atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#253: Liberal Methods of Debate

MGB Experience Off-Topic Thread

I'm not going to quote anything; you can read it if you like, or not. But:

This is what happens when you dare to question a liberal. If a liberal emits a fact, you are not allowed to ask, "Wait, how did you get that?"

He also doesn't like that I added the 9/11 casualties to the total of war casualties. I was trying to find how he got 48,000 when the Department of Defense says 28,000....

Anyway, I think the more valid figure is closer to 15,000, since about 13,000 of those casualties were returned to duty after 72 hours.

When a liberal starts to insult you, you are very close to winning the argument, particularly if they tell you you are a "right winger" or a "Nazi". (Especially if they call you a Nazi.)

The whole thread started as a result of a link in another user's sig; and besides the link to the page that discusses casualties, that particular user has a little pseudo-HTML in her sig:

</war> 012009

I've wanted to counter that with my own little sig notation:


...but I haven't found the courage to do so...yet. >:} Besides, 9/11/01 isn't even the correct date; a more accurate date would be the day that the US Embassy in Tehran was seized by "students". Unfortunately that date would not be so easily recognized.

I think the girl is a little optimistic. We didn't start the war; I don't see how we can realistically end it on the date our next President is inaugurated. She seems to think that electing a President other than George W. Bush will stop the war; but even if the US military stops fighting it, what makes her think that the bad guys will stop? If anything, they would be emboldened by such a move.

I predict that my long post will elicit an argument about the validity of our entry into Iraq. ("Bush lied, people died" or some such nonsense.) I'm hoping that I'm wrong; but if anyone tries to get me to defend Bush's reasons for entry, they will be disappointed. I did not support the idea of attacking Iraq when it was first proposed, but I have come to understand the strategic benefits of an Iraq without Saddam Hussein at its helm. I don't care about WMD or "yellowcake" or any of that hogwash; what I care about is finding a way to end the threat of Islamic terror against the US and US interests.

I don't think that, in war, you have to have "excuses" to try to achieve strategic and tactical goals. You set the goals, you make plans to achieve them; you suffer setbacks, and you adapt, improvise, and overcome. I have come to understand what strategic goals the invasion of Iraq was meant to enable; and understanding them, I agree that it was necessary to depose Saddam Hussein.

Besides that, though, Saddam Hussein himself gave us every excuse we needed when he threw out the UN weapons inspectors. He was in violation of several UN resolutions, all of which stated that the penalty for violation would be military action.

The thing I find most annoying about the forum thread is the morons ascribing motivations to my post. I ask a question and venture an opinion regarding the relative lethality of the Iraq war, and suddenly I am "attacking" the original poster and denigrating the fallen soldiers and their families. Jeeze louise.

Get some perspective!

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.