One thing on which I will agree with tunabun is the blind allegiance of troops to their leaders. People can be brainwashed. As much of a dolt Bush is he can get other dolts to see his point of view. If such was not true Hitler would not have been able to rise to power. Now, don't take that statement the wrong way. I am not comparing Hitler and Bush on their actions, but merely their ability to brainwash the masses into believing their point is the true and right course of action.
One thing on which I will agree with tunabun is the blind allegiance of troops to their leaders. People can be brainwashed. As much of a dolt Bush is he can get other dolts to see his point of view. If such was not true Hitler would not have been able to rise to power. Now, don't take that statement the wrong way. I am not comparing Hitler and Bush on their actions, but merely their ability to brainwash the masses into believing their point is the true and right course of action.
Come on now! Bush is just trying to stimulate the economy. He's got our back and will protect us to the very end!
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
I don't quite like you tunabun but boy is it entertaining watching you tear people apart so elegantly.
Hmmm....I would describe it as tearing into people eloquently. There's nothing particularly elegant in relying on personal attacks and "lol" as the backbone of your argument, when you disagree with someone.
I thought the part about defending the weak was funny...in this case I guess he means Coldmeat and Sawtooth...
I don't quite like you tunabun but boy is it entertaining watching you tear people apart so elegantly.
Hmmm....I would describe it as tearing into people eloquently. There's nothing particularly elegant in relying on personal attacks and "lol" as the backbone of your argument, when you disagree with someone.
I thought the part about defending the weak was funny...in this case I guess he means Coldmeat and Sawtooth...
Aww you caught that one too Egg. I was waiting to see if Coldmeat or Sawtooth would catch it and respond.
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Before I start, understand that this will be my final post in this thread. I have no desire to continue if not only the person being demolished can’t accept defeat but those reading the debate let their bias against me, my style, and my arrogance get in the way of an intelligent conclusion, which is, that I have not only won but ripped nearly every stance apart which was laid out in the childish and Mundanian fashion it was.
That being stated, I will move on to what will be a very long response. I believe, as it is quite obvious, that my lack of Socratic style is what people take offence to. I will attempt to change this for the length of this post, I will however return to my normal self serving, imaginary debate winning, ad hominem loving posts after this.
I would first like to address the posts by those of you not in the debate.
Originally posted by ntcrawler
I don't quite like you tunabun but boy is it entertaining watching you tear people apart so elegantly.
This was the response I was expecting, possibly I was overly optimistic that intellectual faculties would win over emotional "logic". Obviously someone who can separate their emotional connection from their intellectual one.
Originally posted by Produde He knows how to DEBATE, that makes him nothing more than a good orator. I don't entirely see how being a good orator who knows how to debate is in any way negative. You seem to by alluding that it is, as it is "nothing more". You mind explaining how being able to DEBATE or ORATE would garner negative conclusions? Manipulating peoples responses is his challenge. That doesn't preclude right, wrong or indifferent. Manipulating others' responses indeed does not preclude right, wrong, or indifferent. Luckily I do not rely on manipulation, but rather direct and obvious attacks on the structure, opinions, and logic of my opponent. I will however admit that I enjoy, as it is quite obvious, tearing down those who think themselves to know "the" answer to specific questions. Other than my obvious "fixed" joke can you find a multitude of examples where I repeatedly manipulate my opponents words rather than strictly debating them? Only that he can put words into sentences and berate those he sees as a twisted challenge. I admit fully my desire for my opponents individual humiliation, I don't see how you fail to realize I also berate, or rather debate, their points as well. Does your hatred for my style of argumentation force you to overlook such things? His self proclaimed victories only serve an inadequate and meager existence of his 'Real World'. Whether my existence is inadequate or meager is immaterial, my victories are obvious, self proclaimed or humbly accepted. Again, does your distaste for my style of debate fill your mind with so much hate that it completely shuts down your basic intellectual abilities to see the obvious and relatively simple victory I have attained here? Stay tuned for the required 'FIXED' response. Only to self serve. We all do things as a self service, as did you in this response, attempting to point out what you believed others might not see or say. As for fixing, I can merely fix words, I cannot however fix concepts, logic, or your base perceptions. Unfortunately we all have the aggravating task to recognize when we are clinging to an incorrect form of thought and adjust appropriately. Wouldn't you agree?
Originally posted by Sigin
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Average joe. That is laughable. Once again you prove that you know nothing about me. You assume to know my intellect, education level, and experiences.
Odd, you seem to be fairly fond of doing the exact same thing.
I'm glad some people are willing to look passed me and see what is obvious.
Originally posted by Dekron
One thing on which I will agree with tunabun is the blind allegiance of troops to their leaders. People can be brainwashed. As much of a dolt Bush is he can get other dolts to see his point of view. If such was not true Hitler would not have been able to rise to power. Now, don't take that statement the wrong way. I am not comparing Hitler and Bush on their actions, but merely their ability to brainwash the masses into believing their point is the true and right course of action.
That is the ONLY thing you can agree with. Better than nothing I suppose. I thank you for your response, although I will say there is very little that separates George and Dick's "approach" to leadership from Adolf's.
Different Era, identical processes.
Originally posted by EggFtegg
Hmmm....I would describe it as tearing into people eloquently.There's nothing particularly elegant in relying on personal attacks and "lol" as the backbone of your argument, when you disagree with someone.
I thought the part about defending the weak was funny...in this case I guess he means Coldmeat and Sawtooth...
Another person purposefully overlooking my attacks on the opponents point prior to the added personal attack.
Do you think you might be able to tally up the points in which personal attacks, and "lol" comments are indeed the backbone to my argument and not just an added personal touch in this debate?
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Aww you caught that one too Egg. I was waiting to see if Coldmeat or Sawtooth would catch it and respond.
As am I, hopefully either will chime in soon.
I will now give a simple rundown of the argument, points will be alloted as in chess. One point for a victory, zero for a loss, and half a point for a draw. I will compare responses to MY points, as I started the attack I don't feel it fair to give points to myself for my original points made, although I could very well do so. This will obviously be lengthy, it is most obviously self serving, and if you desire not to waste your time on it I understand.
My main point, aside from pleasing my own ego, is to point out that while a debate can be so utterly lopsided, the majority of you will allow your emotions to overtake your reason, failing to admit what is a clear and defined victory.
I would also like to point out, that if you do not believe my original attack was warranted, reread the first 40 or so responses, 13 of which were his, many of which alluded and directly attacked Coldmeat as being a conspiracy theorist, attempting to label his argument and character. Thusly warranting a vicious retort, and as Coldmeat concluded not to take that route, I decided to step in.
Keep in mind that my attacks are direct, they are not allusions or connecting in any way to the main argument, which is why I quoted sentence by sentence. I merely point this out as some seem to have not recognized this most transparent of points.
I dislike changing color, but I will use a green hue and italicize to keep it understandable.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Originally posted by tunabun
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Secondly the OP very much is taking this article and situation as some type of Neocon conspiracy.
Wow you went way back there to pull that one out. And the piece is very biased. A lot of people (who are not neocons) consider FDR to be one of the worst Presidents in History. He turned this country into a socialist instead of the free democracy that it should be.
As I pointed out in my response there was no attack on the point, merely fallacious argumentation. The only statement here that could have held water was the attack on it being bias, and only if he could have shown how the bias led to fabrications in the article. As nothing of the sort was shown, the point is conceded. 1-0
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Thirdly the President can take control all he wants, but if what he is doing is wrong he is going to find it very hard to command the troops.
Really, mind citing all thousands of examples in your "A Patriots Handbook" where a President or Military Leader found it difficult to command the troops into doing immoral, unethical, or illegal acts? I don't need to quote the Patriots Handbook. The UCMJ Clearly states that we are to report any infractions of the UCMJ. Rather than addressing my main point, "cite some examples that show a President or Military Leader finding it difficult to command their troops into doing immoral, unethical, or illegal acts" Cabe instead chose to address my added humor inducing personal attack. Again, no debate took place, another obvious misstep. 2-0
Originally posted by Cabe2323 The OP likes to make out that the soldiers are mindless beings who will say how high when the president says jump. But in fact we have very clear rules about questioning unlawful orders.
I guess everyone starts out with such an idealistic view on their governmental structure. I used to like "wholesome" Disney movies too. I am the Member of the US Navy. I have a much better Idea about the governmental structure then you do. All you have is internet ideas and silly conspiracies. I have history on my side. Thousands of US service members had PTSD because of the trama of dealing with Vietnam. They couldn't come to terms with the killing of Civilians who had bombs and weapons on them. Yet you seem to think that all the President needs to do is order the execution of some people protesting and we will do it. You have no idea how the Military works, nor do you have any real idea how we think. As this point is rather obvious, Military persons following orders at all time, as not doing so and questioning authority would not only garner a reprimand, it would cause the Military structure to not function in the way it is intended, as it is indeed not a democratic structure. Instead of attempting to debate factually, the many examples of soldier dissent, he instead opted to attack my knowledge and understanding, in which case having never debated me before, could in no way know. He then went on to add moot points that had nothing to do with what I had attacked, I guess trying to garner support through a empathetic stance, although the addition of bias facts pretty much negated that. Lastly he again pointed out my inability to understand the thought processes of the Military mind. As again the point was in no way attacked, be it direct or indirect, the issuance of the point is obvious. 3-0
Originally posted by Cabe2323
One of those things is preservation of Civilian casualities.
