- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
No it doesn't.
American lives > Other Lives
Period
While each case must be interpreted individually, thats what it comes down to. Thats what we have C.O.'s for... and they failed EPICLY in this case.
You are the only one laughing.
Except that you completely ignored what I wrote. I never argued that American lives are less than other lives. I argued that our actions now may cost us additional American lives that were unnecessary to lose in the future. If we look at each case independently then we will always do what you folks want, which will likely prolong the war and send more Americans to die. If you are really harping on lives, then why do you support a measure which exposes even more soldiers to conflict?
Yes, I think American lives are worthless because I argued for resolving the war quickly to reduce the risk of death to American soldiers. I'm against prolonging the war because it risks American soldiers' lives and therefore I think those lives are worthless.
That's not true. You said:
* Main Entry: sar·casm
* Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
* Date: 1550
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm
Man, you don't even know when people are mocking you.
I'm not sure if you are either stupid or being intentionally ridiculous, especiallly since the reasons I cited are for not having Americans die.
Maybe you think someone is a fiscal conservative because they argued for massive government and huge deficits?
Maybe you just stop reading after a certain point?
Perhaps it's you that is being intentionally stupid? I mean, fiscal conservatism has nothing to do with the topic. Reach much?
* Main Entry: anal·o·gy
* Pronunciation: \ə-ˈna-lə-jē\
* Function: noun
* Inflected Form(s): plural anal·o·gies
* Date: 15th century
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : similarity b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin — compare homology
synonyms see likeness
lol.
You think I think American lives are worthless because I said so and then argued that I think American lives shouldn't be wasted. I said something and then justified it with diametrically opposed statements.
Clearly, sarcasm isn't something you can pick up.
And the analogy I gave was you think that diametrically opposed statements directly following a statement isn't obviously sarcasm.
Wow.
The first time I posted the definition of "Sarcam." Can you tell me what word I posted the definition to in the post you quoted?
Is it Sarcasm?
lol.
So, all you can really do is post word definitions? No kiddin? Please, tell us that that's not all you have to offer to the discussion.
The first time I posted the definition of "Sarcam." Can you tell me what word I posted the definition to in the post you quoted?
Is it Sarcasm?
lol.
No, but your post could be used as an example of sarcasm.
Well, that would require the ability of people to at least remotely understand and be able to locate it. Clearly, that ability is not present in everyone.
I never saw anything that indicated that it was sarcasm. Nice try at salvaging your post, both by you and Redress, though.
Then why hasn't Iraq been a total failure as that was really the first war of the 21st century to be fully covered almost minute to minute?
IMO, Afghanistan is a waste of time because there aren't any realistic economic development paths it can take. Which apparently is the fundamental basis of why my old former marine teacher explicitly stated from the very beginning as to why Afghanistan will fail. Without development, we're going to be fighting this war forever.
Explain to me how killing civilians makes the situation better.
No counterinsurgency has ever been won by attrition (for the major power). Occupiers mostly lose........
Feel free to write to the military and tell them how to do their jobs.
I am sure they will give your letter all due consideration.
Iirc, the manual on counter insurgency operations is available online if you desire to understand more. Or if you merely want to talk about how you knw better than they do...
By that measure, we should just evac the troops and glass the country.
Remember that the soldiers are there to do a job. The restrictions are on them to ensure that we aren't doing this job 50 years from now.
Killing civilians is not the way to get the Afghans to tolerate us.
Soldiers and Marines need indirect fire support. That is part of warfare. Collateral damage is part of warfare. Stop trying to tell us how to do our jobs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?