NationStates Jolt Archive

List the statements as follows.

1. First statement.
2. Second statement.

Is that too hard?

Its not hard, thats why I have done so several times already.

Now answer. Is that too hard?

Im much the same as you. RC by denomination but really canna be doing with religion as a concept. It only really serves to ruin peoples lives. Someone once said to me, "Live by faith not sight" And it says a lot for my self control that I never punched them on the spot for being so bloody stupid.
Some decent Whisky from down your way?

AMK
xxx

I agree with you. RC by denomination but not really in practice. I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the fanaticism of every faith be called the will of God. (That last part is actually a movie quote I believe.) And to answer your question: the Whisky here is fantastic, though not a an exact favorite of mine.

Your contradictory nature is a hindrance to taking you seriously; within the scope of one post, you manage to not only use mutually exclusive terms in describing a fellow poster (clever

do I have to throw the dictionary at you again? (http://m-w.com/dictionary/sarcasm)

you also perversely use (and abuse) pejorative language.

Holy batshit, fatman!

As I have amply reiterated, this "attitude" which you have assumed is an impediment to proper debate.

The "debate" is over; you just continue the thread because you like the attention. That's why you respond to posts like mine, while blatantly ignoring the ones who give in and indulge your need for "proper debate." (Specifically, the ones who rip your 'arguments' to shreds and stuff them down your throat.)

As a troll, your goal is a nice long thread and the feeling of power you get by acting some fictional personae - debate's got nothing to do with it, and you know it.

Its not hard, thats why I have done so several times already.

No, you've never done so. You may have put words into my mouth and refuted them (a classic straw-man argument), but you have never arranged the two statements thusly.

1. First statement.
2. Second statement.

Now, will you do so? I will answer your assertions, but only if you do this simple task.

I agree with you. RC by denomination but not really in practice. I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the fanaticism of every faith be called the will of God. (That last part is actually a movie quote I believe.) And to answer your question: the Whisky here is fantastic, though not a an exact favorite of mine.

I have this weird philosophy of mine, now let me first apologise if I am going to offend any christians by this, but my way of life revolves around doing what I think is right for the world, doing right by other people at all times and not caring if you happen to put all your faith in one person. I'd rather just get on with doing the right thing and not have to worry about giving my life to someone else because they can tell me how to do it in a way that will make their life better and will further their own aims. I'd rather just get on with doing it properly.

Im going to hell, doing the right thing is not an option. It has to be done with fear and hatred.

AMK
xxx

I have this weird philosophy of mine, now let me first apologise if I am going to offend any christians by this, but my way of life revolves around doing what I think is right for the world, doing right by other people at all times and not caring if you happen to put all your faith in one person. I'd rather just get on with doing the right thing and not have to worry about giving my life to someone else because they can tell me how to do it in a way that will make their life better and will further their own aims. I'd rather just get on with doing it properly.

Im going to hell, doing the right thing is not an option. It has to be done with fear and hatred.

AMK
xxx

I completely agree with you. :) Me and you will get along just fine.

No, you've never done so. You may have put words into my mouth and refuted them (a classic straw-man argument), but you have never arranged the two statements thusly.

1. First statement.
2. Second statement.

Now, will you do so? I will answer your assertions, but only if you do this simple task.

FAG, for the love of whatever you happen to ascribe to, JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION AND STOP FUCKING ABOUT WITH THIS NONSENSE. Your statement was only one statement with one fact in it. That fact was wrong. The word because stopped it from being two statements and turned it into one statement which was factually wrong.
You can muddle about with scantion and grammar all you want. What I have said is fact. End of story.

NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!!!!!

AMK
xxx

The word because stopped it from being two statements and turned it into one statement which was factually wrong.

Exactly! But I wasn't the one who put a "because" in there. Another poster falsely assumed that the two statements were logically connected when, in fact, they were quite separate. As such, they were two true statements, not one false one.

Exactly! But I wasn't the one who put a "because" in there. Another poster falsely assumed that the two statements were logically connected when, in fact, they were quite separate. As such, they were two true statements, not one false one.

Answer my question

Answer my question

What question? I just showed you how you were wrong. What more do you want?

Answer my question

Answer his question

Exactly! But I wasn't the one who put a "because" in there. Another poster falsely assumed that the two statements were logically connected when, in fact, they were quite separate. As such, they were two true statements, not one false one.

Stop beating around the bush and just answer Chesser Scotia's question. If you can't: admit it and move on with your pathetic exsistance.

>>ME>>:) :sniper:

You're happily getting shot by a sniper?

I completely agree with you. :) Me and you will get along just fine.

Sounds like it, i would endorse you, but you live in a different part of the world to me, therefore I cannot trust you, you are a foreigner! ;-)

Dammit i must be reading too many of FAGs diatribes! They are rubbing off.


>>ME>>:) :sniper:

AMK
xxx

What question? I just showed you how you were wrong. What more do you want?

I want you to answer the question I put to you earlier on. You have originally tried to ridicule it, then you decided to ignore it, now you are denying its existence. You sound familiar.

What question? I just showed you how you were wrong. What more do you want?

No you haven't, you have twisted your own words.

FIRST STATEMENT

"The slaughter in Iraq was more widespread than in other countries mentioned". This statement was in response to the question of why target Iraq and ot other countries mentioned. You later stated that the phrase "widespread" was referring to georaphical area.

