year ago

        @arkle Garbage source; however comma that is also not what this debate what this debate was about. The flow from this debate is one that states 1) Veterans should not be thanked because they add no value to society. 2) Veterans do not assimilate back into society well, therefore, should not be thanked. 3) Veterans are a force not of the people but of some ethereal shadow controller.
        All of these points I have addressed in other debates, most recently my Iraq War was Justified debate.

      • a year ago

        @alot_like_locke "Garbage source;"

        Logical fallacy

        "however comma that is also not what this debate what this debate was about."

        English professors everywhere are suddenly reaching for their red pens, and they don't know why.

        "All of these points I have addressed in other debates, most recently my Iraq War was Justified debate."

        The Iraq War was based on lies. People like you who supported have the detahs on hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilains, and thousands of U.S> soldiers on your hands. Go to hell.

      • a year ago

        @arkle Logical fallacy how? I think you are misusing that point. It is perfectly logical to dispute the veracity of a source considering the bias built into it. Attacking my writing is not an argument. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens? Never happened. More than willing to debate you on this topic lame duck.

      • a year ago

        @arkle "The Iraq War was based on lies. People like you who supported have the detahs on hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilains, and thousands of U.S> soldiers on your hands. Go to hell." No better than my writing btw. ROFL

      • a year ago

        @alot_like_locke "Logical fallacy how? I think you are misusing that point."

        You never actually dispuited any point the article made. You just called it (and presumsably the veteran who wriote it) "garbage source."

        "It is perfectly logical to dispute the veracity of a source considering the bias built into it."

        And by bias you mean it doesn't agree with you therefore it must be wrong.

        "Attacking my writing is not an argument."

        *LOL* Asshole, you opened your reply to me by attacking someomne's writing!

        "Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens? Never happened. "

        Liar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War And before you go "Oh that's just Wikipedia," there's a list of the article's sources at the bottom. More than 200 sources.

        "More than willing to debate you on this topic lame duck."

        You don't want to debate, you want to browbeat me into agreeing with your propaganda. Not gonna happen. BTW, you aren't the first person to make a crack about me based on my avatar. And they are never funny, or original. But every dumb white Conseravtive Kool-Aid drinking racist jizz rag who makes those cracks act like they're Bill Hicks. It's pathetic, really. I cna't even be mad at you. I just pity you for how much a moral and ethical failure you are.

      • a year ago

        @alot_like_locke 1. Strawman agruements, the debate nowhere states that veterans as people add no value to society. 2. This should be by the case of the merit of the individual. Finding out the cause of this failure to assimilate and offering solutions is more important than pointless graditute.

      • a year ago

        @arkle Dodge the debate and insult me at unprecedented levels? Someone is mad! Did not attack the writing, attacked the source. Yes, it is very biased and therefore should not even be critically evaluated. It is Salon, the bottom-feeding SJW nonsense that thinks pedophilia is a natural sexual attraction. Your own source tends to disagree with your own position " The documents record 109,032 deaths broken down into "Civilian" (66,081 deaths), "Host Nation" (15,196 deaths),"Enemy" (23,984 deaths), and "Friendly" (3,771 deaths)." The source you are using the report criteria includes enemy fighters, the civilian population, and civilian population killed by insurgent forces. A Terrible claim that you did not even read. Also, i would rely more on the Brookings Institution for these numbers. Lastly, I love how you slam me for being a Kool-Aid drinking right winger when at the time of the war I was a Trotskyite and was still Pro-Iraq war.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward Debate the topic in video, not the thread. More than willing to

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward Never made point 1 as a claim. You by your own admission think the 'military' does not add value to society. The logical conclusion is that veterans with respect to the military add no value to society. Not the individual claim you are saying I am making.

      • a year ago

        @alot_like_locke the thread is turning into a personal argument, which is against the spirit of the sight. What's the saying, intellectuals debate, idiots argue. You both are kinda making idiots of yourself.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward How?

      • a year ago

        @alot_like_locke Attacking a source to dispute the content of an article is a Genetic Fallacy, same as an Ad Hominem. The bias of a source does not logically determine the truth of their statements. A broken clock is right at least twice a day, as the saying goes.

        Mind you, such fallacies only apply to deductive conclusions.