I love how your statement is oh so true yet not what you were intending. "prevention" I was tired and thinking of the comment in two ways. I actually meant to say the Preservation of Civilian life. Which is a huge priority of the military. There are numerous techniques and equipment that we do not use because it would cause excessive civilian casualities. Rather than submitting to the loss, which everyone could see, he went on to excuse and then elaborate on his supposed point. I would have given this a draw if he merely conceded that he made an error. The excuse of tiredness isn't valid, unless you would like to extend it to the rest of the flawed argument, in which case, it would make it fairly difficult to understand how then fully rested his ability to argue and debate is still well below par. 4-0.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Take the "war" in Iraq (which btw like the new orleans non- martial law incident, is also not really what it is, Since the WAr isn't actually a war since congress never declared war) We could of won by now very easily, but we are taking extreme measures to make sure we perserve civilian life to the best of our ability.
So winning means killing a mass portion of the populous, military and civilian alike? Ok, duly noted, you are on the "I don't believe in proportionality" side of the debate. No I said that if all we cared about was winning at all costs that is what we would of done. But we care about civilians and not causing casualities. So for some reason the conspiracy theorists think that the same military members who take extreme measures to not kill Iraqi Civilians, would turn around and kill American Civilians with no problems. I think my response was fairly weak here, although still a good blow as he indeed showed what victory means to him. As anyone knows, killing a mass amount of civilians would be no victory, merely mass murder. I tried to point this out through my proportionality statement, but to no avail. He went on to make statements that are provably and common sensibly false. As any student of history knows, Governments and Militaries only take measures to avoid civilian casualties when it serves them in another manner, namely in a propagandizing fashion. If the truth can be suppressed or the masses convinced no such actions would or will be taken. Even though I personally feel I won this point, I will call it a draw as it isn't as clear a victory as the others. 4.5-0.5
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Even to the point of placing our troops in greater danger. And people actually expect this type of military to go into a city and open fire on American Civilians? That is laughable.
Oh dear, placing your "volunteer" military troops in danger. I'm sure most civilians in the myriad countries in which the US has instigated or supported war in wish they could voluntarily be placed in the situation which has been forced upon them. We have a right to disagree with the actions of our politicians as well. So yes we are being placed in greater danger due to the planning that is being used by the military. But we care about protecting life and are willing to risk our lives in order to protect innocents ever where. The vast majority of the "Civilians" are actually happy that we helped them. They lived in an extremely oppressed country where the majority was treated horribly by the minority in power.
Again, I could have taken a much stronger position, using examples, in which the Government has done so, and with the medias help, made such massacres acceptable or even blamable on the people who were massacred. But as I know my history, sometimes I forget others do not. His response however was rather difficult to understand, and the parts which were obvious had an inverse factuality to them, as I think it is easily argued that most don't go into the military for the reasons stated and the vast majority of civilians who have been "rescued" by the US don't feel that way. Again, while I feel there was absolutely no real striking points in his statements here and that I achieved an obvious win state, I will refrain from declaring it as it was not as strong as the others. 5-1
When Grown Folks are Talking... Yes please let us get back to talking and when you learn some stuff come back and join the conversation. I think as I had a very easy 5-1 victory, this statement is rather ridiculous. No point given either way as It wasn't a point, and simply a personal jab, but if points were awarded, it's obvious that a -1 would be given to him as there is no logical way he could conclude victory in this first bout.
First game 5-1 victory for Tunabun? If you disagree, show where and adjust if you like.
1-0
As he didn't actually respond in point to my second section, merely bowing out because of a closing, and quite humorously realistic statement, he concedes the second games defeat. Not that I think a defense could have been made, as I was indeed on my game for this second tussle.
2-0
Even though totally unnecessary I took the liberty to debate his bow out. I may have an addictive personality. He, possibly prompted by ntcrawler's statement, chose to make a final response.
I will not give points to this section, I know I won the debate hands down, and if anyone would like to argue it they are welcome to. I will respond to these final comments and then let this thread die.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
I do not need to respond anything above that you have said.
Ya, you wouldn't be able to debate it anyway, so why bother right?
What is the point of debating your opinion? You haven't used any factual information. You claim your opinion as if it was the truth. Yet all you do is follow up your thoughts with more opinion.
Stating that everything that I have stated is opinion in no way proves it as so. You must show where.
If one truly believes that my concepts are opinions, be it, civilians across the globe have a great hatred for the American Government (and those who support it), due to it's long time stance of warmongering and hypocritic actions; the zero dollar value placed on life, exchanging it for material gain or, the blind Military allegiance, which is the absolute philosophy of any successful Military; all proven by myriad wars, secret wars, law changes, constitutional amendments, special bills, lobby powerhouses, weapon sales, broken UN decisions, obvious propagandizing, semantic abusing, fear embedding, and error refusing ways are mere opinions, not only based in non-fact, but bias as well, one must prove it, through sourcing, citing, or an appropriate argument.
In no way did this occur, only stating opinion that my facts and arguments were opinion. Falls well short of even closely resembling a solid stance.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Because you say it best yourself here. Your Paranoia clouds your mind. You see conspiracies because you want to.
I have more knowledge, ability, and intellect than you. I have clearer vision emotionally and intellectually than you. I am much better at reasoning, critical thought, and basic or advanced problem solving than you. All of which I've proven throughout this one sided episode some would label a debate.
So you have more knowledge, ability, and intellect than I do? A clearer vision emotionally and intellectually too? And you are better at reasoning, critical thought, and basic or advanced problem solving than I. Wow you were able to prove that in this thread too? You are amazing. Your level of self delusion is quite grand. I envy your imaginary world that you live in where you seem to be so amazing. Maybe one day you will wake up from this delision that you have created and begin to actually make a place in the regular world.
If I am delusional there must be examples that could be pointed out. My pointed example was in fact the whole debate. Again, stating I am something while not pointing out anything to prove it, where I gave the full argument as an example, none in turn was given, as it quite obviously couldn't be. I am neither delusional nor living in an imaginary world, I am simply arrogant in my positions, which causes people, even when defeated, to not want to admit to such an outcome.
Originally posted by Cabe2323I see the possibility of conspiracies when the evidence suggests as much, just because you are an average joe with average abilities who sucks on the teat of your governmental structure, doesn't mean I am wrong, my ideas are loopy or that I have a dysfunctional disorder. Average joe. That is laughable. Once again you prove that you know nothing about me. You assume to know my intellect, education level, and experiences.
Unless one was holding back said intellect, it was clearly and precicly shown throughout this debate. Ones education level and experiences are useless if one can not use them in a effective fashion, adding ones supposed intellect and then proceeding to communicate all three.
This would be a verifiable proof, would it not?
Originally posted by Cabe2323
You think that the government is actually competent enough to commit these types of acts. When I can see from being in the government that it isn't competent enough to build a road properly much less 99% of the conspiracies people float about.
The competence of the government isn't what we are debating but rather the inexhaustible stupidity of the average Joe, i.e., you.
Resorting to personal attacks. That is not a good sign at all. That is usually the sign of a very weak position. Obviously the competence of the government is exactly what the debate was about. You have chosen to try and change this into something else. But the OP and what we were actually talking about is directly related to the competence of the Government. The very question on the heart of this whole thread is whether the Government is creating a team to help with another situation like Katrina or to declare Martial Law so that Bush can stay in power. I think history has shown that the Government is in no way competent enough to pull off a military coup like that. It is a ridiculous theory of the anti government establishment. The very far wing of that group.
A Little background info here. I personally believe that the US Government should be much smaller and each state should be individually stronger as the Constitution and the Founding fathers intended. I believe that our Military should be removed from overseas and only used to protect our own territory. I also believe that Social welfare programs should be scaled back and that the States should individually take care of their own. So an "average joe sucking the governmental teat" I am not.
I appreciate these political standpoints mentioned here, they, minus the social programs, I would agree with.
However, the argument of Government competence is weak at best, the ability to confuse and control the masses is a much stronger point. Keeping those who can see through the lies in place by silencing them, through murder, character assassination, or mass propagandizing is all that is needed to keep the state in place. No one needs to be entirely competent, wise, or intelligent if those they are attempting to control are less wise, intelligent and are easily manipulated.
Although resorting to personal attacks can very well be a tell tale sign of a weak and disadvantageous position, it's fairly apparent that this is not the case hear. I argue points, and then make personal attacks because I find them enjoyable and entertaining. I can just as easily not make them, as shown here.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Your "certain level of paranoia" reeks of mail bomber living in a cabin in the woods. I think your critical thinking and reading and pondering has been too biased towards one side and that you should broaden your intellectual horizons.