SECOND STATEMENT

"Geographical area is irrelevant". This was in response to a question regarding genocide and slaughter.

Two contradictory statements.

Which one is true and which one is false? Its that simple

Sounds like it, i would endorse you, but you live in a different part of the world to me, therefore I cannot trust you, you are a foreigner! ;-)

Dammit i must be reading too many of FAGs diatribes! They are rubbing off.


>>ME>>:) :sniper:

AMK
xxx

*pulls thin glasses down to the lower part of the bridge of my nose*

"It appears as if you have Xenophobic Tendencies. I'm going to prescribe you Antiretardodine. You must take it twice ever 6 nanoseconds or you will die in 7 days. Good luck to you." :)

Just playing.

You sound familiar.

MTAE? CitizenPatriot? RealAmerica?

No, you've never done so. You may have put words into my mouth and refuted them (a classic straw-man argument), but you have never arranged the two statements thusly.

1. First statement.
2. Second statement.

Now, will you do so? I will answer your assertions, but only if you do this simple task.

Since you can't be arsed to read your own responses, I'll give it a shot:

When asked to show why America had not intervened in other genocides, here:

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha that is quite simply the most stupid thing I have ever read in my life!
Rwanda? Sudan? Somalia? Ethoipia/Eritrea? In each of those countries, more people have been killed by their "leaders" than in Iraq.

Significant threat to world stability? Why? Was Hussein threatening to take away all tent pegs and let the world blow away in the wind? If he had WMD's, why did he not use them? Surely they are there to use when you are getting invaded? Well why didn't he? Sudden moral dillema? Fuck right off.

You my friend do not know the meaning of the word freedom.
Your meaning seems to forget that freedom is all encompassing and does not ever get eroded. If we do not tell our govts that they are doing the wrong thing when they are actually doing it, how the fuck will they ever find out?
If a bunch of American soldiers came round your parents house and declared war on it, would you speak out like a traitor? Or would you sit there and let them get shot like the good little American that you are?

In the words of Mel Gibson as William Wallace "Ssssiiilllleeennnncceeeee"!!!!!

AMK
xxx

You responded:
1)
Yes, but the deaths were not so widespread (ie, dispersed over an equally wide geograpic area).

He wanted to preserve his cult status among fanatics as a hero of the Arab world; to harm the US war effort, he would be forced to employ the warheads against his own country as he lacked adequate delivery systems to target the US itself. That would jeopardize his standing without altering the course of the war; furthermore, it would have certainly led to his execution as a war criminal at the conclusion of the conflict.

Later, when shown evidence of a genocide on a large geographical scale, you said:
2)
The area over which the killings occur is irrelevant; however, the total casualties do matter. For it to be a genocide, wanton and deliberate slaughter of innocent civilians must occur. Many instances of alleged "genocide" are mitigated, if not completely excused, by the fact the a particular ethnic minority is violently opposing the state, necessitating a harsh retaliation. One example of this is the conflict in Чече́нская Респу́блика.

As such, you created and later denied a qualification for genocide. So, these quotes show that not only was Ollieland pointing out a legitimate contradiction, but that you prefer to create fictitious criteria for debate and cast them aside at your convenience.

I want you to answer the question I put to you earlier on. You have originally tried to ridicule it, then you decided to ignore it, now you are denying its existence. You sound familiar.

Oh, that question. Putting aside the inherent preposterous nature of such a question, the answer would have to take into consideration various factors. In essence, one must ask oneself: "would the potential psychological harm to the soldiers be outweighed by the physical harm to American civilians?"

Now, if a president is willing to employ a nuclear weapon against his own country, protesting against such an action would be patently fruitless -- you would not be able to alter his crazed mind. You could send a letter to him and your elected representatives decrying the move, but should not publicly denounce the action. You must not endanger the morale of our armed forces in a futile effort to avert further civilian bloodshed. The only thing you could possibly achieve by vehemently speaking out against such mutilation of America by its commander-in-chief would be the lowering of our troops' morale. You could not change anything else, and certainly not the maniacal president's policy.

Thus, the answer is that you should not protest the action.

I was thinking the direct lead injection to the head would be the easiest and least messy option.
Xenophobic Tendancies sounds like a robot from Robot Wars.
There is something strangely alluring about people who put their glasses on the lower part of their nose. Strange really
Could use a decent chat tbh...

Oh and FAG? Answer the question. Im quite happy to ruin this thread by repeating myself ad nauseam.
Best we just get on with it then eh?

Oh I've done that before. He just goes offline and waits for you to go away, then comes back and starts plugging away again. I called him a coward for it (and other things) but he didn't even see fit to respond to that either.

*pulls thin glasses down to the lower part of the bridge of my nose*

"It appears as if you have Xenophobic Tendencies. I'm going to prescribe you Antiretardodine. You must take it twice ever 6 nanoseconds or you will die in 7 days. Good luck to you." :)

Just playing.

I was thinking the direct lead injection to the head would be the easiest and least messy option.
Xenophobic Tendancies sounds like a robot from Robot Wars.
There is something strangely alluring about people who put their glasses on the lower part of their nose. Strange really
Could use a decent chat tbh...

Oh and FAG? Answer the question. Im quite happy to ruin this thread by repeating myself ad nauseam.
Best we just get on with it then eh?