      • a year ago

        @sigfried I understand that; however, as has been pointed out numerous times on here logical fallacies are not always wrong, nor always a bad debate tactic. There is no reason for me to dispute something that obviously will lie to make a claim. Secondly, this applies to evidence as well, considering this was some random individual making a broad claim with no significant argument is there an actual need to dispute someone's vitriolic statements? Even if you do not agree with that, I gave the secondary statement about the source not link to the debate itself. It is an op-ed about a guy being pissy at Republicans, and that somehow people dying negates people thanking them for their service. If you read the op-ed it even contradicts a lot of points the side made, especially about handouts and such.

      • a year ago

        @alot_like_locke name calling on both sides. I believe it started when one of you said to go to a fictitious place of eternal torment. And you responded by calling him a disabled waterfowl. Ie: lame duck. Seems childish.

      • a year ago

        @daniel_jongeward Maybe childish, but it is most certainly entertaining. Secondly, insults are part and parcel of many debates, no reason to exclude it here. So long as points are being established and attacked, insults are just colorful sprinkles on a cake.

      • a year ago

        @alot_like_locke What do you mean they aren't wrong? They are fallacies, incorrect thinking. Illogical arguments in any deductive pursuit.

        You gave us no evidence that the author of that article was lying. You just made an assumption about it, a claim without support. That makes you the unreliable source, not the author.

        You also use the poisoning the well fallacy claiming the author is "random" whatever that is supposed to mean. And you call his article Vitriolic. I just went and read it. It is not the least bit vitriolic. It simply says that rather than thanking people for their service, instead, take political action to support veterans by keeping their medical benefits in tact.

        This is just a terrible line of argument on your behalf. Take on the editorials substance if you like, or explain why it is not typical of veteran views, or something, but just bad mouthing it hardly persuasive.

      • a year ago

        @alot_like_locke "It is Salon, the bottom-feeding SJW nonsense that thinks pedophilia is a natural sexual attraction."

        Fun fact: No one who uses the term SJW as a pejorative (an action whose history is deeply rooted in the anti-Semitic corners of the web) is worth taking seriously. Bye, Felicia.

      • a year ago
      • a year ago

        @arkle @Sigfried

      • a year ago

        @sigfried

      • a year ago
      • a year ago

        @arkle If you say the Iraq War was based on lies - I challenge you to actually READ the Resolution for use of military force in Iraq - which was passed in 2003 with bi-partisan support. The case for taking out Saddam is listed in 23 'Where As' statements.

        If the war was based on lies....please review the AUMF and tell me which of the "Where As" statements are lies? If it was based on lies - then it should be easy. If you can't do it...then you should re-check your facts and assumptions. I will stand by, anxiously awaiting with of those 'Where As' statements are lies...based on your review. Will you do it?

      • a year ago

        @sigfried A broken Navy clock is correct only 1 time a day...hence - it is superior.

      • a year ago

        @mvineyard "If you say the Iraq War was based on lies - I challenge you to actually READ the Resolution for use of military force in Iraq - which was passed in 2003 with bi-partisan support. The case for taking out Saddam is listed in 23 'Where As' statements."

        There were no WMDs, and Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. These were two of the buiggest justifications presented by the liars in the Bush Adminstration to justify this war. A bad idea with bi-partisan support is still a bad idea. A lie prefaced with a "whereas" is still a lie.

        "If the war was based on lies...."

        It was, and only very stupid people still believe them after more than a decade of the stated reasons for the war not turning out to be true.

        http://fair.org/home/bush-blair-and-the-lies-that-justified-the-illegal-iraq-war/

        "If it was based on lies -"

        It was. http://theweek.com/articles/555921/george-w-bush-didnt-just-lie-about-iraq-war-what-did-much-worse

        "If you can't do it...then you should re-check your facts and assumptions. I will stand by, anxiously awaiting with of those 'Where As' statements are lies...based on your review. Will you do it?"

        You mean will I play your stupid dishonest game? no. F*** you. A lie told with a whereas is not any less of a lie. Going by your metric, I am telling with the following sentence; "Whereas @mvineyard is a pedophile, he should be dragged from his home, castrated with a spork, and fed to rabid ferrets."

        FFS, your lie is so pathetic, even DONALD TRUMP, one of the stupidest men ever to hold the office of the Presidency knows it. https://theintercept.com/2016/02/18/trump-is-right-bush-lied-a-little-known-part-of-the-bogus-case-for-war/ Talk about a stopped clock moment.

      • a year ago

        @mvineyard So true!