If killing those in power who are destroying the lives and liberty of BILLIONS of people around the globe is what it takes then sure, I'm your huckleberry.
Ahh so American Service members are killing Billions of people huh? No blame should be placed on the terrorists who commit most of the killings. It is all our fault. That is a wonderful world view you have. You probably believe that 9/11 was our fault or maybe you even believe that the government did it. You probably believe that the Jews were at fault during the holocaust as well. Or maybe you don't believe that the Holocaust even took place?
The statement I believe is quite obviously not "American Service members" but rather "those in power".
While blame may be placed on a huge amount of individuals those with the most power, especially those who continually have placed weapons in the hands of said terrorists, trained them, used them, and then turned around and attempted to vilify them for the effect in which they themselves caused, deserve the maximum responsibility, punishment and hatred.
Whether I believe 9/11 was your fault, was state sponsored terrorism, the Jews deserved to be massacred, or if they even were is immaterial. The simple fact is that there is a countable number of individuals on this planet who are consciously, deliberately, and arrogantly spreading hate, death, and intolerance, all as to benifit them financially. Consistently and criminally going about life, asking the masses to follow the rules and regulations set in place, using this religious fervor to control society, whilst abusing every moral, ethical, and lawful outlet to its limit.
Originally posted by Cabe2323 Lol, I should broaden my horizons, I've lived all over the world, have close friends in 30 or more countries, most of which have major hardships and are directly affected by the self serving scumbag policies put out by your government. I doubt, compared to you, that I am the one in need of a mass awakening.
So, you don't have any friends in the hundreds of countries that recieve aid from the US? Or how about the millions upon millions of people that benefit from our aid? Not one of your friends either. So I guess a lot of your friends are European. The funny thing about the American Hate in other nations is it ins't exactly true. There was an article a couple of years back done by the BBC. Where the BBC reporter actually said that the reason people hate America is because they actually wish they were American.
I find it extremely humerous that while our country is looking at Universal healthcare options (somehting Europe has had for years) European countries are looking more and more at private options. I guess the grass always does look greener.
I have friends in many countries which have accepted aid from the US. This however means little as even if I were to point out their disdain for your republic, they would simply be called ungrateful. I can assure you, there are few, if any, people in this world who hate Americans because of jealousy, financial, freedoms, or otherwise. To say such a thing shows can only mean that one has not really met the majority of people out there, at least truly affected ones.
American hate is true, and world engulfing, getting worse by the day, if you honestly think it is not so, travel. Do not get the message mixed up, while you make take it personally, it's not Americans as individuals who are loathed, but the Government. The only level of disgust that may be placed on each individual American is the ignorance they continue to cling to, as you are the ones who are able to stop your Government from doing the things they are.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
You seem to think that everyone in the military is incapable of individual thoughts, which means you are sadly mistaken. Don't take the actions of a few bad apples who are unable to determine the difference between a lawful order and an unlawful one fool you into thinking you know the Military as a whole.
Not everyone, I have many friends in the US Military, most in the Army and one in the Airforce, many of them are intelligent enough to admit the backwards stance your government takes on Human Life.
Find me a single Military in history that was in any significant wars who held human life in greater regard. Please do. I would love to see one. The US has always attempted to protect as many civilians as possible.
We are supposedly much more civil than previous nations, war should, if at all an occurrence, be more humane now. The sad reality, it is not. Just because you do not see it on television, does not mean it doesn't occur, from the wars instigated in the 20th century to the wars supported now in the 21st century, little has changed. massacres are still occurring. The only thing that has really changed is outsourcing, not only does the US outsource cheap labor, they outsource dirty business, as making sure that the majority of their population sees the country as a heroic and valiant state is of utmost importance, allowing them to go about their business unimpeded and in the most casual and callous of fashions.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
I'll take your advice however, I won't let the imbecilic disgorgement of a so called educated individual sour my faith in higher education.
Falling back on the personal attacks.
Although indeed a personal attack it was also an obvious character trait that needed to be pointed out. Ones accolades can not save them in serious debate.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Unlike you I have a formal education and I have been exposed to numerous different teachers with differing views from the far left to the far right. I have been able to take that learning and combine it with living overseas to formulate a very unbiased view of our nation.
Unlike you I don't rely on my education as a supposed proof of my knowledge and open-mindedness. I show it through my words and deeds. You are one of the more biased posters on this site, it's humorous that you would claim the opposite.
Ha. I am one of the more biased posters on this site? That is extremely funny. Unlike you who I actually have liberal and conservative views.
Believing ones self not bias merely because one has views on both sides of the politically labeled debate in no way proves one is not bias. Those who cannot admit simple and obvious truths, even when those obvious and simple truths are shown everyday and in myriad ways, it is hard to not see that individual as not being bias when they choose to overlook such boldfaced conclusions.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
You seem to call me out like I am some type of sheep who follows blindly and yet you know nothing about me. All you know is that I am in the Military. You know nothing of my Political Views nor of my Personal views. You know nothing about my history at all.
I call you out because you are wrong, I put you in your place, and then we, the royal we, laugh at you. I know what you lay down in text, and that is merely what I argued. I know your wife has a psychology degree and doesn't require her mates to have much intellect. I know you think that education in a scholastic polygonal structure means something grand. You are correct, I know little of your history, but luckily, knowing your history is in no way needed to hand you your literal carcass.
Hand me what? Once again you follow up with personal opinions and personal attacks. You don't back up anything you say with any factual unbaised information. You are extremely biased in your arguement and unwilling to deter from your supposed higher ground. I hope you and your "royal" enjoy your laughs.
Again, saying things are opinion, biased, and erroneous does not make them so, one must show how they are.
There is no way to convince an individual of their flaws if they have already convinced themselves that it is their opponent which lacks logic, facts, and precise thought. When they, their entire argument, and every idea, response, and conclusion they come to is exactly what they accuse their opponent of fumbling into. There is nothing more that can be said.
I'm sure you'd agree.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
And on a side note. I have never actually seen you bury a thread Tunabun. Does your crushing wins in debates take place in your head?
Lol, I've never lost any debate on this forum. I defend the weak from delusio-intellectuals such as yourself. You are mildly entertaining but you aren't even close to a challenge. I'm sure I'm hated here but I can guarantee that anyone with any level of knowledge of logical debate could verify how horribly fallacious nearly everything you have stated here is.
It is funny that you actually call me fallacious. Considering you do not make use of any facts at all. You spout off your opinion like you should dare not be questioned. Your ideas are baised and twisted and have no real standing in fact.
The actual arguement was about the usage of Clergy in response to disasters. The OP and a lot of others try to turn this into sometype of neocon/religious right conspiracy to take over the country. They attempt to say that it would be better to use mental health professionals to provide the service. Sure that would be fine, as long as they are willing to pay the extra taxes to cover the cost of using mental health professionals.
For instance a Chaplain in the US Navy makes roughly 4K per month to provide this service. A Psychologist in the Navy makes 6250 per month if they are the same rank as that chaplain. For a civilian psychologist you are looking from about 100-300 dollars per hour. Not to mention the extraordinary risk of placing the civilian in a war like situation.
I thoroughly enjoyed the supposed shredding I recieved. It gave me a good laugh.
I guess what may have lacked in your educational experience was the concept of logical debate. Although I can indeed use facts to win arguments, I have no such requirement when I am consistently faced with logical inaccuracies. I merely have to point out the flaw, and wait for a rebbutal, if there is one. In this case very little was ever challenged, just new comments brought up, points not addressed and fallacious, immaterial, and out of place points made. As I already stated, I cannot convince someone of your personality type that you have lost this particular debate with me, you will have to come to terms with it.
Whether you do or don't has no bearing on the outcome achieved here.
I'll restate, you, and those like you are the quintessential example of why throughout history monsters masquerading as men have been able to destroy so much life and happiness.
I hope those who bothered to read this entire excerpt chose to open their mind and allow the hate they have for my stylistic tendencies to slip away. The way I debate should not preclude my loss or victory, but merely the points made control the end state.
Aww you caught that one too Egg. I was waiting to see if Coldmeat or Sawtooth would catch it and respond.
As am I, hopefully either will chime in soon.
I will now give a simple rundown of the argument, points will be alloted as in chess. One point for a victory, zero for a loss, and half a point for a draw. I will compare responses to MY points, as I started the attack I don't feel it fair to give points to myself for my original points made, although I could very well do so. This will obviously be lengthy, it is most obviously self serving, and if you desire not to waste your time on it I understand.
My main point, aside from pleasing my own ego, is to point out that while a debate can be so utterly lopsided, the majority of you will allow your emotions to overtake your reason, failing to admit what is a clear and defined victory.
I would also like to point out, that if you do not believe my original attack was warranted, reread the first 40 or so responses, 13 of which were his, many of which alluded and directly attacked Coldmeat as being a conspiracy theorist, attempting to label his argument and character. Thusly warranting a vicious retort, and as Coldmeat concluded not to take that route, I decided to step in.
Keep in mind that my attacks are direct, they are not allusions or connecting in any way to the main argument, which is why I quoted sentence by sentence. I merely point this out as some seem to have not recognized this most transparent of points.