You're simply trolling in thus thread; thus, the onus is on you to be original. You have failed in that requirement: your trolling is not entertaining in the least.

Ahh, I love the smell irony in the evening. Almost blanked out the lovely smell of the firepit there for a second.

Since you can't be arsed to read your own responses, I'll give it a shot:

When asked to show why America had not intervened in other genocides, here:



You responded:
1)


Later, when shown evidence of a genocide on a large geographical scale, you said:
2)


As such, you created and later denied a qualification for genocide. So, these quotes show that not only was Ollieland pointing out a legitimate contradiction, but that you prefer to create fictitious criteria for debate and cast them aside at your convenience.


You will find I asked a very similar Q tonight. You may notice a recurring theme in my past few posts. Im gradually recruiting supporters and we are working hard to totally bore the hell out of anyone who is reading this, but its effective and feels damn good!

1. "The slaughter in Iraq was more widespread than in other countries mentioned."

2. "Geographical area is irrelevant."

Two contradictory statements.

No, they are not contradictory. I provided an example to this effect. Saddam Hussein has a longer name than other dictators. However, the length of his name is irrelevant to the atrocity of his actions. Both statements are true.

No, they are not contradictory. I provided an example to this effect. Saddam Hussein has a longer name than other dictators. However, the length of his name is irrelevant to the atrocity of his actions. Both statements are true.

They are contradictory.You are saying the slaughter is worse in Iraq because it was over a bigger geographical area, and then saying geographical area is irrelevant. The example is bullshit and has exactly zero to do with anything being discussed.

By their very definition both statements can't be true. So which is it?

Oh I've done that before. He just goes offline and waits for you to go away, then comes back and starts plugging away again. I called him a coward for it (and other things) but he didn't even see fit to respond to that either.

I have a job. Do you expect me to be online 24/7, reading (and responding to) your pathetic personal attacks?

Oh, that question. Putting aside the inherent preposterous nature of such a question, the answer would have to take into consideration various factors. In essence, one must ask oneself: "would the potential psychological harm to the soldiers be outweighed by the physical harm to American civilians?"

Now, if a president is willing to employ a nuclear weapon against his own country, protesting against such an action would be patently fruitless -- you would not be able to alter his crazed mind. You could send a letter to him and your elected representatives decrying the move, but should not publicly denounce the action. You must not endanger the morale of our armed forces in a futile effort to avert further civilian bloodshed. The only thing you could possibly achieve by vehemently speaking out against such mutilation of America by its commander-in-chief would be the lowering of our troops' morale. You could not change anything else, and certainly not the maniacal president's policy.

Thus, the answer is that you should not protest the action.Is this a troll or a twelve year old?

Reminds of a kid I went to Jr High School with. Kept asking everybody "Would you take a bullet for the President?" He was so disgusted when I said no. For crying out loud,the President was Reagan. I was hoping they'd take a few more shots.

No, they are not contradictory. I provided an example to this effect. Saddam Hussein has a longer name than other dictators. However, the length of his name is irrelevant to the atrocity of his actions. Both statements are true.

You said that other dictators had not committed atrocities on the scale that Saddam did. When it was pointed out that they had you said you meant geographical scale. Now you're saying that the geographical scale is irrelevant. Which is it?

Oh, that question. Putting aside the inherent preposterous nature of such a question, the answer would have to take into consideration various factors. In essence, one must ask oneself: "would the potential psychological harm to the soldiers be outweighed by the physical harm to American civilians?"

Now, if a president is willing to employ a nuclear weapon against his own country, protesting against such an action would be patently fruitless -- you would not be able to alter his crazed mind. You could send a letter to him and your elected representatives decrying the move, but should not publicly denounce the action. You must not endanger the morale of our armed forces in a futile effort to avert further civilian bloodshed. The only thing you could possibly achieve by vehemently speaking out against such mutilation of America by its commander-in-chief would be the lowering of our troops' morale. You could not change anything else, and certainly not the maniacal president's policy.

Thus, the answer is that you should not protest the action.


And in conclusion, we have the winner. FaG is indeed a spineless prick who is scared to stand up for himself in the face of real hostility. Only when there is the buffer and facade of an electronic forum does he have the guts to stand up and make a noise like a big boy. When the chips are down and his own family no less need his support, he is too "Ameriqi" to do what is right for the world.
All together now...

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?

Honestly, I would now be embarassed to utter those words knowing a coward like you subscribes to them. Just as well I am scottish and get to sing a different song.

If any member of my Government dared to come near my family with any sort of ordinance, I would fucking demand they stopped and if I had to stand in the way of them myself you would see me on CNN doing so. It is called Democracy FaG. That there is the right to stand up for what you believe at any time, and in any place, for any reason. If some soldiers lose morale whilst bombing my house, then all the better.
You sir, are a disgrace to the human race.

AMK
xxx

You are saying the slaughter is worse in Iraq because it was over a bigger geographical area

No, I never said that. I simply stated that the events transpired over a wider geographic area, but never claimed that this was pertinent to the comparison between Saddam and other dictators; it was simply a demonstration of the extent of the brutal strangle-hold he had over Iraq.

I have a job. Do you expect me to be online 24/7, reading (and responding to) your pathetic personal attacks?

Give me oone quote of a personalk attack in this thread. I have tried to debate with you and you have twisted, turned, denied your own statements and refused to answer, derided the intelligence and integrity of other poster and been generally rude. The most I have accused you of is being a coward. If thats a "personal attack", I suggest yupu read what sopme other people in this thread have said about you. It might put my "personal attack" into context.

