I think this sets a record as the longest running debate on CBoard that hasn't started a flame war.
Or maybe almost a record. There have probably been longer than I can't remember or don't know about.
I think this sets a record as the longest running debate on CBoard that hasn't started a flame war.
Or maybe almost a record. There have probably been longer than I can't remember or don't know about.
M.Eng Computer Engineering CandidateB.Sc Computer Science
Robotics and graphics enthusiast.
It doesn't matter so much to me, the whole world already thinks I'm awesome! As for operation ofra I think that is a good case of unilateral action against 'the opinion of the world' where they were justified. But at least it was supported back home. Israel also didn't need the help of other countries, and there is a big ultra huge difference between a single air mission being undertaken in a single day vs a big occupation lasting perpetually.I was under the impression that world opinion counted so much to you. In this case it does not?
Which I won't, because I think that the only way out is to get out.That we will end up saying the same exact things. You will always offer an "alternative" which is to run away. I will say that you can't run away, that we need a real alternative plan. You will then say that running away is the only alternative option.
If we deviate from the above, then it might prove interesting.
Why is that pessimism? Blind hope is proving to be much more destructive, and I believe those 'pessimistic' statements are accurate. I also don't observe any events hinting towards any sort of 'success,' do you? Lets step away from blind hope and take a look at reality. Or maybe it's the liberal media just not reporting all of the positive steps in Iraq? Play that card, it's a good hand.Wow, you're pesimistic beyond belief. Stop being so depressed about life, and realize that there is hope out there.
"Hey Shinseki, where's my beer?" In all seriousness, was there anything there that you wanted me to see in particular? What was wrong with me posting the bit about the opinion of the Army Chief of Staff at the time of the invasion? I can only assume I made an excellent point.My general is bigger than your general.
No, I didn't say that.If we can't, then what you're saying is that we will lose everything over there and the islamofascists will take over Iraq.
It went beyond the threshold of what it was worth. How many more years would you have stayed in Vietnam? Are you actually trying to build the case that we should have stayed in Vietnam longer? Did the world come to an end when we lost Vietnam? We lost nearly half a million servicemen in WW2 when it was worth it, when we were partnered with the world, and when the existence of our homeland was threatened (Hitler had every intention of eventually invading the US). The U.S. is full of people that give a care, but only when it is worth it. Clearly it must not be worth it if 'nobody gives a care.'Vietnam was lost, but for some of the same reasons that some would lose the Iraq war. People just didn't give a care to stay there and fight it out to the end.
Yes, we were able to save South Korea, and North Korea and Vietnam are ........holes. Germany and Japan and all of Europe have turned out pretty decent. We were massively helped by the UN to save South Korea, we didn't want to deal with China which is why we didn't finish North Korea. The defeat and subsequent nation building of Germany and Japan was not done unilaterally. Vietnam was the most unilateral war and our biggest defeat. Iraq will come in second, and similarly with Vietnam the world won't come to an end.Look at the difference between both North and South Korea and then at Vietnam. Look at the good that came from the US sticking to their guns in Korea.
I don't want war unless it's absolutely necessary. I guess I'm just a pansy eh? I'm disgusted with the attitude that our misfortune of Sept. 11th somehow justifies our unilateral involvement in Iraq.I'm really disgusted with the attitude that we shouldn't retaliate because they might retaliate. That's war. Suck it up.
Uhmmm...pretty much.Would you be still willing today to bet that both of those statements of yours are correct?
Okay you need to explain...how did I contradict myself? I am going to ask you to calmly clarify your points.Looks like you no longer agree with your first statement, so perhaps there's hope for you.
umm. Well. ........ you!!! YOU DON'T KNOW THE ISSUES!!! AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!! R3PUBL|k@NNN5 RUNOVER BABIES WITH LAWN MOWERS!!!I think this sets a record as the longest running debate on CBoard that hasn't started a flame war.
Last edited by BobMcGee123; 04-25-2007 at 05:34 PM.
I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.
Should we extract the OT posts into a separate thread?
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
It was not officially supported in the US until after the fact, as Wikipedia has it recorded.Originally Posted by BobMcGee123
We should give up the country to radical people that want to kill off Western Civilization?
How does that win anything? As others have pointed out, let's apply this idea conceptually to fighting crime. Let's pick a city in the US where crime is super high, and let's pull all law enforcement out, because according to this position it is obvious that we cannot contain the gang violence. What if we said the only way we can win the war against gang violence is to negotiate with the gang leaders and put them in charge of the city? What if we tried to solve the problem by just leaving the city?