I dislike changing color, but I will use a green hue and italicize to keep it understandable.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Originally posted by tunabun
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Secondly the OP very much is taking this article and situation as some type of Neocon conspiracy.
Wow you went way back there to pull that one out. And the piece is very biased. A lot of people (who are not neocons) consider FDR to be one of the worst Presidents in History. He turned this country into a socialist instead of the free democracy that it should be.
As I pointed out in my response there was no attack on the point, merely fallacious argumentation. The only statement here that could have held water was the attack on it being bias, and only if he could have shown how the bias led to fabrications in the article. As nothing of the sort was shown, the point is conceded. 1-0 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
Obviously this example is not of Neconservatism since Neocons didn't exist at the time. Originally posted by Cabe2323
Thirdly the President can take control all he wants, but if what he is doing is wrong he is going to find it very hard to command the troops.
Really, mind citing all thousands of examples in your "A Patriots Handbook" where a President or Military Leader found it difficult to command the troops into doing immoral, unethical, or illegal acts? I don't need to quote the Patriots Handbook. The UCMJ Clearly states that we are to report any infractions of the UCMJ. Rather than addressing my main point, "cite some examples that show a President or Military Leader finding it difficult to command their troops into doing immoral, unethical, or illegal acts" Cabe instead chose to address my added humor inducing personal attack. Again, no debate took place, another obvious misstep. 2-0 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre I suggest you look at Warrant Officer Thompson's response.
"Heroes of My Lai"
In 1998, two former U.S. servicemen who stopped their comrades from killing a number of villagers, significantly reducing casualties at My Lai, were awarded the Soldier's Medal awards in Washington D.C. [18] The two veterans also contacted with the survivors of My Lai.
Also from that same article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense Following orders was not a good enough defense for the Nuremberg Trials. Nazi Soldiers were tried and found guilty for not doing the right thing.
Originally posted by Cabe2323 The OP likes to make out that the soldiers are mindless beings who will say how high when the president says jump. But in fact we have very clear rules about questioning unlawful orders.
I guess everyone starts out with such an idealistic view on their governmental structure. I used to like "wholesome" Disney movies too.
I am the Member of the US Navy. I have a much better Idea about the governmental structure then you do. All you have is internet ideas and silly conspiracies. I have history on my side.
Thousands of US service members had PTSD because of the trama of dealing with Vietnam. They couldn't come to terms with the killing of Civilians who had bombs and weapons on them. Yet you seem to think that all the President needs to do is order the execution of some people protesting and we will do it.
You have no idea how the Military works, nor do you have any real idea how we think.
As this point is rather obvious, Military persons following orders at all time, as not doing so and questioning authority would not only garner a reprimand, it would cause the Military structure to not function in the way it is intended, as it is indeed not a democratic structure. Instead of attempting to debate factually, the many examples of soldier dissent, he instead opted to attack my knowledge and understanding, in which case having never debated me before, could in no way know.
He then went on to add moot points that had nothing to do with what I had attacked, I guess trying to garner support through a empathetic stance, although the addition of bias facts pretty much negated that. Lastly he again pointed out my inability to understand the thought processes of the Military mind.
As again the point was in no way attacked, be it direct or indirect, the issuance of the point is obvious. 3-0
Once again this shows an example of soldiers not following orders and not only doing the right thing but getting medals for it.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials." (Bill Moyers, "The Secret Government", Seven Locks Press; also in the PBS 1987 documentary, "The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis")
Senator Inouye was referring to the Nuremberg trials in the post WW II era, when the U.S. tried Nazi war criminals and did not allow them to use the reason or excuse that they were only "following orders" as a defense for their war crimes which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children. "In 1953, the Department of Defense adopted the principles of the Nuremberg Code as official policy" of the United States. (Hasting Center Report, March-April 1991)
"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.
The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.
The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity).
Probably the most famous case of the "I was only following orders" defense was the court-martial (and conviction for premeditated murder) of First Lieutenant William Calley for his part in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968. The military court rejected Calley's argument of obeying the order of his superiors. On March 29, 1971, Calley was sentenced to life in prison. However, the public outcry in the United States following this very publicized and controversial trial was such that President Nixon granted him clemency. Calley wound up spending 3 1/2 years under house arrest at Fort Benning Georgia, where a federal judge ultimately ordered his release.
In 2004, the military began court-martials of several military members deployed to Iraq for mistreating prisoners and detainees.
zSB(3,3)
Several members claimed that they were only following the orders of military intelligence officials. Unfortunately (for them), that defense won't fly. The mistreatment of prisoners is a crime under both international law, and the Uniform Code of Military JusticeOriginally posted by Cabe2323
One of those things is preservation of Civilian casualities.
I love how your statement is oh so true yet not what you were intending. "prevention" I was tired and thinking of the comment in two ways. I actually meant to say the Preservation of Civilian life. Which is a huge priority of the military. There are numerous techniques and equipment that we do not use because it would cause excessive civilian casualities. Rather than submitting to the loss, which everyone could see, he went on to excuse and then elaborate on his supposed point. I would have given this a draw if he merely conceded that he made an error. The excuse of tiredness isn't valid, unless you would like to extend it to the rest of the flawed argument, in which case, it would make it fairly difficult to understand how then fully rested his ability to argue and debate is still well below par. 4-0. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre As shown in numerous examples throughout this post. The military holds Civilians in very high regard. They punish any unlawful engagement of civilians. http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1241111,00.html www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/04/iraq.family.slain/index.html rawstory.com/news/afp/US_soldiers_get_punished_for_crimes_02252007.html
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Take the "war" in Iraq (which btw like the new orleans non- martial law incident, is also not really what it is, Since the WAr isn't actually a war since congress never declared war) We could of won by now very easily, but we are taking extreme measures to make sure we perserve civilian life to the best of our ability.
So winning means killing a mass portion of the populous, military and civilian alike? Ok, duly noted, you are on the "I don't believe in proportionality" side of the debate. No I said that if all we cared about was winning at all costs that is what we would of done. But we care about civilians and not causing casualities. So for some reason the conspiracy theorists think that the same military members who take extreme measures to not kill Iraqi Civilians, would turn around and kill American Civilians with no problems. I think my response was fairly weak here, although still a good blow as he indeed showed what victory means to him. As anyone knows, killing a mass amount of civilians would be no victory, merely mass murder. I tried to point this out through my proportionality statement, but to no avail. He went on to make statements that are provably and common sensibly false. As any student of history knows, Governments and Militaries only take measures to avoid civilian casualties when it serves them in another manner, namely in a propagandizing fashion. If the truth can be suppressed or the masses convinced no such actions would or will be taken. Even though I personally feel I won this point, I will call it a draw as it isn't as clear a victory as the others. 4.5-0.5 www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/world/middleeast/21cnd-casualties.html www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/military_analyst_says_rules_of.php
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Even to the point of placing our troops in greater danger. And people actually expect this type of military to go into a city and open fire on American Civilians? That is laughable.
Oh dear, placing your "volunteer" military troops in danger. I'm sure most civilians in the myriad countries in which the US has instigated or supported war in wish they could voluntarily be placed in the situation which has been forced upon them. We have a right to disagree with the actions of our politicians as well. So yes we are being placed in greater danger due to the planning that is being used by the military. But we care about protecting life and are willing to risk our lives in order to protect innocents ever where. The vast majority of the "Civilians" are actually happy that we helped them. They lived in an extremely oppressed country where the majority was treated horribly by the minority in power.
Again, I could have taken a much stronger position, using examples, in which the Government has done so, and with the medias help, made such massacres acceptable or even blamable on the people who were massacred. But as I know my history, sometimes I forget others do not. His response however was rather difficult to understand, and the parts which were obvious had an inverse factuality to them, as I think it is easily argued that most don't go into the military for the reasons stated and the vast majority of civilians who have been "rescued" by the US don't feel that way. Again, while I feel there was absolutely no real striking points in his statements here and that I achieved an obvious win state, I will refrain from declaring it as it was not as strong as the others. 5-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai Perfect example of the people who tried to cover it up got fired. The general in charge of the Pat Tillman investigation got censured for covering things up and if he hasn't already will lose a star for it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camps
I think it would be pretty safe to say that all the people in these camps were very happy they got saved by the American Soldiers. They don't look to unhappy either.
BAGHDAD, IRAQ (BCF)–As democracy strives to take root in Iraq the resulting clash of powers and terrorist attacks are the story of the day. According to one U.S. soldier, however, there is so much more to the military’s work that is never communicated outside of Iraq.
Baptist College of Florida graduate, Captain Peter Keough, is a chaplain in the U.S. Army serving in Iraq where he leads the Task Force 519th “VIPER” chaplain office. The task force has unofficially adopted a local special needs orphanage located in the east Baghdad region as their special project. According to Keough, the experience has proven truly life changing for the soldiers.