Give me oone quote of a personalk attack in this thread. I have tried to debate with you and you have twisted, turned, denied your own statements and refused to answer, derided the intelligence and integrity of other poster and been generally rude. The most I have accused you of is being a coward. If thats a "personal attack", I suggest yupu read what sopme other people in this thread have said about you. It might put my "personal attack" into context.

Naw Ollieland, sorry, i have given him plenty. Its part of the fun.

No, I never said that. I simply stated that the events transpired over a wider geographic area, but never claimed that this was pertinent to the comparison between Saddam and other dictators; it was simply a demonstration of the extent of the brutal strangle-hold he had over Iraq.

YES YOU DID. That was an answer to the question put to you. Deny it all you like it is there for everyone to read.

You fail Again.

I have a job. Do you expect me to be online 24/7, reading (and responding to) your pathetic personal attacks?

The comments about your 'debating' tactics aren't pathetic if they are true.

That there is the right to stand up for what you believe at any time, and in any place, for any reason.

But if the sole consequence of doing so is the lowering of our troops' morale, it is a traitorous act. If you believe there to be a reasonable chance of personally changing the president's mind through your protest, you may do so. But there isn't, so don't.

That's ridiculous; it would never happen.

IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL, YOU FUCKWIT!!!!!!!!! Whether or not it would ever happen is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, how you would respond is. So answer the question!

EDIT: That's a personal attack, FnG. Maybe you should learn the difference between debate and attack. Just a thought.

We had a small argument a while ago over whether you were a troll.
This proves once and for all that I was right.

But if the sole consequence of doing so is the lowering of our troops' morale, it is a traitorous act. If you believe there to be a reasonable chance of personally changing the president's mind through your protest, you may do so. But there isn't, so don't.


What are you talking about? Troops are irellevant when your life is in danger. THe whole point of having troops is to defend us. My point is that if your life is in danger anyway whats the bloody point in having a happy guy sitting with a gun in his hand watching me die? I'd get out there and shoot the president myself. Or die trying. At least then I had made an effort to do something. You will write him a letter as your parents, and relatives lie bleeding to death. Some fucking father you are going to make one day.

AMK
xxx

YES YOU DID. That was an answer to the question put to you. Deny it all you like it is there for everyone to read.

It was not an answer, but you interpreted it as such; it is not my fault that you make false assumption and then attempt to pass them off as universal truth. Mine was simply a statement of fact, illustrating Saddam's exceptionalism when compared to other brutal tyrants.

I'd get out there and shoot the president myself.

That is a valid reaction which could, theoretically, have a positive effect on the civilian population of the US. I stated that open dissent against a president in war-time was un-patriotic, not attempted assassination.

See, protest achieves no reasonable goal; it does not alter the decisions taken by those in the corridors of power. It only serves to needlessly demoralize our troops. More forceful action, on the other hand, might be fruitful.

That is a valid reaction which could, theoretically, have a positive effect on the civilian population of the US. I stated that open dissent against a president in war-time was un-patriotic, not attempted assassination.

And what is more dissenting than trying to kill him?
Is that not the ultimate statement that the country as a whole is in a disgraceful state and you are bringing that state to bear on the person who is ultimately responsible?
If that is not dissent, i dont know what is.

You are still a shocking disgrace to humanity.

His regime has killed, at most, several thousand people. That's hardly enough to justify intervention in such a large country, probably resulting in many more deaths. The country is a bigger and more populous Vietnam.

No it isn't.

Myanmar (Burma): 261,227 sq mi
Population - July 2005 estimate 50,519,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar

Vietnam: 128,065 sq mi
Population - July 2005 estimate 85,238,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam

But if the sole consequence of doing so is the lowering of our troops' morale, it is a traitorous act.

E.G:
-The soldiers don't like rainy days in Iraq (most people don't like to be out in the rain, even if you are in a vehicle).
-The U.S.A meteorological service gives a prediction that the Iraqi weather will be rainy for the next couple of days
-The soldiers are told this in their pre-mission briefing and slightly saddened. Their training allows them to cope with rainy/wet conditions. Status quo (as bad as it is) is maintained.
-Weather prediction is treasonous :eek: .

Am I to deduce from that statement that you would not like me to use that quote even in a different context (of your choosing)?

Very good. It seems your interpretation skills are up to the test. Now the big question is, can you put it into practice? :p

No it isn't.

Stop playing semantics. You know I was referring to North Vietnam during the conflict in the region, not modern-day, unified Vietnam. I was obviously making a comparison to the Vietnam War.

Stop playing semantics. You know I was referring to North Vietnam during the conflict in the region, not modern-day, unified Vietnam. I was obviously making a comparison to the Vietnam War.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
See the problem now is im going to my bed, and I can't sleep for laughing.

Good night everyone, I hope you are all well and safe.

AMK
xxx

-Weather prediction is treasonous :eek: .

No, because the weather would be the same regardless of the statements issued by meteorologists. The weather itself lowers morale.

Very good. It seems your interpretation skills are up to the test. Now the big question is, can you put it into practice? :p

I shall register my general distaste for your brand of historical revisionism, but shall comply with your request because I am a kind, honest man.

