Those Who Say 'I Support the Troops' Really Don't

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

acting like you care about anybody's rotting corpse

I don't and never implied I did. I just think you have an odd definition of "making the lives of Iraqis better" when the War in Iraq caused the death of over 100,000 Iraqis.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Holy !
I guess you forgot to check up on your professors facts.
Hussein inherited iraq when it was modernized and then pissed it away, like most socialist dictators.

Did you learn this at the same place that taught you how to add "ing" to words that end in "ie"

[spursncowboys]

I don't and never implied I did. I just think you have an odd definition of "making the lives of Iraqis better" when the War in Iraq caused the death of over 100,000 Iraqis.

How many did Saddam kill?
How many of those Iraqis were killed by terrorists? How many from Pro-Saddam and Baath Party sympothizers (who's SOP were mass killing attacks)?
How many Iraqi's deaths are worth their ability to vote for their government representatives?
For someone who seems to not care about it since it has not impacted your life whatsoever, you are implying an empathetic factor of 100,000+ Iraqis and one puppy. Whatever makes your ignorant position, regardless of the lack of morals.

[spursncowboys]

Did you learn this at the same place that taught you how to add "ing" to words that end in "ie"

The point where you have no points to build on your jargon-so you go for grammar mistakes.

[DMC]

Why do people quote Obama as if that matters to me? I didn't vote for Obama the last time around largely because his foreign policy is a lot different than I thought it would be. I've criticized him countless times for how long it took him to get out of Iraq and for being an idealist who preaches to the American people about spreading Democracy through the middle east.

Countries like Iraq and Libya, as well as most other middle eastern countries, will never be Democracies until the presence of Islam becomes a fraction of what it is today, which will never happen when Islamic leaders can use American/Israeli aggression in the middle east as a means to unify people behind Islam. Hussein and Gadaffi had Iraq and Libya more modernized and advanced than any Islamic theocracy will ever be.

Because the concept of "safer" is a condition that's only observable if you knew how unsafe we were before. No one here can prove that either way, so I just used the statements of a president who didn't make the decision to invade Iraq. I figure he gets national security briefings daily and since none of us do, I pretty much have to take his word for it.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

No one here can prove that either way

Agreed, and the burden of proof rests on the person arguing that the War in Iraq actually did make us safer. Until someone proves it, I'm assuming the null hypothesis.

so I just used the statements of a president who didn't make the decision to invade Iraq. I figure he gets national security briefings daily and since none of us do, I pretty much have to take his word for it.

I think you're being deliberately naive now.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

How many did Saddam kill?
How many of those Iraqis were killed by terrorists? How many from Pro-Saddam and Baath Party sympothizers (who's SOP were mass killing attacks)?
How many Iraqi's deaths are worth their ability to vote for their government representatives?
For someone who seems to not care about it since it has not impacted your life whatsoever, you are implying an empathetic factor of 100,000+ Iraqis and one puppy. Whatever makes your ignorant position, regardless of the lack of morals.

I don't care about the lives of Iraqis (I'm willing to bet you really don't either and you're just acting like it for the sake of argument). I'm only pointing out the 100,000+ deaths as a counter to your assertion the war improved the lives of Iraqis. It obviously DIDN'T improve the lives of those 100,000+ Iraqis.

As far as how many Iraqi deaths are worth their ability to vote, that's not even remotely something that should be up to American politicians to decide, and the fact you seem to think it is personifies neo-conservative narcissism.

[DMC]

Agreed, and the burden of proof rests on the person arguing that the War in Iraq actually did make us safer. Until someone proves it, I'm assuming the null hypothesis.


I think you're being deliberately naive now.

For argument's sake, since no one here can prove or disprove "safer", we have to rely on another source. If that source said we are no safer today than before the invasion, I am sure many here would be posting that as evidence.
Regardless, the only evidence we have, the words of the president, indicate that we are safer. Since it's been stated by our highest office, the burden of proof would be those who disagree since we cannot get the POTUS to sign up here.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The point where you have no points to build on your jargon-so you go for grammar mistakes.

I do, there are plenty of positive things Saddam did for Iraq (like how affordable he made education). I'm just not going to list them knowing you're brainwashed and will ignore them.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

For argument's sake, since no one here can prove or disprove "safer", we have to rely on another source. If that source said we are no safer today than before the invasion, I am sure many here would be posting that as evidence.

This is an appeal to authority if I've ever seen one. You have no actual argument regarding how the war in Iraq made America safer, and knowing that the burden of proof rests on your side of the argument, you're saying "Well Obama said it did!" which is a logical fallacy.

It's no different than creationists saying, "Our president believes in god!" without providing any argument as to why god exists.

[DMC]

This is an appeal to authority if I've ever seen one.

Actually it's not. If the president says "we're safer", and he did, how is it an appeal to authority if neither you nor I have any other ability to assess our safety? He says we're safer, you say you don't believe it. You don't have a legit reason for not believing it, you just shift the burden of proof to those who believe the president. Saddam conspired to kill an ex president. He attacked our allies. He repeatedly violated cease fire agreements and pissed on the UN Resolutions that gave him other options. Saddam made agreements that kept us out of Iraq in the 1st place. The war in Iraq was a continuation of Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

You have no actual argument regarding how the war in Iraq made America safer, and knowing that the burden of proof rests on your side of the argument, you're saying "Well Obama said it did!" which is a logical fallacy.

If I had the CIA and national security data he has, I could make a better assessment. I don't, neither do you. If there can be no proof for or against, why challenge someone to prove something they believe to be true?

It's no different than creationists saying, "Our president believes in god!" without providing any argument as to why god exists.

It's very different. The president doesn't have any god briefings that would put him any closer to knowing than anyone else is.

Do you think anyone in the world knows if the US is safer today than it was before the invasion?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

That response confirms you're arguing a really stupid point and seeing how long I'll indulge it. Good job, not sure why I took the argument that Obama's sanctimonious military sucking means the war in Iraq made us safer so seriously. Pretty stupid on my part.

[DMX7]

This came up in another thread long ago. I remember something about DOK "not being thankful for your service" if you were in the military. It's kind of his hot button issue, and his position seems to be pretty firm.