“This is one of the things that allows soldiers to do something that brings levity and peace and an understanding of just why we are here to their hearts and minds,” Keough explains of the special project he is spearheading during his one year deployment from his station at Fort Polk, Louisiana. “We know our military mission is right and true and are honored to be here, but it sure does help to see it in the eyes of the children when we go for a visit.”
Each child at the Iraqi orphanage suffers from a severely debilitating special need as the result of birth defects or disease. All have been abandoned by their parents. A three-year-old named Nora, Keough says, amazes him with each visit.
Nora was found in a toilet at just a few weeks of age. She was born without arms or legs and left abandoned by her parents. Despite the difficulties, Keough says she has proven to be “quite a handful” scooting around the room in a plastic chair on the tile floors. “Her determination and sense of humor, especially for a three year old, is amazing,” he marvels. “She warmed up to this old ‘chaplain with the funny hair’ and became my little buddy.”
Lunch time became a game as the St. Augustine native soldier fed her during each visit. “She would shake her head each time I put the food in her mouth,” he said of her playful nature. “I found myself thinking about my own children and when I would feed them. I would open my mouth as they opened theirs as if I was going to eat the food,” he recalls. “The trip to the orphanage has made me realize what a privilege having and raising children really is and that we can take that for granted.”
Many of the children have spent their entire lives at the orphanage while others arrived only a few months ago. While adoption is rare for these special needs children, Keough relays a good news story of a National Guard captain from Wisconsin who recently adopted a little boy named Allah from the orphanage. According to all reports, the family is doing well in the United States.
“The trip to the orphanage reminds me of James 1:27a where it says ‘Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble,’” explains the soldier. “I saw the work of Christ alive and well in that orphanage.”
“I take a group of soldiers each month to help them realize that we are in Iraq making a difference,” says Keough. “You will probably never see the real work of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on CNN or FOX. That is unfortunate, but let me tell you, they are making a difference and I am proud to be serving by their sides in the midst of this operation, living out the Gospel of peace in a place of war.”
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Comments
One thing on which I will agree with tunabun is the blind allegiance of troops to their leaders. People can be brainwashed. As much of a dolt Bush is he can get other dolts to see his point of view. If such was not true Hitler would not have been able to rise to power. Now, don't take that statement the wrong way. I am not comparing Hitler and Bush on their actions, but merely their ability to brainwash the masses into believing their point is the true and right course of action.
Come on now! Bush is just trying to stimulate the economy. He's got our back and will protect us to the very end!
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
I thought the part about defending the weak was funny...in this case I guess he means Coldmeat and Sawtooth...
I thought the part about defending the weak was funny...in this case I guess he means Coldmeat and Sawtooth...
Aww you caught that one too Egg. I was waiting to see if Coldmeat or Sawtooth would catch it and respond.
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Before I start, understand that this will be my final post in this thread. I have no desire to continue if not only the person being demolished can’t accept defeat but those reading the debate let their bias against me, my style, and my arrogance get in the way of an intelligent conclusion, which is, that I have not only won but ripped nearly every stance apart which was laid out in the childish and Mundanian fashion it was.
That being stated, I will move on to what will be a very long response. I believe, as it is quite obvious, that my lack of Socratic style is what people take offence to. I will attempt to change this for the length of this post, I will however return to my normal self serving, imaginary debate winning, ad hominem loving posts after this.
I would first like to address the posts by those of you not in the debate.
Originally posted by ntcrawler
I don't quite like you tunabun but boy is it entertaining watching you tear people apart so elegantly.
This was the response I was expecting, possibly I was overly optimistic that intellectual faculties would win over emotional "logic". Obviously someone who can separate their emotional connection from their intellectual one.
Odd, you seem to be fairly fond of doing the exact same thing.
I'm glad some people are willing to look passed me and see what is obvious.
That is the ONLY thing you can agree with. Better than nothing I suppose. I thank you for your response, although I will say there is very little that separates George and Dick's "approach" to leadership from Adolf's.
Different Era, identical processes.
Another person purposefully overlooking my attacks on the opponents point prior to the added personal attack.
Do you think you might be able to tally up the points in which personal attacks, and "lol" comments are indeed the backbone to my argument and not just an added personal touch in this debate?
As am I, hopefully either will chime in soon.
I will now give a simple rundown of the argument, points will be alloted as in chess. One point for a victory, zero for a loss, and half a point for a draw. I will compare responses to MY points, as I started the attack I don't feel it fair to give points to myself for my original points made, although I could very well do so. This will obviously be lengthy, it is most obviously self serving, and if you desire not to waste your time on it I understand.
My main point, aside from pleasing my own ego, is to point out that while a debate can be so utterly lopsided, the majority of you will allow your emotions to overtake your reason, failing to admit what is a clear and defined victory.
I would also like to point out, that if you do not believe my original attack was warranted, reread the first 40 or so responses, 13 of which were his, many of which alluded and directly attacked Coldmeat as being a conspiracy theorist, attempting to label his argument and character. Thusly warranting a vicious retort, and as Coldmeat concluded not to take that route, I decided to step in.
Keep in mind that my attacks are direct, they are not allusions or connecting in any way to the main argument, which is why I quoted sentence by sentence. I merely point this out as some seem to have not recognized this most transparent of points.
I dislike changing color, but I will use a green hue and italicize to keep it understandable.
Because those don't exist. lol.
Wow you went way back there to pull that one out. And the piece is very biased. A lot of people (who are not neocons) consider FDR to be one of the worst Presidents in History. He turned this country into a socialist instead of the free democracy that it should be.
As I pointed out in my response there was no attack on the point, merely fallacious argumentation. The only statement here that could have held water was the attack on it being bias, and only if he could have shown how the bias led to fabrications in the article.
As nothing of the sort was shown, the point is conceded. 1-0
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Thirdly the President can take control all he wants, but if what he is doing is wrong he is going to find it very hard to command the troops.
Really, mind citing all thousands of examples in your "A Patriots Handbook" where a President or Military Leader found it difficult to command the troops into doing immoral, unethical, or illegal acts?
I don't need to quote the Patriots Handbook. The UCMJ Clearly states that we are to report any infractions of the UCMJ.
Rather than addressing my main point, "cite some examples that show a President or Military Leader finding it difficult to command their troops into doing immoral, unethical, or illegal acts" Cabe instead chose to address my added humor inducing personal attack.
Again, no debate took place, another obvious misstep. 2-0
Originally posted by Cabe2323
The OP likes to make out that the soldiers are mindless beings who will say how high when the president says jump. But in fact we have very clear rules about questioning unlawful orders.
I guess everyone starts out with such an idealistic view on their governmental structure. I used to like "wholesome" Disney movies too.
I am the Member of the US Navy. I have a much better Idea about the governmental structure then you do. All you have is internet ideas and silly conspiracies. I have history on my side.
Thousands of US service members had PTSD because of the trama of dealing with Vietnam. They couldn't come to terms with the killing of Civilians who had bombs and weapons on them. Yet you seem to think that all the President needs to do is order the execution of some people protesting and we will do it.
You have no idea how the Military works, nor do you have any real idea how we think.
As this point is rather obvious, Military persons following orders at all time, as not doing so and questioning authority would not only garner a reprimand, it would cause the Military structure to not function in the way it is intended, as it is indeed not a democratic structure. Instead of attempting to debate factually, the many examples of soldier dissent, he instead opted to attack my knowledge and understanding, in which case having never debated me before, could in no way know.
He then went on to add moot points that had nothing to do with what I had attacked, I guess trying to garner support through a empathetic stance, although the addition of bias facts pretty much negated that. Lastly he again pointed out my inability to understand the thought processes of the Military mind.
As again the point was in no way attacked, be it direct or indirect, the issuance of the point is obvious. 3-0
Originally posted by Cabe2323
One of those things is preservation of Civilian casualities.
I love how your statement is oh so true yet not what you were intending.
"prevention"
I was tired and thinking of the comment in two ways. I actually meant to say the Preservation of Civilian life. Which is a huge priority of the military. There are numerous techniques and equipment that we do not use because it would cause excessive civilian casualities.
Rather than submitting to the loss, which everyone could see, he went on to excuse and then elaborate on his supposed point. I would have given this a draw if he merely conceded that he made an error. The excuse of tiredness isn't valid, unless you would like to extend it to the rest of the flawed argument, in which case, it would make it fairly difficult to understand how then fully rested his ability to argue and debate is still well below par.
4-0.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Take the "war" in Iraq (which btw like the new orleans non- martial law incident, is also not really what it is, Since the WAr isn't actually a war since congress never declared war) We could of won by now very easily, but we are taking extreme measures to make sure we perserve civilian life to the best of our ability.
So winning means killing a mass portion of the populous, military and civilian alike? Ok, duly noted, you are on the "I don't believe in proportionality" side of the debate.
No I said that if all we cared about was winning at all costs that is what we would of done. But we care about civilians and not causing casualities. So for some reason the conspiracy theorists think that the same military members who take extreme measures to not kill Iraqi Civilians, would turn around and kill American Civilians with no problems.