Stop playing semantics. You know I was referring to North Vietnam during the conflict in the region, not modern-day, unified Vietnam. I was obviously making a comparison to the Vietnam War.

Nobody knows what you are referring to as you change ti every five minutes.

Now give me an example of where I personnally attacked you.

Stop playing semantics. You know I was referring to North Vietnam during the conflict in the region, not modern-day, unified Vietnam. I was obviously making a comparison to the Vietnam War.

Hey, you gt to nitpick what the poster said as opposed to what they meant, then we all get to do it right back atcha. Since you didn't state that you were referring to pre-unification Vietnam, we were all free to infer that you were referring to modern Vietnam and provide references to disprove your statement.

Now give me an example of where I personnally attacked you.

You slung the accusation that I was a "coward" at me.

You guys are trying to teach a chicken the alphabet.

Hey, you gt to nitpick what the poster said as opposed to what they meant, then we all get to do it right back atcha. Since you didn't state that you were referring to pre-unification Vietnam, we were all free to infer that you were referring to modern Vietnam and provide references to disprove your statement.

Very well. I admit that I wasn't sufficiently clear and shall revise my statement to read "North Vietnam."

No, because the weather would be the same regardless of the statements issued by meteorologists. The weather itself lowers morale.

So? They are still spreading information that the weather will be rainy. It doesn't matter that the event will occur is occurring anyway, what is important is that a person or group of people are spreading/discovering information that could be saddening to the soldiers yet not majorly effect their performance (mainly due to training and low ranking leaders.

Se where I am getting with this?

Very well. I admit that I wasn't sufficiently clear and shall revise my statement to read "North Vietnam."

Gee, golly, I feel so much better now that you've clarified that. But I was also referring to a larger trend in your posts, in which you bitch and moan and pick apart other posters for their grammar and lack of clarity, then get pissy when others do the same to you. Sauce for the goose, etc...

You slung the accusation that I was a "coward" at me.

I informed you that you were a coward for two reasons. Firstly, your refusal to debate, secondly, your refusal to join up and do something you apparently beleive to be right.

Not a personal attack, a statement of fact. Look up coward in the dictionary, I have used the term correctly. Whether yuo choose to interpret that as a derogatory attack is up to you.

So? They are still spreading information that the weather will be rainy.

A bit of rain will not jeopardize a soldier's confidence in the righteousness of his mission, nor are weather-men responsible for the weather.

Stop playing semantics. You know I was referring to North Vietnam during the conflict in the region, not modern-day, unified Vietnam. I was obviously making a comparison to the Vietnam War.

We didn't have millitary operations in North Vietnam, except bombing runs. Ground operations were in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia so I assume you now meant to say South Vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War


The only part you had right was that it would be very much like Vietnam. Congratulations, F&G. Everybody gets one right once in a while. Even if it is by accident. However, I have no doubt that if Bush did decide to invade Myanmar, you'd re-launch this diatribe before the first American boot hit the ground.

BTW, that was an incredibly weak and pathetic attempt to throw my words back at me. You've changed your definitions and "meanings" several times in this little exercise in futility. But keep at it. If you grasp at straws often enough, you just might catch one.

Thanks, I am really looking forward to being active in the NationStates Forums, but I am officially declaring that FAG is on my ignore list. Permanently.

As for this thread:

I enjoyed reading the intellegent remarks made by some of our fellow NSG members, but it was all ruined everytime FAG stepped in and dumped his extreme right-wing 'the government is always right' bullshit on this thread.
Hullo!

Incidentally, sorry for my terrible, terrible language, but FAG really gets me riled, and I've got a mouth like a nun in such situations.

Ground operations were in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia so I assume you now meant to say South Vietnam.

Yes, but our enemy was the North Vietnamese government and the guerrilla groups it supported. The bulk of the manpower utilized by the Viet Cong in the war was supplied from the North.

A bit of rain will not jeopardize a soldier's confidence in the righteousness of his mission,

This was never about 'righteousness' it was about morale. About how happy and confident they are. Clearly poor weather would do that, even if it is mostly offset by their training.

nor are weather-men responsible for the weather.

But they would be responsible for providing information that tells the soldiers that the weather will be rainy or that the area that they are going into is already having a shower. Even if they can already see the signs (such as clouds or slight drizzle) they meteorologists are reaffirming what is happening.

Since even the slightest amount of negative information that the soldiers receive, even if it is just reaffirming what they see around them, can be bad for their morale then weather prediction is automatically treason.

You talking about 'righteousness' also reminds me of this:
That's irrelevant; the only pertinent variable is their belief in the justness of their cause.

Then why didn't the Japanese win The Pacific War?

Thanks, I am really looking forward to being active in the NationStates Forums, but I am officially declaring that FAG is on my ignore list. Permanently.

As for this thread:

I enjoyed reading the intellegent remarks made by some of our fellow NSG members, but it was all ruined everytime FAG stepped in and dumped his extreme right-wing 'the government is always right' bullshit on this thread.

Join the club, man! I just put FAG on ignore right after reading this thread.

Stop playing semantics. You know I was referring to North Vietnam during the conflict in the region, not modern-day, unified Vietnam. I was obviously making a comparison to the Vietnam War.
OK then -

Population density of North Vietnam -213.3 /sq mi
Population density of Myanmar -193 /sq mi

There you go.

OK then -

Population density of North Vietnam -213.3 /sq mi
Population density of Myanmar -193 /sq mi

There you go.