      • a year ago

        @arkle WOW...what a bunch of lying crap. Why can't you pull up the AUMF (and to make it easy, I will post a link.) Then -tell me which one of the 23 'Where As' statements is a lie. Then we can go from there. The AUMF resolution is NOT an article written by a leftist with a room temperature IQ, it was a resolution debated in Congress and passed by both the House and Senate. IT is the JUSTIFICATION for military action.

        I presume you can't and won't, because it would be embarrassing for your case. Your response (an ignorant statement...first thing I would say - provide a case for calling me a pedophile....since you can't - it fails immediately. The AUMF - all those "Where As" are the legal basis for going into Iraq. It spells out the case. Find the lies...then get back to me.

        https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/31/text

      • a year ago

        @mvineyard "WOW...what a bunch of lying crap."

        No, that would be you.

        "Why can't you pull up the AUMF (and to make it easy, I will post a link.)"

        Considering that the AUMF was passed based on lies told to Congress by the Bush Admin, your bringing it up proves nothing.

        "Then -tell me which one of the 23 'Where As' statements is a lie. Then we can go from there."

        No, because you have already shown you don't care about facts. I'd tell you which ones were lies, but you'd just dismiss it all as crap. Like you did with everything I shared earlier. Note, you never offered an actual counterpoint. You just called it crap. I support my claim that the war was based on lies. You just parrot propaganda. You'd have made a good Nazi, that's for sure. How does it feel to know you are so gullible all someone has to do to mislead you is use flowery language?

        "The AUMF resolution is NOT an article written by a leftist with a room temperature IQ,"

        Now this is an actual ad hominem. Of coruse, it's cute that you who continue to support a war based on lies years after it was proven to be based on lies would clal anyone else stupid. Seriously, just kill yourself. You'd be doing the world a favor.

        "it was a resolution debated in Congress and passed by both the House and Senate. IT is the JUSTIFICATION for military action. "

        And it was based on lies. Your circular logic is so obvious that Creationists look down on nyou. And it wasn't just the U.S. Congres that was lied into war. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chilcot-report-inquiry-tony-blair-iraq-war-weapons-of-mass-destruction-evidence-verdict-a7122361.html

        "I presume you can't and won't, because it would be embarrassing for your case."

        Well, no. See, I'm telling the truth, and you aren't. You are, and I say this without exageration, using the same kind of logic that Anti-Semites use when they hold up The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as "proof" of Jewish conspriacies. You are a moron. You are the kind of gibbering idiot who uses "The Bible must be true beucase God wrote it" as legitamte debate.

        "Your response (an ignorant statement...first thing I would say - provide a case for calling me a pedophile....since you can't - it fails immediately. The AUMF - all those "Where As" are the legal basis for going into Iraq. It spells out the case. Find the lies...then get back to me."

        Well, see, I said "Whereas" before I called you a pedophile. Based on your (sole) defense of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, that is enough for you to accept something as true. Erego, that makes you a pedophile. Beucase I said Whereas before claling you a pedophile. That is going off YOUR standards.

        As for the lies in the AUMF, why should I bother? You have already shown a willingness to casually dismiss anything that doesn't agree with you by cracking jokes about people's IQs.

        You are not now and never were interested in serious debate. I've already wasted more time on you than you frankly deserve. Get incurable genital cancer and die already. It's nothing less than all defenders of illegal wars that get children killed and creates millions of refugees deserve.

      • a year ago

        @arkle I will end this discussion with the obvious fact that the AUMF has statements....you claim they are lies. If so - which ones...and it should be easy to prove that the lies are in fact LIES. BUT- you don't even want to .

        You throw up 'Elders of Zion' and other B.S. ....it becomes easy for someone take the EoZ document and quickly establish it is b.s. and full of lies. I would do so, if challenged. I would never claim the Bible is accurate with the only justification that God is the author.

        It is amazing at how upset and how diminished your reasoning has become as we continued this debate. Actually - I would be willing to challenge you that the AUMF has 23 'where as' statements are not lies.....and see if you will step up and actually debate the proposition. OR- you would likely tuck tail and hide....because it would require you to, in a debate forum, research and find with of the Where As statements are wrong. Easy to do, if you are correct. Tough to do, if you are afraid to look at it and argue it.

      • a year ago

        @mvineyard "You throw up 'Elders of Zion' and other B.S."