I think my response was fairly weak here, although still a good blow as he indeed showed what victory means to him. As anyone knows, killing a mass amount of civilians would be no victory, merely mass murder. I tried to point this out through my proportionality statement, but to no avail. He went on to make statements that are provably and common sensibly false. As any student of history knows, Governments and Militaries only take measures to avoid civilian casualties when it serves them in another manner, namely in a propagandizing fashion. If the truth can be suppressed or the masses convinced no such actions would or will be taken.
Even though I personally feel I won this point, I will call it a draw as it isn't as clear a victory as the others. 4.5-0.5
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Even to the point of placing our troops in greater danger. And people actually expect this type of military to go into a city and open fire on American Civilians? That is laughable.
Oh dear, placing your "volunteer" military troops in danger. I'm sure most civilians in the myriad countries in which the US has instigated or supported war in wish they could voluntarily be placed in the situation which has been forced upon them.
We have a right to disagree with the actions of our politicians as well. So yes we are being placed in greater danger due to the planning that is being used by the military. But we care about protecting life and are willing to risk our lives in order to protect innocents ever where.
The vast majority of the "Civilians" are actually happy that we helped them. They lived in an extremely oppressed country where the majority was treated horribly by the minority in power.
Again, I could have taken a much stronger position, using examples, in which the Government has done so, and with the medias help, made such massacres acceptable or even blamable on the people who were massacred. But as I know my history, sometimes I forget others do not. His response however was rather difficult to understand, and the parts which were obvious had an inverse factuality to them, as I think it is easily argued that most don't go into the military for the reasons stated and the vast majority of civilians who have been "rescued" by the US don't feel that way.
Again, while I feel there was absolutely no real striking points in his statements here and that I achieved an obvious win state, I will refrain from declaring it as it was not as strong as the others.
5-1
When Grown Folks are Talking...
Yes please let us get back to talking and when you learn some stuff come back and join the conversation.
I think as I had a very easy 5-1 victory, this statement is rather ridiculous. No point given either way as It wasn't a point, and simply a personal jab, but if points were awarded, it's obvious that a -1 would be given to him as there is no logical way he could conclude victory in this first bout.
First game 5-1 victory for Tunabun? If you disagree, show where and adjust if you like.
1-0
As he didn't actually respond in point to my second section, merely bowing out because of a closing, and quite humorously realistic statement, he concedes the second games defeat. Not that I think a defense could have been made, as I was indeed on my game for this second tussle.
2-0
Even though totally unnecessary I took the liberty to debate his bow out. I may have an addictive personality. He, possibly prompted by ntcrawler's statement, chose to make a final response.
I will not give points to this section, I know I won the debate hands down, and if anyone would like to argue it they are welcome to. I will respond to these final comments and then let this thread die.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
I do not need to respond anything above that you have said.
Ya, you wouldn't be able to debate it anyway, so why bother right?
What is the point of debating your opinion? You haven't used any factual information. You claim your opinion as if it was the truth. Yet all you do is follow up your thoughts with more opinion.
Stating that everything that I have stated is opinion in no way proves it as so. You must show where.
If one truly believes that my concepts are opinions, be it, civilians across the globe have a great hatred for the American Government (and those who support it), due to it's long time stance of warmongering and hypocritic actions; the zero dollar value placed on life, exchanging it for material gain or, the blind Military allegiance, which is the absolute philosophy of any successful Military; all proven by myriad wars, secret wars, law changes, constitutional amendments, special bills, lobby powerhouses, weapon sales, broken UN decisions, obvious propagandizing, semantic abusing, fear embedding, and error refusing ways are mere opinions, not only based in non-fact, but bias as well, one must prove it, through sourcing, citing, or an appropriate argument.
In no way did this occur, only stating opinion that my facts and arguments were opinion. Falls well short of even closely resembling a solid stance.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Because you say it best yourself here. Your Paranoia clouds your mind. You see conspiracies because you want to.
I have more knowledge, ability, and intellect than you. I have clearer vision emotionally and intellectually than you. I am much better at reasoning, critical thought, and basic or advanced problem solving than you. All of which I've proven throughout this one sided episode some would label a debate.
So you have more knowledge, ability, and intellect than I do? A clearer vision emotionally and intellectually too? And you are better at reasoning, critical thought, and basic or advanced problem solving than I. Wow you were able to prove that in this thread too? You are amazing. Your level of self delusion is quite grand. I envy your imaginary world that you live in where you seem to be so amazing. Maybe one day you will wake up from this delision that you have created and begin to actually make a place in the regular world.
If I am delusional there must be examples that could be pointed out. My pointed example was in fact the whole debate. Again, stating I am something while not pointing out anything to prove it, where I gave the full argument as an example, none in turn was given, as it quite obviously couldn't be. I am neither delusional nor living in an imaginary world, I am simply arrogant in my positions, which causes people, even when defeated, to not want to admit to such an outcome.
Originally posted by Cabe2323I see the possibility of conspiracies when the evidence suggests as much, just because you are an average joe with average abilities who sucks on the teat of your governmental structure, doesn't mean I am wrong, my ideas are loopy or that I have a dysfunctional disorder.
Average joe. That is laughable. Once again you prove that you know nothing about me. You assume to know my intellect, education level, and experiences.
Unless one was holding back said intellect, it was clearly and precicly shown throughout this debate. Ones education level and experiences are useless if one can not use them in a effective fashion, adding ones supposed intellect and then proceeding to communicate all three.
This would be a verifiable proof, would it not?
Originally posted by Cabe2323
You think that the government is actually competent enough to commit these types of acts. When I can see from being in the government that it isn't competent enough to build a road properly much less 99% of the conspiracies people float about.
The competence of the government isn't what we are debating but rather the inexhaustible stupidity of the average Joe, i.e., you.
Resorting to personal attacks. That is not a good sign at all. That is usually the sign of a very weak position. Obviously the competence of the government is exactly what the debate was about. You have chosen to try and change this into something else. But the OP and what we were actually talking about is directly related to the competence of the Government. The very question on the heart of this whole thread is whether the Government is creating a team to help with another situation like Katrina or to declare Martial Law so that Bush can stay in power. I think history has shown that the Government is in no way competent enough to pull off a military coup like that. It is a ridiculous theory of the anti government establishment. The very far wing of that group.
A Little background info here. I personally believe that the US Government should be much smaller and each state should be individually stronger as the Constitution and the Founding fathers intended. I believe that our Military should be removed from overseas and only used to protect our own territory. I also believe that Social welfare programs should be scaled back and that the States should individually take care of their own. So an "average joe sucking the governmental teat" I am not.
I appreciate these political standpoints mentioned here, they, minus the social programs, I would agree with.
However, the argument of Government competence is weak at best, the ability to confuse and control the masses is a much stronger point. Keeping those who can see through the lies in place by silencing them, through murder, character assassination, or mass propagandizing is all that is needed to keep the state in place. No one needs to be entirely competent, wise, or intelligent if those they are attempting to control are less wise, intelligent and are easily manipulated.
Although resorting to personal attacks can very well be a tell tale sign of a weak and disadvantageous position, it's fairly apparent that this is not the case hear. I argue points, and then make personal attacks because I find them enjoyable and entertaining. I can just as easily not make them, as shown here.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Your "certain level of paranoia" reeks of mail bomber living in a cabin in the woods. I think your critical thinking and reading and pondering has been too biased towards one side and that you should broaden your intellectual horizons.
If killing those in power who are destroying the lives and liberty of BILLIONS of people around the globe is what it takes then sure, I'm your huckleberry.
Ahh so American Service members are killing Billions of people huh? No blame should be placed on the terrorists who commit most of the killings. It is all our fault. That is a wonderful world view you have. You probably believe that 9/11 was our fault or maybe you even believe that the government did it. You probably believe that the Jews were at fault during the holocaust as well. Or maybe you don't believe that the Holocaust even took place?
The statement I believe is quite obviously not "American Service members" but rather "those in power".
While blame may be placed on a huge amount of individuals those with the most power, especially those who continually have placed weapons in the hands of said terrorists, trained them, used them, and then turned around and attempted to vilify them for the effect in which they themselves caused, deserve the maximum responsibility, punishment and hatred.
Whether I believe 9/11 was your fault, was state sponsored terrorism, the Jews deserved to be massacred, or if they even were is immaterial. The simple fact is that there is a countable number of individuals on this planet who are consciously, deliberately, and arrogantly spreading hate, death, and intolerance, all as to benifit them financially. Consistently and criminally going about life, asking the masses to follow the rules and regulations set in place, using this religious fervor to control society, whilst abusing every moral, ethical, and lawful outlet to its limit.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Lol, I should broaden my horizons, I've lived all over the world, have close friends in 30 or more countries, most of which have major hardships and are directly affected by the self serving scumbag policies put out by your government. I doubt, compared to you, that I am the one in need of a mass awakening.
So, you don't have any friends in the hundreds of countries that recieve aid from the US? Or how about the millions upon millions of people that benefit from our aid? Not one of your friends either. So I guess a lot of your friends are European. The funny thing about the American Hate in other nations is it ins't exactly true. There was an article a couple of years back done by the BBC. Where the BBC reporter actually said that the reason people hate America is because they actually wish they were American.