Who said anything about population density? I was referring to total population.

FreedomAndGlory:


I didn't bother to read your rebuttal; you've already been placed back on ignore. The only regret I have is that I ever removed you from that list so I could take part in this ridiculous sham of a thread. Have fun getting chunks taken out of your ass from the rest of NSG.

Peace.

Who said anything about population density? I was referring to total population.
You are the most incredible retard I have ever spoken to.

If you walked around an 'average' square mile of North Vietnam, you would bump into 213 people.

In Myanmar, this would be 193 people.

This is what's important in terms of a country's population relative to its size. Why do you not understand this?

If you walked around an 'average' square mile of North Vietnam, you would bump into 213 people.

In Myanmar, this would be 193 people.

Yes, but there are more square miles in Myanmar. It would be harder to defeat Russia militarily than Luxembourg, even though the population density of the latter is greater than that of the former.

F&G.

You are insulting every person in the Armed Services who fight and protect this country.

They uphold the idea that people can speak out against the percieved wrongdoings of our Government leaders. They fight to protect the right to hold free assemblies and to voice their complaints about their Government. They fight so that YOU can complain about the media, about people who voice opinions that run counter to yours and for the right to say what they think needs to be said.

I may not agree with what my fellow Americans will say, but I will support their right to say it.

I hope you remember this thread (in fact, I can promise you that many has this bookedmark) when there is a Liberal President in office and you want to complain about how that President runs the country.

Complain about what people say, but don't say that they are traitors for excercising their right.

Who said anything about population density? I was referring to total population.

You were referring to something else what a surprise.

Sorry FAG but I will no longer feed you.

You have had several points proved to you throughout this thread but simply refuse accept them or twist your words to something else. You deny statements that you have made, use semantics and wordplay to change the meaning of your own statements, refuse to beleive that it is possible you may be wrong about anything, and generally act in an extremely rude and condescending manner. Whilst doing all this you falsely acuse others of doing the exact the same things whilst deriding them for doing so.

You have not made one serious effort at debate or original thought.

I can only draw three conclusions from this whole sorry episode. You are either a child who doesn't really know what they are saying, someone who actually does beleive what they are saying or, the number one theory an attention whore who gets some sort of perverse thrill from interupting people who want serious debate and trying to rile them.

If the first case is true, I sugggest you leave the internet alone until you are mature enough to understand the concepts you are discussng. If the seccond case is true, I would suggest some form of medical help.

If the third case is true (and I strongly suspect it is) then I would suggest yoou just stop. People come to these forums for debate and discussion, not endless drivel, as you have provided here and many times before.

I myself enjoy being here, I have had discussions with many people I politically disagree with (New Mitaani and Remote Observer to name a few) who have the decency to back up their arguments and try to prove their case. You do neither. I have even had my views slightly altered by other's arguments and discussions (most notably pn gun control), yet you refuse to conced even the smallest point, I suspect out of some inflated sense of egomania. That is the prime sign of a troll, not a debater.

Your attempts to rile me have, in fact, failed. I will now put you on ignore, not out of some malicious hatred which you seem to take a perverse pleasure in, but really out of exasperation. In truth I pity you, you see yourself as a King among fools, yet you are "King" of what? A group of people talking on the internet. Hardly a fantastic achievement, even if it were true.

I urge all NSGers to ignore this troll, and just feel ridiculous myself for not doing so sooner.

Yes, but there are more square miles in Myanmar. It would be harder to defeat Russia militarily than Luxembourg, even though the population density of the latter is greater than that of the former.
...

Taken to something of an extreme, no?

The two are quite comparable in many ways, unlike Luxembourg and Russia.

You talk about FreedomAndGlory, yet you don't appear to be willing to use MeansToAnEnd to be the RealAmerica(n) you profess to be?

quoted for lulz

You slung the accusation that I was a "coward" at me.
Perhaps chickenhawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)) would be more appropriate?

The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Generally, the implication is that "chickenhawks" lack the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.
You talk about FreedomAndGlory, yet you don't appear to be willing to use MeansToAnEnd to be the RealAmerica(n) you profess to be?

Can I ignore every second word in that post?

EDIT: Btw, this was not done as an insult; I am just really bored.

You referring something what surprise.

FAG I no feed.

You had points to throughout thread simply accept or your to else. Deny that have, use and to the of own, refuse beleive it possible may wrong anything, generally in extremely and manner. Doing this falsely others doing exact same whilst them doing.

You not one effort debate original.

I only three from whole episode. Are a who really what are, someone actually beleive they saying, the one an whore gets sort perverse from people want debate trying rile .

If first is, I you the alone you mature to the you discussing. The case true, would some of help.

The case true (I suspect is) I suggest just. People to forums debate discussion, endless, as have here many before.

Myself being, I had with people politically with (Mitaani Remote to a) who the to up arguments try prove case. do . I even my slightly by arguments discussions (notably gun), yet refuse conced the point, suspect of inflated of. That the sign a, not debater.

Attempts rile have, fact. I now you ignore, out some hatred you to a pleasure, but out exasperation. Truth pity, you yourself a among, yet are of?A of talking the. Hardly fantastic, even it true.

Urge NSGers ignore troll, just ridiculous for doing sooner.

Strangely enough that still makes sense...

Taken to something of an extreme, no?