        I held up the Eoz as an EXAMPLE of B.S., very plainly. And you act as though IO was taking it seriously. So, are you an idiot basbelessly accusign me of being an anti-Semite, or a liar trying to paint me as an anti-Semite?

        "It is amazing at how upset and how diminished your reasoning has become as we continued this debate. "

        There hasn't been a debate. There's been you lying and acting smug. That's not debate, you imbecile.

        "Actually - I would be willing to challenge you that the AUMF has 23 'whereas' statements are not lies....."

        Again, just saying "whereas" doesn't make something true. You just won't let this go, will you? Fine. Whereas mvineyard totally rapes animals and corpses because it's the only way he can get an erection anymore since pictures of dead Iraqi civilians just doesn't do it for him anymore, he starts fights with, he is not worth takingn seriously, or being kept alive. If he has a prevision in his will against pulling the plug, do so anyway for the sake of saving national resources that could be spent on any number of superior items. Like adding vegan enchiladas to the Congressional cafetreria menu.

        " OR- you would likely tuck tail and hide....because it would require you to, in a debate forum, research and find with of the Where As statements are wrong. "

        Last time I provided evidence, you responded with nothing but ad hominems. You offer nothing of value to this conversation or the world in gneral. You are so fumnctionally imparied you honestly think you acting like a schoolyard bully with traumatic brain injuries counts as "debate." Do everyone a favor and go away, forever.

        "Easy to do, if you are correct. Tough to do, if you are afraid to look at it and argue it."

        I am correct. You are a moldy jiiz rag.

        https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/06/24/14969/search-935-iraq-war-false-statements

        935 lies. And you swallowed every single one of them. Pathetic, gullible little manbaby. But, oh, that article didn't say Whereas a bunch of times, so you won't care. So let me put it in terms you will understand.

        Whereas you are worthless, you sign an organ donor card, then kill yourself so you can finally contribute something of value to humanity.

      • a year ago

        @arkle Ask your mom to check your meds, it sounds like your lithium levels are low.
        You have been, by far, the most disgusting shred of humanity to visit this site....incapable of actually and rationally discussing issues.

        As to Iraq - yes - there were plenty of conflicting statements. Some of the 'lies' were actually proved to be not lies later on. I specifically listed the AUMF resolution because it is an actual statement of 'facts'....and they could be debated by rational intelligent people (that lets you out on both counts)...and a leftist could try to show which "where as" statements were false, and which ones they accept as true.

        For example - here are the first 2 Where As ...
        (1) Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against
        and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a
        coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order
        to defend the national security of the United States and enforce
        United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
        (2) Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into
        a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to
        which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate
        its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the
        means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for
        international terrorism;

        Any sentient life form with IQ above 67 would be able to state that both of these are valid and true - not lies. Leftists who are afraid to engage in honest and open debate won't consider looking that the 23 - point by point - and then try to explain why one or more was wrong.

        An honest debate would consider the first 'where as'.....while it was TRUE - was it wrong to engage in Desert Storm to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait? Some leftists would never challenge or oppose terrorism or military adventurism by 'bad actors'. They are 'peace at any time, peace and any price' - no war ever - the 'better Red than Dead'. At least be honest - rather than nasty.

      • a year ago

        @mvineyard "Ask your mom to check your meds, it sounds like your lithium levels are low."

        I'm not on any meds.

        "You have been, by far, the most disgusting shred of humanity to visit this site....incapable of actually and rationally discussing issues."

        No, that would be you; you support illegal wars that get people killed and your best defens is to point to a piece of paper that has the word 'whereas' on it a bunch of times.

        "As to Iraq - yes - there were plenty of conflicting statements. Some of the 'lies' were actually proved to be not lies later on."

        Proved by who?

        "I specifically listed the AUMF resolution because it is an actual statement of 'facts'....and they could be debated by rational intelligent people (that lets you out on both counts)...and a leftist could try to show which "where as" statements were false, and which ones they accept as true. "

        I love how you say I'm not ratiomnal when you're the one defending an illegal war in one thread, and a pedophile running for the Senate in another.

        "Any sentient life form with IQ above 67 would be able to state that both of these are valid and true - not lies."

        And neither of those statements prove anything. You just like them ebcuase they sound smart, and to Right Wing pond scum like you "sounds smart" trumps (no pun intended) "BEING smart" every time.