It's a stupid idea, because you give up the city to the gangs. Same as leaving Iraq; you give up the country to the islamofascists.
I think it actually could be argued that the media does not report enough of the good that is happening, largely because of a bias in their reporting. I suppose it could be argued that they believe that bad news is better than good news, in terms of their ratings. Perhaps.
Anyway, I think the real problem is that people do not do much investigating on their own. I remember having a debate with someone that was totally surprised at some of the things I was able to back up over the war. He concluded things were not as terrible as he was led to believe when he listened to the media. It didn't really change his overall opinion from what I could tell, but that was never a goal of mine.
The information on how bad or good things are over there is more easily accessible in this day and age over the Internet. Don't just research what you want to hear. Do a good job of researching everything.
Now with that said, I personally believe that the US will been a much different position by 2008 before the elections. Watch for it. Hopefully, my belief will be proven right.
Do you even know who he is?
My point was that while we can wave Generals at each other, it doesn't matter. You can find opposing generals. I can find supporting generals. Big deal. Are we going to go by a majority of generals?
You're living in a dream world if you think we can leave right now and the wrong people won't take over.
An attitude of not caring is dangerous. To say something is not worth anything if people don't care is ridiculous. At the most basic level of an allegory, many people do not care to declare main() as returning an int. Many people do not care to switch from using gets() to fgets(). Too many people still use goto. That doesn't mean that lack of caring means that what is at stake is not worth it.
Leaving Vietnam in that condition was a terrible mistake. Hasty peacey treaty and then running away was the way to "solve" it. You ask if the end of the world occurred when the US left Vietnam. Ask the South Vietnamese that were left there to die when the North took over after that worthless peace treaty was signed. They would not like your ideas.
You seriously are ignoring facts. Iraq will not be Vietnam. It has no real similarities.
You keep stressing the fact that the US needs other countries, yet you have ignored all of my queries as to why that is a requirement, so I bring my points up yet again:
- Why does the US need other countries, when numbers for numbers, the US can supply just as many troops as anybody else?
- Since you believe the US has no credibility (a ridiculous statement), name a country that will currently refuse to help the United States, and yet has credibility in your eyes.
Going back to Vietnam, according to Wikipedia, more than a few countries participated in the war, but let's always ignore the other countries that are involved.
Yes, you are a pansy, and this has nothing with your desire to avoid war. If you are scared of the enemy's response, you should not consider a military career. War is all about fighting to achieve victory. There is a reason for war, and there is a time for it.
What do you really think would have been necessary to receive justification to attack Iraq? Would we have had to wait until he did manage to obtain WMDs and then strike?
I'm really at a loss for words how you can rant and rave how the US need lots of countries to participate in Iraq, yet you totally discount the current efforts of the coalition members. This is so insulting to those members that are actually working together on this mission. My point is this:
- This war is not unilateral, but....
- If it is, so what?
Yes I think this thread can be refactored into something with a more alarming title. Staying vs Leaving the Middle East.
Yes, do you?Do you even know who he is?
No, we can'tthe US can supply just as many troops as anybody else?
Why is britain pulling 4500 troops out of Iraq and not sending them to another hotspot in Iraq?Since you believe the US has no credibility (a ridiculous statement), name a country that will currently refuse to help the United States, and yet has credibility in your eyes.
hahahahaha, this is great...yeah, I'm a pansy for not wanting war. Well, this is where I sign off on this conversation. I think you are gradually losing your cool. I sincerely hope that you are at least in the military, otherwise your statements just seems incredibly hypocritical. Granted, seeing as how this is an online discussion you'll probably try to convince us that you're actually a Navy Seal that has fought in every american war.Yes, you are a pansy
Good luck with your war mongrelling.
I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.
How many more troops do we need in Iraq that the US can't put up?
Because the US is handling the main hot spot -- Baghdad -- with the troop surge. This has been explained before in the media if I remember correctly. If you insist, I shall google for it since my memory failed me once before.
Losing my cool? I think not. Perhaps faring too well in this discussion for your liking, but at least it's nice to see you're consistent; you pull out of the discussion before victory is achieved, just like you would do in Iraq.
All that serves to do is declare me, your opponent, the winner of the topic's debate. And in like manner, if you had your way and the US pulled out of Iraq, the enemy would declare victor in Iraq and take over the country. Neither of the two situations provide you with anything but time and energy spent that did more for your opponent than it did for yourself.
But back to the subject, I make no claims about my past at this point. I will not claim to be a Navy Seal that has fought in every American war, just like you won't probably declare to be a peace activist through every American war.