Yes, to prove that population density is not a valid indicator of the military strength of a nation (and, consequently, the ease of defeating them in a war).

You were referring to something else what a surprise.

I clearly stated "population" and not "population density" so I fail to see what you are ranting about.

Can I ignore every second word in that post?

EDIT: Btw, this was not done as an insult; I am just really bored.



Strangely enough that still makes sense...

If you add STOP to the end of every sentence, it'd look like an old 30s telegram.

I'm giving up. FnG is clearly impervious to logic-based damage, and is pretty much annoying the shit out of me. Have fun, folks...

Yes, to prove that population density is not a valid indicator of the military strength of a nation (and, consequently, the ease of defeating them in a war).
...

The quality of the two armies is completely different, the size of the countries is hugely different and the steadfastness of the general public is completely different.

Different weapons and tactics would need to be used, training would need to be completely different to fight in different bits of Russia.



Unlike Myanmar / Vietnam, where it's jungle fighting with a few hilly bits, the same diseases, largely the same kit against both enemies, both are well-trained armies with geurilla elements with a fairly similar range of population, from very built up cities to very open countryside.

If you add STOP to the end of every sentence, it'd look like an old 30s telegram.

*Deletes this due to the image being better*

:D.

"You referring something what surprise STOP

FAG I no feed STOP

You had points to throughout thread simply accept or your to else STOP Deny that have, use and to the of own, refuse beleive it possible may wrong anything, generally in extremely and manner STOP Doing this falsely others doing exact same whilst them doing STOP

You not one effort debate original STOP

I only three from whole episode STOP Are a who really what are, someone actually beleive they saying, the one an whore gets sort perverse from people want debate trying rile STOP

If first is, I you the alone you mature to the you discussing STOP The case true, would some of help STOP

The case true (I suspect is) I suggest just STOP People to forums debate discussion, endless, as have here many before STOP

Myself being, I had with people politically with (Mitaani Remote to a) who the to up arguments try prove case STOP Do STOP I even my slightly by arguments discussions (notably gun), yet refuse conced the point, suspect of inflated of STOP That the sign a, not debater STOP

Attempts rile have, fact STOP I now you ignore, out some hatred you to a pleasure, but out exasperation STOP Truth pity, you yourself a among, yet are of QUESTION A of talking the STOP Hardly fantastic, even it true STOP

Urge NSGers ignore troll, just ridiculous for doing sooner STOP"



Wait a tick, isn't that a Tamagochi instruction manual extract?

Perhaps chickenhawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(politics)) would be more appropriate?


You talk about FreedomAndGlory, yet you don't appear to be willing to use MeansToAnEnd to be the RealAmerica(n) you profess to be?

Sigged. STOP

Sigged. STOP
*smiles :)

*nod

http://i19.tinypic.com/641ohnk.gif

I am really bored, lol.

I am really bored, lol. just be careful your boredom does not lead you to the road to mod action.

I would no longer believe that an America that punishes people for dissenting is an America that is worth defending with my life. In fact, if that were to become the case, I'd likely return to my ancestral homeland, the realm of yodeling, watches, chocolate and pocket knives: Switzerland.

just be careful your boredom does not lead you to the road to mod action.

That did lead to the creation (and closing) of a parody thread.

If I had more time I would have altered the image so the words do not goover the tears.

*Deletes this due to the image being better*

:D.

Thanks.

If the US were to become a nation that punishes dissent it would cease to be a country worth defending.

http://www.necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

QFT

Thanks.

I think the image came up quite well.

Under the current circumstances with which we are faced (namely, the terrible specter of Islamo-fascism, silently hovering above us and patiently awaiting a chance to strike), the statement should read: "dissent IS traitorous."

Before we start casually throwing around phrases like "Islamo-facism" we should perhaps consider that no one refers to the uni-bomber is a christo-facist though, acccording to his own writings, his actions were deeply tied to his understanding of Christianity. The phrase "Islamo-facism" is perhaps more evidence of cultural bias than an accurate descriptor.

Can we get this thread to stop already?

Before we start casually throwing around phrases like "Islamo-facism" we should perhaps consider that no one refers to the uni-bomber is a christo-facist though, acccording to his own writings, his actions were deeply tied to his understanding of Christianity. The phrase "Islamo-facism" is perhaps more evidence of cultural bias than an accurate descriptor.
Yeah, quite.



Anyway, yes, RO is right. Please can we just let this die now?

I use Islamofascist as a synonym for "Muslim extremist" - you know, the kind that wants to blow up infidels, and any Muslims who don't agree.

It is ironic that Neo-Conservatives choose to refer to the people who resist their imperialism in the Middle East as "fascists." They don't seem to realize that they are fascists. Dissent against warmongering and fascism is not traitorous, it is patriotic and heroic.

The problem is that Fascism (also known as National Socialism or Nazism) has come to mean anti-Semitism, at least in the popular imagination. Fascism is a form of Socialism which is belligerent, opposed to civil liberties (all socialists, except for the confused ACLU types, oppose civil liberties, so that is nothing too special), and which desires government intervention into the economy to give handouts to favored corporations and to outlaw their competiton (Bush's War on Drugs isn't actually a war against drug addiction, but rather a war against people who sell addictive drugs on the streets instead of from pharmaceutical corporations which pay doctors to diagnose healthy people with nonexistant mental illnesses and give them addictive anti-depressant drugs that are linked to high rates of suicide and to mass murder of one's friends; the War on Iraq is actually a profitable business for Bush because it allows him to purchase more weapons from Halliburtion). No intelligent person can deny that the Neo-Conservatives are a true fascist moment. People may choose to evade the facts, but it is indisputable that Neo-Conservatives are fascists.

