Political posterizing redux.

[Coito ergo sum]

Crap, I'm cheerleading for no fucking war. Get your lying head out of your ass.

When I refer to so-called Liberals, I'm not referring to you specifically. There has been a dearth of protesting against Obama's military actions. If so-called Liberals extrajudicial killings of unindicted American citizens like they treated indefinite detentions of prisoners picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan, I'd at least respect them a bit. Heck, they don't even treat indefinite detentions as a problem anymore. Under Bush, they were "illegal" -- not so anymore, it seems.

[Ian]

You want Al-Awlaki to matter only because Obama is commander-in-chief. That argument has long since been settled - since the days of Lincoln, in fact. He was an enemy combatant; if he could have been captured as easily as targeted with a cruise missile, that would've been done (it certainly would've helped with intelligence).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Crap, I'm cheerleading for no fucking war. Get your lying head out of your ass.

When I refer to so-called Liberals, I'm not referring to you specifically. There has been a dearth of protesting against Obama's military actions. If so-called Liberals extrajudicial killings of unindicted American citizens like they treated indefinite detentions of prisoners picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan, I'd at least respect them a bit. Heck, they don't even treat indefinite detentions as a problem anymore. Under Bush, they were "illegal" -- not so anymore, it seems.

Crap. Pure and simple. And "you" is rather fucking specific.

[Coito ergo sum]

Wow, does the truth hurt?

Your cognitive dissonance is amazing. Iraq is not Afghanistan. I was in favor of involvement in Afghanistan in 2001, and I am now. Thing is, we might not still be there now if Bush didn't get us side-tracked in Iraq. Afghanistan was put on the back-burner for six years.

Actually, it wasn't put on the back-burner. It was handled differently because it was a different kind of theater, a different kind of war.

Now, the Afghan theater is going worse than it ever was under Bush. Taliban gaining strength, more Americans dying, etc.

But Afghanistan is beside the point anyway. Iraq cost far more (than Afghanistan or Obamacare), and was completely unnecessary. That's what I was talking about.

So what? It's still not a reason to support Obamacare. Those are different issues. That's like saying that since we wasted money on Cash for Clunkers we can't oppose other spending.

I supported the decision to invade Iraq in 2003, and I still support that decision, because I can't apply 20/20 hindsight. I supported the invasion for many of the reasons expressed elsewhere on other threads, and eloquently set forth by the Hitch in "A Long Short War." I oppose Obamacare because it is a bad idea, irrespective of whether or not I am "right" about Iraq.

Leave it to you to put the two wars together and claim six of one, half dozen of the other, and I'm only being partial about them because my guy happens to be in the White House at the moment. THAT is a crock.

I made no such claim. I just pointed out that Obama has more than doubled the expenditures in Afghanistan. That's a fact, and he is getting worse results, and more Americans are dying there than were before.

Look - if Liberals were really "antiwar" we would have seen massive protests for the drone killings of American citizens and others without charge, in countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan where no war was authorized by anyone, etc. We would have seen a lot of Liberal opposition to the Libyan war. Taking the position that if we had our 'druthers we'd rather not see any war at all is not the same thing -- almost nobody really "wants" war -- the difference is whether a particular war is necessary or not.

[Coito ergo sum]

Crap, I'm cheerleading for no fucking war. Get your lying head out of your ass.

When I refer to so-called Liberals, I'm not referring to you specifically. There has been a dearth of protesting against Obama's military actions. If so-called Liberals extrajudicial killings of unindicted American citizens like they treated indefinite detentions of prisoners picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan, I'd at least respect them a bit. Heck, they don't even treat indefinite detentions as a problem anymore. Under Bush, they were "illegal" -- not so anymore, it seems.

Crap. Pure and simple. And "you" is rather fucking specific.

Oh, it's crap? So there have been lots of Liberals protesting against Obama's military actions? Where?

There have been Liberal calls and protests against the extrajudicial killings? Those are being generally characterized by Liberals as illegal and "war crimes?" LOL. Joke.

[Ian]

Your understanding of our involvement in Afghanistan is pathetic.

And what is your point in whining about liberals lack of (to your eyes, apparently!) frustration about Obama's foreign policy? That they're hypocrites because deep down they're just as awful as conservatives? That's a weak pedestal to stand on.

[Coito ergo sum]

You want Al-Awlaki to matter only because Obama is commander-in-chief. That argument has long since been settled - since the days of Lincoln, in fact. He was an enemy combatant; if he could have been captured as easily as targeted with a cruise missile, that would've been done (it certainly would've helped with intelligence).

No. I support his decision and I've said so before. I want it to matter TO LIBERALS because it makes no sense for them to have shouted "war crime" and/or "illegal" about indefinite detentions (which they did, generally speaking) and then say shoving a missile up their asses would have been o.k.

And, it has also been settled for quite some time that non-uniformed combatants without Geneva Convention cards were NOT Prisoners of War entitled to the protection of the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War. Yet that didn't stop Liberals from generally claiming that it was required. It has also long been settled that such persons could and traditionally were tried before military tribunals, but that didn't stop Liberals from claiming that it was illegal to try to them in war crimes tribunals. And, under Lincoln, since you brought him up, indefinite detention of non-uniformed combatants was the norm, and has been since then, but that didn't stop so-called Liberals from protesting en masse about the non-uniformed combatants when Bush was President. Now, of course, there are no such protests. Nobody cares that 4 years later, almost, there are still indefinite detainees there - so, the point I am trying to make is that if so-called Liberals were outraged then, they should be equally outraged now.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Crap, I'm cheerleading for no fucking war. Get your lying head out of your ass.