I find it extremely humerous that while our country is looking at Universal healthcare options (somehting Europe has had for years) European countries are looking more and more at private options. I guess the grass always does look greener.
I have friends in many countries which have accepted aid from the US. This however means little as even if I were to point out their disdain for your republic, they would simply be called ungrateful. I can assure you, there are few, if any, people in this world who hate Americans because of jealousy, financial, freedoms, or otherwise. To say such a thing shows can only mean that one has not really met the majority of people out there, at least truly affected ones.
American hate is true, and world engulfing, getting worse by the day, if you honestly think it is not so, travel. Do not get the message mixed up, while you make take it personally, it's not Americans as individuals who are loathed, but the Government. The only level of disgust that may be placed on each individual American is the ignorance they continue to cling to, as you are the ones who are able to stop your Government from doing the things they are.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
You seem to think that everyone in the military is incapable of individual thoughts, which means you are sadly mistaken. Don't take the actions of a few bad apples who are unable to determine the difference between a lawful order and an unlawful one fool you into thinking you know the Military as a whole.
Not everyone, I have many friends in the US Military, most in the Army and one in the Airforce, many of them are intelligent enough to admit the backwards stance your government takes on Human Life.
Find me a single Military in history that was in any significant wars who held human life in greater regard. Please do. I would love to see one. The US has always attempted to protect as many civilians as possible.
We are supposedly much more civil than previous nations, war should, if at all an occurrence, be more humane now. The sad reality, it is not. Just because you do not see it on television, does not mean it doesn't occur, from the wars instigated in the 20th century to the wars supported now in the 21st century, little has changed. massacres are still occurring. The only thing that has really changed is outsourcing, not only does the US outsource cheap labor, they outsource dirty business, as making sure that the majority of their population sees the country as a heroic and valiant state is of utmost importance, allowing them to go about their business unimpeded and in the most casual and callous of fashions.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
I'll take your advice however, I won't let the imbecilic disgorgement of a so called educated individual sour my faith in higher education.
Falling back on the personal attacks.
Although indeed a personal attack it was also an obvious character trait that needed to be pointed out. Ones accolades can not save them in serious debate.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Unlike you I have a formal education and I have been exposed to numerous different teachers with differing views from the far left to the far right. I have been able to take that learning and combine it with living overseas to formulate a very unbiased view of our nation.
Unlike you I don't rely on my education as a supposed proof of my knowledge and open-mindedness. I show it through my words and deeds. You are one of the more biased posters on this site, it's humorous that you would claim the opposite.
Ha. I am one of the more biased posters on this site? That is extremely funny. Unlike you who I actually have liberal and conservative views.
Believing ones self not bias merely because one has views on both sides of the politically labeled debate in no way proves one is not bias. Those who cannot admit simple and obvious truths, even when those obvious and simple truths are shown everyday and in myriad ways, it is hard to not see that individual as not being bias when they choose to overlook such boldfaced conclusions.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
You seem to call me out like I am some type of sheep who follows blindly and yet you know nothing about me. All you know is that I am in the Military. You know nothing of my Political Views nor of my Personal views. You know nothing about my history at all.
I call you out because you are wrong, I put you in your place, and then we, the royal we, laugh at you. I know what you lay down in text, and that is merely what I argued. I know your wife has a psychology degree and doesn't require her mates to have much intellect. I know you think that education in a scholastic polygonal structure means something grand. You are correct, I know little of your history, but luckily, knowing your history is in no way needed to hand you your literal carcass.
Hand me what? Once again you follow up with personal opinions and personal attacks. You don't back up anything you say with any factual unbaised information. You are extremely biased in your arguement and unwilling to deter from your supposed higher ground. I hope you and your "royal" enjoy your laughs.
Again, saying things are opinion, biased, and erroneous does not make them so, one must show how they are.
There is no way to convince an individual of their flaws if they have already convinced themselves that it is their opponent which lacks logic, facts, and precise thought. When they, their entire argument, and every idea, response, and conclusion they come to is exactly what they accuse their opponent of fumbling into. There is nothing more that can be said.
I'm sure you'd agree.
Originally posted by Cabe2323
And on a side note. I have never actually seen you bury a thread Tunabun. Does your crushing wins in debates take place in your head?
Lol, I've never lost any debate on this forum. I defend the weak from delusio-intellectuals such as yourself. You are mildly entertaining but you aren't even close to a challenge. I'm sure I'm hated here but I can guarantee that anyone with any level of knowledge of logical debate could verify how horribly fallacious nearly everything you have stated here is.
It is funny that you actually call me fallacious. Considering you do not make use of any facts at all. You spout off your opinion like you should dare not be questioned. Your ideas are baised and twisted and have no real standing in fact.
The actual arguement was about the usage of Clergy in response to disasters. The OP and a lot of others try to turn this into sometype of neocon/religious right conspiracy to take over the country. They attempt to say that it would be better to use mental health professionals to provide the service. Sure that would be fine, as long as they are willing to pay the extra taxes to cover the cost of using mental health professionals.
For instance a Chaplain in the US Navy makes roughly 4K per month to provide this service. A Psychologist in the Navy makes 6250 per month if they are the same rank as that chaplain. For a civilian psychologist you are looking from about 100-300 dollars per hour. Not to mention the extraordinary risk of placing the civilian in a war like situation.
I thoroughly enjoyed the supposed shredding I recieved. It gave me a good laugh.
I guess what may have lacked in your educational experience was the concept of logical debate. Although I can indeed use facts to win arguments, I have no such requirement when I am consistently faced with logical inaccuracies. I merely have to point out the flaw, and wait for a rebbutal, if there is one. In this case very little was ever challenged, just new comments brought up, points not addressed and fallacious, immaterial, and out of place points made. As I already stated, I cannot convince someone of your personality type that you have lost this particular debate with me, you will have to come to terms with it.
Whether you do or don't has no bearing on the outcome achieved here.
I'll restate, you, and those like you are the quintessential example of why throughout history monsters masquerading as men have been able to destroy so much life and happiness.
I hope those who bothered to read this entire excerpt chose to open their mind and allow the hate they have for my stylistic tendencies to slip away. The way I debate should not preclude my loss or victory, but merely the points made control the end state.
- Burying Threads Since 1979 -
As am I, hopefully either will chime in soon.
I will now give a simple rundown of the argument, points will be alloted as in chess. One point for a victory, zero for a loss, and half a point for a draw. I will compare responses to MY points, as I started the attack I don't feel it fair to give points to myself for my original points made, although I could very well do so. This will obviously be lengthy, it is most obviously self serving, and if you desire not to waste your time on it I understand.
My main point, aside from pleasing my own ego, is to point out that while a debate can be so utterly lopsided, the majority of you will allow your emotions to overtake your reason, failing to admit what is a clear and defined victory.
I would also like to point out, that if you do not believe my original attack was warranted, reread the first 40 or so responses, 13 of which were his, many of which alluded and directly attacked Coldmeat as being a conspiracy theorist, attempting to label his argument and character. Thusly warranting a vicious retort, and as Coldmeat concluded not to take that route, I decided to step in.
Keep in mind that my attacks are direct, they are not allusions or connecting in any way to the main argument, which is why I quoted sentence by sentence. I merely point this out as some seem to have not recognized this most transparent of points.
I dislike changing color, but I will use a green hue and italicize to keep it understandable.
Because those don't exist. lol.
Wow you went way back there to pull that one out. And the piece is very biased. A lot of people (who are not neocons) consider FDR to be one of the worst Presidents in History. He turned this country into a socialist instead of the free democracy that it should be.
As I pointed out in my response there was no attack on the point, merely fallacious argumentation. The only statement here that could have held water was the attack on it being bias, and only if he could have shown how the bias led to fabrications in the article.
As nothing of the sort was shown, the point is conceded. 1-0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States)
Obviously this example is not of Neconservatism since Neocons didn't exist at the time. Originally posted by Cabe2323
Thirdly the President can take control all he wants, but if what he is doing is wrong he is going to find it very hard to command the troops.
Really, mind citing all thousands of examples in your "A Patriots Handbook" where a President or Military Leader found it difficult to command the troops into doing immoral, unethical, or illegal acts?
I don't need to quote the Patriots Handbook. The UCMJ Clearly states that we are to report any infractions of the UCMJ.
Rather than addressing my main point, "cite some examples that show a President or Military Leader finding it difficult to command their troops into doing immoral, unethical, or illegal acts" Cabe instead chose to address my added humor inducing personal attack.
Again, no debate took place, another obvious misstep. 2-0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
I suggest you look at Warrant Officer Thompson's response.
"Heroes of My Lai"
In 1998, two former U.S. servicemen who stopped their comrades from killing a number of villagers, significantly reducing casualties at My Lai, were awarded the Soldier's Medal awards in Washington D.C. [18] The two veterans also contacted with the survivors of My Lai.