I use Islamofascist as a synonym for "Muslim extremist" - you know, the kind that wants to blow up infidels, and any Muslims who don't agree.By that definition, the currant administration can be described as "Amerifascist."

By that definition, the policies of the United States of the past ~fifty years, and especially the last twenty, can be described as "Amerifascist."

Fixed.

Can we get this thread to stop already?

Sometimes it's nice to occupy the trolls in a single location. Frees up the rest of the threads....

Can we get this thread to stop already?

...not by posting in it....

To the creator of this thread:

just....just... SHUT UP!



god you're a right winger...

and my answer would be the same no matter who was president

well except for hillary clinton.

if the president isnt doing what is best for the country, he (or she) doesnt deserve my support.

hillary clinton is a moronic jackass, or the worst liar on earth, so she would get skewered too. :)

Maybe we can come to some sort of agreement to disagree and end this thread:

Disagreement with America's policies is certainly not traitorous, and in many cases, can be completely patriotic. Examples of this can be seen in the anti-slavery movement, the push for women's right to vote, and the civil rights movement of the 1960s. These movements were carried out in a fashion that nobody can deny was noble and effective. There is a stark difference between these dissentions and those opposing the Vietnam War and the current war in Iraq. The major difference is in the form of rhetoric being used, and the complete lack of trust that the people carrying out the policy have any good interest in mind, to the point that the opposition attempts to use the most demonizing rhetoric possible without being accused of sedition. As the administration is also the Head of State, and represents the country itself in international relations, it is not difficult for some to confuse such criticism of the administration with criticism of the country as a whole. Such extreme rhetoric also can be easily confused with preference of the country's enemy over that country. On the other hand, movements such as the civil rights movement were never out to demonize the administration in power to the point of making it an enemy; they merely criticized the policy that the administration upheld. So, while certainly, dissent is not traitorous, if a dissenter still loves the country he/she lives in, perhaps one should choose their words more carefully, to inspire hope by presenting the change as good for the country, rather than making the enemy sound favorable to their own country during a time of war, whether you mean it or not.

If this is a time of war, why did Congress not actually declare war on/in Iraq? You can't have a time of war without an actually, you know, declaration of war.

vietnam not withstanding:cool:

Last time I looked America was still a democracy. Its policies do revolve around what the voters think.

this place hasn't been democratic since the days after our founding fathers died. but they'll have you think that and do what they want anyway. :rolleyes:

this place hasn't been democratic since the days after our founding fathers died. but they'll have you think that and do what they want anyway. :rolleyes:

We were never democratic to begin with. We are a Republic.

FreedomAndGlory - if you feel so inspired about this, go join the army instead of just sitting in front of computer complaining about others.

isn't it weird how most of the so called hardcore super patriots have never served and have no plans to do so in the future. :p

We were never democratic to begin with. We are a Republic.

Exactly right, true democracy only comes from communism, as in majority rules, while capitalistic republics are minority control.

Exactly right, true democracy only comes from communism, as in majority rules, while capitalistic republics are minority control.

AH!! Not everyone was a member of the Communist Party in the former USSR! the minority of the people controlled the country while shafting the majority of the people. Nice try AP. You lose.

We were never democratic to begin with. We are a Republic.

I think he meant democratic as in "the people's opinions count". They don't.

True democracy exists as much as true communism. To use Russia as an example of communism is farcical, the USSR was a dictatorship through and through. Besides, I read in the first post some complain about islamo-fascism... isn't Saudi Arabia and iran "islamo-fascist" because they're people don't have a real voice? So said person is supporting Evangelical-fascism, where everyone has to march in tune with the crux and go forth with God to beat back the heathen. That's lovely, one fascism or another, you know I prefer speaking my mind, because speaking our mind is why our country was founded, we didn't march in tune to the King or allow soldiers to bunk in our houses! God knows we refused to pay taxes that were less than the ones we pay today!

True democracy exists as much as true communism. ...both can only live after the state dies.

I am not going to support a war triggered by an unethical cause. Iraq is not Afghanistan, and so long as Iraq is not Afghanistan then we have no reason to be there. As an American citizen it is my -God- granted right to voice my uncensored opinion on any subject at any given time, as per the terms of the 1st Amendment in the Constitution. This includes my ability to tell the current administration and their private business co-horts to take their unpractical unjust war and shove it up their assholes. This includes my right to laugh in the face of Bush's abysmal failure that is Iraq, a failure he set himself up for and a failure that -HE- set our troops up for.

You, F.A.G, seem to forget that most people who protest the war are firmly behind the United States military and the sacrifices that our men and women in service make daily. However, these sacrifices that they are making are sacrifices that allow us to continue to utilize these constitutional rights that allow us to dissent. If we weren't utilizing those rights to the fullest extent, then, and only then would the mission of the United States military be in vein and their duty soiled upon. Now, if upholding our values, our freedoms, and the gift of America is not the priority mission of a United States soldier then quite frankly they do not earn my support anyway.

Please report to me the next time you need to be PWNED. I'll be glad to be of some sort of assistance.