When I refer to so-called Liberals, I'm not referring to you specifically. There has been a dearth of protesting against Obama's military actions. If so-called Liberals extrajudicial killings of unindicted American citizens like they treated indefinite detentions of prisoners picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan, I'd at least respect them a bit. Heck, they don't even treat indefinite detentions as a problem anymore. Under Bush, they were "illegal" -- not so anymore, it seems.

Crap. Pure and simple. And "you" is rather fucking specific.

Oh, it's crap? So there have been lots of Liberals protesting against Obama's military actions? Where?

There have been Liberal calls and protests against the extrajudicial killings? Those are being generally characterized by Liberals as illegal and "war crimes?" LOL. Joke.

Yeah? If I gave you examples you'd just yeah-but.

[Coito ergo sum]

Your understanding of our involvement in Afghanistan is pathetic.

It is? What did I say that was wrong.

And what is your point in whining about liberals lack of (to your eyes, apparently!) frustration about Obama's foreign policy? That they're hypocrites because deep down they're just as awful as conservatives? That's a weak pedestal to stand on.

No - the contention was that they're anti-war. They're not. Generally speaking, they're anti-war when a Republican is President. That is what it is. In many ways they are just as awful as so-called conservatives, but I'm not standing on that pedestal. But, I'm not on their team either, and I criticize conservatives all the time. I'm just generally consistent.

[Coito ergo sum]

Crap, I'm cheerleading for no fucking war. Get your lying head out of your ass.

When I refer to so-called Liberals, I'm not referring to you specifically. There has been a dearth of protesting against Obama's military actions. If so-called Liberals extrajudicial killings of unindicted American citizens like they treated indefinite detentions of prisoners picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan, I'd at least respect them a bit. Heck, they don't even treat indefinite detentions as a problem anymore. Under Bush, they were "illegal" -- not so anymore, it seems.

Crap. Pure and simple. And "you" is rather fucking specific.

Oh, it's crap? So there have been lots of Liberals protesting against Obama's military actions? Where?

There have been Liberal calls and protests against the extrajudicial killings? Those are being generally characterized by Liberals as illegal and "war crimes?" LOL. Joke.

Yeah? If I gave you examples you'd just yeah-but.

Typical. You like to surface argue -- you just make your assertions and run off, never seeing fit to backing your assertions up.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You never debate honestly. That's shitty. And it's the reason you don't get more out of me, you don't deserve it.

[Coito ergo sum]

You never debate honestly. That's shitty. And it's the reason you don't get more out of me, you don't deserve it.

You're so full of shit the toilet is jealous.

I address people's points, and I support mine. Your definition of honesty is "agreeing with 'zilla." It's why you can't think clearly. You constantly make debates personal, instead of making an assertion and supporting it with a rational argument.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You never debate honestly. That's shitty. And it's the reason you don't get more out of me, you don't deserve it.

You're so full of shit the toilet is jealous.

I address people's points, and I support mine. Your definition of honesty is "agreeing with 'zilla." It's why you can't think clearly. You constantly make debates personal, instead of making an assertion and supporting it with a rational argument.

It's not my job to try and make you into a silk purse. You have to live with you, that's fine by me.

[Ian]

Your understanding of our involvement in Afghanistan is pathetic.

It is? What did I say that was wrong.

Pretty much everything.

And what is your point in whining about liberals lack of (to your eyes, apparently!) frustration about Obama's foreign policy? That they're hypocrites because deep down they're just as awful as conservatives? That's a weak pedestal to stand on.

No - the contention was that they're anti-war. They're not. Generally speaking, they're anti-war when a Republican is President. That is what it is. In many ways they are just as awful as so-called conservatives, but I'm not standing on that pedestal. But, I'm not on their team either, and I criticize conservatives all the time. I'm just generally consistent.

There has been ample debate about Obama's foreign policy from liberal circles which you're probably not even aware of. SHall we do some Google searching?
The greater hypocricy comes from the guys on your end - everything Obama does is such a terrible thing, wah wah wah. Gimma a break.

And it's perfectly correct for me to bring up Iraq when you brought up the costs of Obamacare. You're just annoyed because the disconnect didn't even cross your mind. Iraq cost between 3 and 4 trillion dollars, and for that expense we killed several thousand Americans, one hundred thousand Iraqis, over-stretched our military at a time when we were already involved elsewhere, found zero WMDs, did not discourage Iran one bit, and trashed our reputation around the world for a generation at least. Yes, you were wrong... and fuck your motherfucking hindsight that you gripe about not having had back then - people like me told you you were wrong in 2003, and you didn't want to listen. And today millions of Americans are getting the benefit of health care where they never did before (some might call that a good investment), and here you are whining about the potential cost. I'm genuinely glad Obamacare is there, even if it does somehow end up costing 1 trillion. And if the only way to finally get it to happen was to shove down the throats of Republicans, then I'm glad to the point of schadenfreude. They deserved it.

[Coito ergo sum]

You never debate honestly. That's shitty. And it's the reason you don't get more out of me, you don't deserve it.

You're so full of shit the toilet is jealous.

I address people's points, and I support mine. Your definition of honesty is "agreeing with 'zilla." It's why you can't think clearly. You constantly make debates personal, instead of making an assertion and supporting it with a rational argument.

It's not my job to try and make you into a silk purse. You have to live with you, that's fine by me.

LOL -- and there we have it. Exhibit A.

Nice AtheismPlus style argument, 'zilla. Maybe you'd be at home on their forum after all. They love to tell everyone it's not their job to back up their claims too. In the world of rational discourse, though, it is your job to support your own arguments, if you want to be taken seriously. That is up to you.