My comment to you that you took great offense at was given in the context that you are scared of reprisal attacks. Unable to explain how you expect victory by leaving, or why the US needs the assistance of outside forces, or even what context would have made the attack on Iraq justifiable, I believe that you have no real battleplan. This boils down to you wanting to run away with no goal and leaving things stay as they are. As I said before, that is failure. What else would you call it?
If that is not indicative of someone who is scared of war or ignorant of what is really at stake, I apologize. The ball is in your court. Argue my points, explain your logic, but do anything but just simply say we should pull out without coming up with a solution to prevent the catastrophe that a pullout would result in.
The equivalent statement would be to wish you well with your rose-colored view of the world when the armies of the enemy march into your neighborhood.
Who knows? Maybe you will like to go?
Do you feel ok?
Perhaps.Who knows? Maybe you will like to go?
I feel pretty tired at the moment. Other than, that, I'm doing good. Thanks for asking.
I just wanted to point out that your never going to be right. People will always disagree with you whether you roll eyes or not. If you feel so strongly, go over there and start killing some terrorists. Posting on a programming forum isn't helping operation freedom.Perhaps.
I feel pretty tired at the moment. Other than, that, I'm doing good. Thanks for asking.
Yeah, it's historically not accurate, but it gives excellent insight into the psyche of a madman, which I think is useful.Read Mein Kampf? I haven't myself, but I've seen a few quotes. Interesting stuff if your into wars and dicatorships for sure.
I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.
Puts a whole new slant on "history is written by the winners", eh? How historically inaccurate is it, Bob? I never heard that, but I'm not really into history much so that explains that.
LOL.
I'm never going to be right because someone will disagree with me? By definition being right implies an absolute standard. If there is such in a given context of absolute rules that excludes popularity, the agreement of others is irrelevent.
Perhaps if you feel I'm incorrect, you could attempt to argue the relevent points. I don't think I would take offense if you could come up with another solution to the Iraq war without just running away. Somehow, I do not think you can come up with one, however.
FYI, I debate issues usually for 3 reasons:
- Others that read may be swayed by my arguments.
- I think it is important to take a stand for what is right.
- It's a good exercise to keep me active and ready.
I do feel quite strongly over this issue. I think the war is going well enough at the moment to merit me staying where I'm at. I do think I'm doing a very minute part in the civilian front by trying to convince others to support the mission.
MacGyver, please stop, we've lost interest in your little debate. You're right, you've won. Now please stop.
Ahh yes, this is actually one of my absolute favorite quotes. I e-mailed this quote to my humanities teacher earlier in the semester, here's an excerpt from that em:history is written by the winners
"
I just finished a book on Nazi Germany called 'The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich.' I read it because Hitler is often used by politicians, e.g.
calling each other Hitlers and Nazis when they disagree with what the
other party is doing; World War 2 is often used as a means to denounce the
practicality of pacifism. Rather than let the politicians educate me I
decided to read a book on the matter. I also have a copy of 'Mein Kampf'
I remembered a statement by Hitler (I cannot get the exact wording because
I loaned the book out). It ties into the concept of a subjective reality.
'It is not the truth that matters, so long as we are victorious. The
record will simply be written by the victors anyway.'
This was prior to the Nazi war machine invading Poland. All of Hitler's
war moves were done 'in the name of peace,' or simply as 'defense
maneuvers.' The Nazis justified the invasion of Poland by staging an
attack (they dressed up prisoners in Polish Army uniforms, shot them dead
in a field, and claimed they attacked the German army first).
"
This is probably what bothers me the most nilly. I am reluctant to tell people to go to war or support a war unless I am or was in the service. Out of high school I enrolled in university and ARMY ROTC, I really liked it and wanted more. I hated school and wanted to drop out so I told a recruiter I was going to enlist in the marines. I asked myself if I really knew what I was getting myself into, and I didn't, so I hesitated on joining. One day I woke up in the morning, hit myself in the face with a frying pan and decided not to. If I agreed with the war, I wouldn't be arguing on a programming forum on its merits while other people are dying for the cause I believe in. That's my definition of a pansy.Originally Posted by MacNilly View Post
Who knows? Maybe you will like to go?
Perhaps.
EDIT:
jverkoeoy can support that this picture is, in fact, me, for he's met me in person
ihatenature.thejefffiles.com/side.jpg
Last edited by BobMcGee123; 04-26-2007 at 05:05 AM.
I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.
Why don't we try this on the terrorists? Maybe if we beg them nicely, they'll leave us alone.