Also from that same article.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense
Following orders was not a good enough defense for the Nuremberg Trials. Nazi Soldiers were tried and found guilty for not doing the right thing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15189555/ (couldn't get the link to work properly)
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,127377,00.html
I guess everyone starts out with such an idealistic view on their governmental structure. I used to like "wholesome" Disney movies too.
I am the Member of the US Navy. I have a much better Idea about the governmental structure then you do. All you have is internet ideas and silly conspiracies. I have history on my side.
Thousands of US service members had PTSD because of the trama of dealing with Vietnam. They couldn't come to terms with the killing of Civilians who had bombs and weapons on them. Yet you seem to think that all the President needs to do is order the execution of some people protesting and we will do it.
You have no idea how the Military works, nor do you have any real idea how we think.
As this point is rather obvious, Military persons following orders at all time, as not doing so and questioning authority would not only garner a reprimand, it would cause the Military structure to not function in the way it is intended, as it is indeed not a democratic structure. Instead of attempting to debate factually, the many examples of soldier dissent, he instead opted to attack my knowledge and understanding, in which case having never debated me before, could in no way know.
He then went on to add moot points that had nothing to do with what I had attacked, I guess trying to garner support through a empathetic stance, although the addition of bias facts pretty much negated that. Lastly he again pointed out my inability to understand the thought processes of the Military mind.
As again the point was in no way attacked, be it direct or indirect, the issuance of the point is obvious. 3-0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
Once again this shows an example of soldiers not following orders and not only doing the right thing but getting medals for it.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials." (Bill Moyers, "The Secret Government", Seven Locks Press; also in the PBS 1987 documentary, "The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis")
Senator Inouye was referring to the Nuremberg trials in the post WW II era, when the U.S. tried Nazi war criminals and did not allow them to use the reason or excuse that they were only "following orders" as a defense for their war crimes which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children. "In 1953, the Department of Defense adopted the principles of the Nuremberg Code as official policy" of the United States. (Hasting Center Report, March-April 1991)
"I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.
The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal.
The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the "I was only following orders" defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity).
Probably the most famous case of the "I was only following orders" defense was the court-martial (and conviction for premeditated murder) of First Lieutenant William Calley for his part in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968. The military court rejected Calley's argument of obeying the order of his superiors. On March 29, 1971, Calley was sentenced to life in prison. However, the public outcry in the United States following this very publicized and controversial trial was such that President Nixon granted him clemency. Calley wound up spending 3 1/2 years under house arrest at Fort Benning Georgia, where a federal judge ultimately ordered his release.
In 2004, the military began court-martials of several military members deployed to Iraq for mistreating prisoners and detainees.
zSB(3,3)
Several members claimed that they were only following the orders of military intelligence officials. Unfortunately (for them), that defense won't fly. The mistreatment of prisoners is a crime under both international law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice Originally posted by Cabe2323
One of those things is preservation of Civilian casualities.
I love how your statement is oh so true yet not what you were intending.
"prevention"
I was tired and thinking of the comment in two ways. I actually meant to say the Preservation of Civilian life. Which is a huge priority of the military. There are numerous techniques and equipment that we do not use because it would cause excessive civilian casualities.
Rather than submitting to the loss, which everyone could see, he went on to excuse and then elaborate on his supposed point. I would have given this a draw if he merely conceded that he made an error. The excuse of tiredness isn't valid, unless you would like to extend it to the rest of the flawed argument, in which case, it would make it fairly difficult to understand how then fully rested his ability to argue and debate is still well below par.
4-0.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
As shown in numerous examples throughout this post. The military holds Civilians in very high regard. They punish any unlawful engagement of civilians.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1241111,00.html
www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/04/iraq.family.slain/index.html
rawstory.com/news/afp/US_soldiers_get_punished_for_crimes_02252007.html
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Take the "war" in Iraq (which btw like the new orleans non- martial law incident, is also not really what it is, Since the WAr isn't actually a war since congress never declared war) We could of won by now very easily, but we are taking extreme measures to make sure we perserve civilian life to the best of our ability.
So winning means killing a mass portion of the populous, military and civilian alike? Ok, duly noted, you are on the "I don't believe in proportionality" side of the debate.
No I said that if all we cared about was winning at all costs that is what we would of done. But we care about civilians and not causing casualities. So for some reason the conspiracy theorists think that the same military members who take extreme measures to not kill Iraqi Civilians, would turn around and kill American Civilians with no problems.
I think my response was fairly weak here, although still a good blow as he indeed showed what victory means to him. As anyone knows, killing a mass amount of civilians would be no victory, merely mass murder. I tried to point this out through my proportionality statement, but to no avail. He went on to make statements that are provably and common sensibly false. As any student of history knows, Governments and Militaries only take measures to avoid civilian casualties when it serves them in another manner, namely in a propagandizing fashion. If the truth can be suppressed or the masses convinced no such actions would or will be taken.
Even though I personally feel I won this point, I will call it a draw as it isn't as clear a victory as the others. 4.5-0.5
www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/world/middleeast/21cnd-casualties.html
www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/military_analyst_says_rules_of.php
Originally posted by Cabe2323
Even to the point of placing our troops in greater danger. And people actually expect this type of military to go into a city and open fire on American Civilians? That is laughable.
Oh dear, placing your "volunteer" military troops in danger. I'm sure most civilians in the myriad countries in which the US has instigated or supported war in wish they could voluntarily be placed in the situation which has been forced upon them.
We have a right to disagree with the actions of our politicians as well. So yes we are being placed in greater danger due to the planning that is being used by the military. But we care about protecting life and are willing to risk our lives in order to protect innocents ever where.
The vast majority of the "Civilians" are actually happy that we helped them. They lived in an extremely oppressed country where the majority was treated horribly by the minority in power.
Again, I could have taken a much stronger position, using examples, in which the Government has done so, and with the medias help, made such massacres acceptable or even blamable on the people who were massacred. But as I know my history, sometimes I forget others do not. His response however was rather difficult to understand, and the parts which were obvious had an inverse factuality to them, as I think it is easily argued that most don't go into the military for the reasons stated and the vast majority of civilians who have been "rescued" by the US don't feel that way.
Again, while I feel there was absolutely no real striking points in his statements here and that I achieved an obvious win state, I will refrain from declaring it as it was not as strong as the others.
5-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai
Perfect example of the people who tried to cover it up got fired.
The general in charge of the Pat Tillman investigation got censured for covering things up and if he hasn't already will lose a star for it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_camps
I think it would be pretty safe to say that all the people in these camps were very happy they got saved by the American Soldiers.
They don't look to unhappy either.
BAGHDAD, IRAQ (BCF)–As democracy strives to take root in Iraq the resulting clash of powers and terrorist attacks are the story of the day. According to one U.S. soldier, however, there is so much more to the military’s work that is never communicated outside of Iraq.
Baptist College of Florida graduate, Captain Peter Keough, is a chaplain in the U.S. Army serving in Iraq where he leads the Task Force 519th “VIPER” chaplain office. The task force has unofficially adopted a local special needs orphanage located in the east Baghdad region as their special project. According to Keough, the experience has proven truly life changing for the soldiers.
“This is one of the things that allows soldiers to do something that brings levity and peace and an understanding of just why we are here to their hearts and minds,” Keough explains of the special project he is spearheading during his one year deployment from his station at Fort Polk, Louisiana. “We know our military mission is right and true and are honored to be here, but it sure does help to see it in the eyes of the children when we go for a visit.”
Each child at the Iraqi orphanage suffers from a severely debilitating special need as the result of birth defects or disease. All have been abandoned by their parents. A three-year-old named Nora, Keough says, amazes him with each visit.
Nora was found in a toilet at just a few weeks of age. She was born without arms or legs and left abandoned by her parents. Despite the difficulties, Keough says she has proven to be “quite a handful” scooting around the room in a plastic chair on the tile floors. “Her determination and sense of humor, especially for a three year old, is amazing,” he marvels. “She warmed up to this old ‘chaplain with the funny hair’ and became my little buddy.”
Lunch time became a game as the St. Augustine native soldier fed her during each visit. “She would shake her head each time I put the food in her mouth,” he said of her playful nature. “I found myself thinking about my own children and when I would feed them. I would open my mouth as they opened theirs as if I was going to eat the food,” he recalls. “The trip to the orphanage has made me realize what a privilege having and raising children really is and that we can take that for granted.”
Many of the children have spent their entire lives at the orphanage while others arrived only a few months ago. While adoption is rare for these special needs children, Keough relays a good news story of a National Guard captain from Wisconsin who recently adopted a little boy named Allah from the orphanage. According to all reports, the family is doing well in the United States.
“The trip to the orphanage reminds me of James 1:27a where it says ‘Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble,’” explains the soldier. “I saw the work of Christ alive and well in that orphanage.”
“I take a group of soldiers each month to help them realize that we are in Iraq making a difference,” says Keough. “You will probably never see the real work of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on CNN or FOX. That is unfortunate, but let me tell you, they are making a difference and I am proud to be serving by their sides in the midst of this operation, living out the Gospel of peace in a place of war.”
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)