        "Leftists who are afraid to engage in honest and open debate won't consider looking that the 23 - point by point - and then try to explain why one or more was wrong."

        Because you will just call their soruces garbage when they counter you, like you've done before. You're a disaseed scrotum of a man who is so out of his godsdamned mind he is too stupid to understnad that "debate" doesn't mean "Agree with everyhting I say or I'll call you a stupid Leftist."

        "An honest debate would consider the first 'where as'.....while it was TRUE - was it wrong to engage in Desert Storm to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait?"

        As a matter of fact, an argument can be made. And the debate was had at the time. Not that you'd know that, that would require reading anything not written by some Nazi pedo on Breitbart.

        https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/91jul/layne.htm

        http://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/the-first-iraq-war-was-also-sold-to-the-public-based-on-a-pack-of-lies/

        Of course, being you you'll just dismiss those sources (probably without reading them) then keep brining up the whole 'Whereas' thing again, but I'm going to pretend you actually have more than two brain cells to rub together, just for the sake of argument.

        "Some leftists would never challenge or oppose terrorism or military adventurism by 'bad actors'."

        Actually, they would, but they'd have to actually be those things. Unlike your side, the party that while Dubya was in office spent intelligence resources spying on VEGANS! https://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/ACLU_sues_Homeland_Security_for_arresting_spying_on_vegans_who_protested_0922.html

        "They are 'peace at any time, peace and any price' - no war ever - the 'better Red than Dead'. At least be honest - rather than nasty."

        Wrong, but I expect nothing less from subhuman swine like you. No, the reality is the authoritarians whose shit you're swallowing daily are "war at any time, the profists of military contractors over country." No peace, ever. Peace frightens these people. That's why cokcsores like you will go on TV, social media, speak in documentaries and act as if the mere CONCEPT of world peace, as if the HYPOTHETICAL future envisioned by John Lennon's Image, or Star Trek even, is some kind of nightmare scenario. I have had shitty ass f**ksticks like you tell me to me face that they find the idea of a future where humans aren't killing each other over land and resources and religion and politics anymore, and I am being dead serious here, frightening. Stupid ass should-never-have-been-born monsters like you are TERRIFIED of peace.

        And yet you wonder why I hate you.

      • a year ago

        @arkle But - I don't hate you - I guess you are a pathetic leftist who has zero regard for the lives of millions of people living in oppression. Plenty of American leftists in 1939/1940 were very much opposed to any US involvement in the War in Europe (WWII) - because Germany and Russia/Soviet Union were allies. Once Hitler invaded Russia, these leftists suddenly supported US action against Nazi Germany. Plenty of leftists are not happy if some tyrant is killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. Leftists seem to be more happy with tyranny than free societies. AND - if hundreds of thousands or millions of people are killed in the name of achieving a socialist/communist utopia - they just don't care.

        My wish is that you would be able to live in a socialist society like Venezuela (where you would not be party of the 'party in power' - but be an average Venezuelan, with no rights, no freedom and no food.) OR - maybe be able to live in a country like Iraq before liberation - under the thuggish control of a tyrant...and you could glorify his rein over people, and the deaths would be irrelevant.

        But - you live in a country where better men (and women) than you ever could be are willing to protect this country. Yes - we do make mistakes. BUT - our country is not a country that oppresses other countries. Our 'invasion' of Iraq' was as a liberating force. Leftist idiots shouted 'No Blood For Oil"...yet we never seized the oil fields, and the Iraqi government opened up sales to the highest bidder - which was NOT the US. Somehow the leftists never acknowledged that we DIDN'T invade for their oil, we turned the country over to a government of Iraqi people. The vast number of civilian deaths were due to insurgents - NOT Americans...and the vast number of Iraqi people were grateful for liberation, and if upset, it was because we didn't have adequate forces to stop others from looting. Yet - unfeeling leftists act more unhappy that the nation was liberated - just as they seem unhappy that the USSR fell - because the God that they worship is communism - and the failure of the USSR was a blow to their psyche.... Maybe someday you will be fortunate enough to live under real socialism- I would love to see you live for 2 years in Venezuela....and see if you would still be a leftist.

      • a year ago

        @mvineyard "I guess you are a pathetic leftist who has zero regard for the lives of millions of people living in oppression."

        I could list off all the repressive regimes we haven't bombed so carelessly that we killed thousands of the people we were claiming (falsely, no matter how many f***ing times your stupid fingers type 'whereas') to liberate, but you'd probably ig nore it.

        "Plenty of American leftists in 1939/1940 were very much opposed to any US involvement in the War in Europe (WWII) - because Germany and Russia/Soviet Union were allies."

        Citation needed. I do know that many REPUBLICANS opposed going to war, and some even openly supported the Nazis. Oh, unlike you I have a source here. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Support_Hitler_US.html

        "Leftists seem to be more happy with tyranny than free societies."

        Says the guy whose party passes laws to take away people's reproductive rights. Says the guy whose party wants the government to control who can and can't use public restrooms. Says the guy whose party tries to censor scientific reports coming out of the EPA. Etc. ad infinitum.

        "AND - if hundreds of thousands or millions of people are killed in the name of achieving a socialist/communist utopia - they just don't care."

        Says the shit eating f**klord dumbass whose President is denyin a U.S. territory much needed disaster relief beucase he started a pissing contest with one of its mayors on Twitter. Shove your faux concern for humanity, no one is buying it. Except for people who are so stupid they should probably be kept in rubber rooms for their rest of their lives so they don't accidentally stab themselves with a doorknob.

        "My wish is that you would be able to live in a socialist society like Venezuela (where you would not be party of the 'party in power' - but be an average Venezuelan, with no rights, no freedom and no food.)"

        You mean a country that the American government tried to overthrow the democratically elected leader of back when he tried to make sure that the money for his country';s oil actually went to his citizens?

        "OR - maybe be able to live in a country like Iraq before liberation - under the thuggish control of a tyrant...and you could glorify his rein over people, and the deaths would be irrelevant."

        I already live in a country under a thuggish tyrant. His name is Trump.

        "But - you live in a country where better men (and women) than you ever could be are willing to protect this country."

        And scumsucking assholes like you vote for people who want to take away their health care.

        "Yes - we do make mistakes. BUT - our country is not a country that oppresses other countries."

        HA! This is your biggest lie yet. This lie can be seen from space. Here's just 7 countries we know about where the U.S. intervened and made things worse for the locals. http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/mapped-the-7-governments-the-u-s-has-overthrown/

        Though, most of those locals aren't white so of course you don't give a shit.

        "Our 'invasion' of Iraq' was as a liberating force."

        No it wasn't. This is lie on a level with Holocaust denial. Kill yourself.

        "The vast number of civilian deaths were due to insurgents - NOT Americans..."

        Citation needded, and no your stinky lying ass doesn't count.

        "and the vast number of Iraqi people were grateful for liberation"

        Another lie. https://www.globalpolicy.org/invasion-and-war/iraqi-public-opinion-and-polls.html Kill yourself.

        "and if upset, it was because we didn't have adequate forces to stop others from looting."

        That was the piss-poor excuse war criminal Don Rumsfeld used to justify allowing Iraqi museums to be sacked. Kill yourself.

        "Yet - unfeeling leftists act more unhappy that the nation was liberated "

        It wasn't liberated. You're a liar. Kill yourself. We murdered civilains there, destabilized the region, and by our actions created ISIS who only killed MORE Iaqi civilians, you heartless, subhuman piece of shit KILL YOURSELF ALREADY!

        "just as they seem unhappy that the USSR fell - because the God that they worship is communism - and the failure of the USSR was a blow to their psyche...."

        Look, dumbass, cheesy 80s action movies are not a legimate source for information on the Cold War.

        "Maybe someday you will be fortunate enough to live under real socialism- "

        That would be nice. I wouldn't have to worry about going bankrupt because I get a tooth infection. I wouldn't have to worry if the water coming out of my tap is going to be flammable. My tax dollars will actually go towards what they are suppsoed to go to instead of to some billionaire's asshole child who's biggest accomplishment in life happened when his sperm met his motehr's egg.

        "I would love to see you live for 2 years in Venezuela....and see if you would still be a leftist."

        I'd love to see you tell the truth & see if you can do it w/o your nose bleeding. That wasn't a threat BTW. I imagine you're stupid enough to think it was, so I should clarify now to be safe.

    • a year ago

      I don't know how it works out this way, but some kind of way any debate I am in, eventually has some argument in the comments section, lol. Man I love @qallout.

    • a year ago

      As anti-war as I am, I do appreciate military service. As Terrance points out by volunteering you saved me from the draft. And regardless of my feelings about foreign policy someone has to do it.