OnRPG, who are you liking as president?

[OsirisXx2]

I say McCain. In my opinion, anyone that thinks we can just disengage our activities in the Middle East is just bitter that we're there in the first place. YES, it has become a silly war. Wasn't that way to begin with, but it became that. On one hand, though, it's one that we can drastically reduce the importance of over the next few years, but we do have to stay there. Thoughts?

[MMOAddict]

how about adding undecided? as of now i think they are all ******s for lack of a better word. alabama hot pocket anyone?

[Norrin Radd]

There're definite issues when someone like me, a guy from England who doesn't REALLY care for politics, knows more about your country's political disposition than you do.

1) It was never a war. You've never seen war, junior. I've never seen war. When you see tanks rolling through your "hood" and killing people you know and love, come back here (If you still have the luxury of being alive and having a house), and then claim this is a war.

2) It was entirely unjust. Afghanistan attacks the U.S.A., and the American government invaded and plundered an entirely different country to kill a man that not only posed zero threat to America (As they later admitted), but was once being SUPPLIED with the weapons they claim he had, by George Bush Sr. The got rid of Saddam at the cost of...far too much.

3) If you are one of those Americans that feel an unjust, ******ed and baseless foreign massacre (Which is what it was) is the only issue that rides on who becomes president, then do yourself a favour and get some research done. If you weren't so concerned about electing a guy that will clean up shit in Iraq that you shouldn't have dumped there anyway, you'd realise that your own country has enough problems in itself, and you should elect someone who will best deal with those.

That is entirely the problem with how pathetic some American voters or "political" debaters have become. Everything is about "the war". Nothing is about "Let's pick someone who can, like the job description says, run OUR COUNTRY in a way that doesn't arrive at the point of it being the most hated nation on Earth.".

Just a thought.

[Norrin Radd]

Ok so let's actually attempt to weed out idiots.

Who here actually has any idea about the different policies proposed by each candidate, and where they stand on any of them?

[God Hand]

Ok so let's actually attempt to weed out idiots.

Who here actually has any idea about the different policies proposed by each candidate, and where they stand on any of them?

The only stuff I know about the U.S is what I see on the Colbert Report. I'm not even american.

[MrWafflez]

I missed the part where they specifically informed us that they were definitely going to attack, how they'd attack, when and where.

Them saying "You're-a gohnna get it now!", does not mean an attack isn't unexpected. Expected hostility does not mean an expected attack. We had expected hostility from the minute we entered this shambles, and it didn't make the July 7th bombings any more expected.

In my defense, I'm honestly much...much better than most of you at debating. So if you can do nothing but balls up an attempt at catching me out, save yourself the embarassment.

Oh yes, some idiot who doesn't understand what a war is and makes false assumptions that no one has any real experience of an 'actual war' as defined by yourself is so great at debating!

I was in the Vietnam War and the Cold War. I have experience with wars, and this is definitely a war.


You never said they had to say when, where, and how. You said that it's unexpected. How is it unexpected? We expect an attack, whether there is one or there isn't. It's expected. Therefore you loose, grow up and stop being a little whining pest. When you loose, you loose. Move on to another point.

Score:

Me: 1
You: 0

Continue. I'll be back in a little while to continue this if you come up with a point that's even remotely valid. If you come out with another dumbass thing like that "not a war" speech, I'll probably just give myself another point and laugh at your logic.

Au revoir!

[Lord Mog]

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but the OP asked who likes who, not who wants-to-flame eachother-up-the-ass-about-stuff-that-isn't-even-relevant-to-the-topic.

[Norrin Radd]

Nobody's flaming, unless you count me being on fire in this debate.

But seriously, he's bitter because he's losing. I'm not flaming him.

Oh yes, some idiot who doesn't understand what a war is and makes false assumptions that no one has any real experience of an 'actual war' as defined by yourself is so great at debating

I was in the Vietnam War and the Cold War. I have experience with wars, and this is definitely a war.

Wait, no way. You FOUGHT with the military in The Cold War? That'd be pretty...legendary. Did you fight in it?

Also, factually prove you were in 'Nam or you are simply a liar.

Either way, you're still wrong. This isn't a war. First sign of insecurity is tantrums, so I can see you're slipping.

You never said they had to say when, where, and how. You said that it's unexpected. How is it unexpected? We expect an attack, whether there is one or there isn't. It's expected. Therefore you loose, grow up and stop being a little whining pest. When you loose, you loose. Move on to another point.

I loose? Do you not mean lose? I find it odd than someone with such immature spelling was in two battles.

Secondly, it doesn't matter. It was implied in what I said if you look back at the context of my reply to the previous poster I said it to. When the July 7th bombings happened, nobody said "Yeah, we knew that would definitely happen.", it was an unexpected attack.

I expected hostility, but I did not expect that the bus I usually take to work would have a bomb on it one day, it was unexpected. So you fail again, clearly.

Score:

Me: 1
You: 0

Maturity of the highest order, clearly.

Continue. I'll be back in a little while to continue this if you come up with a point that's even remotely valid. If you come out with another dumbass thing like that "not a war" speech, I'll probably just give myself another point and laugh at your logic.

Au revoir!

You can give yourself all the points you want. You can come back...and I'll just civilly dismantle your arguments again. It's not a war, simple as.

Come back, I demand it. I also command that you prove to me you were in 'Nam and the Cold War. Those are big claims, if you cannot provide factual prove, undeniable proof, you are a liar.

I'll look forward to this. Go reply to my other post while you're at it. Try bringing more then belief in propaganda, lies and bad grammatical abilities.

[Lord Mog]

Nobody's flaming, unless you count me being on fire in this debate.

But seriously, he's bitter because he's losing. I'm not flaming him.

OK. I trust you Norrin, so k.

[MrWafflez]

I never said I was telling the truth that I was in those wars, I was making a point. You can't be a ****** and assume that no one here has an experience in a "real war" by your definitions, such as those two.

Sorry, I incorrectly spelled one word. Blame it on the fact that I lost three fingers in 'Nam.

I'm bitter? I'm hostile? I'm immature?

You stated all of those things above. Who does it appear is the one "flaming" or "loosing their temper" by resorting to things such as those? You're the one putting fake adjectives on my portfolio. You're the one who is making assumptions rather then using facts.


Until you prove to me by any definition of a war that this is not a war, you're entire argument has been completely dismantled. You have lost in every possible way. It's like me competing in a debate saying that Iraq is a state. It's a country, not a state, thus I would have lost already since I proved my intelligence is not very good and my facts are terrible.


Your opening statement is the strongest statement you make. When you **** that up, you **** your entire argument up.

Grow up and start making reasonable points. PROVE to me that it wasn't a war. I've given official definitions that people have agreed on for what a war is, and this is certainly a war.


You say it's us battering them, right? Well, they're fighting back. We 'battered' Hiroshima, but before that they had fought back. It fails in comparison to our attack, but it was still an attack, thus it was a war, because two nations were fighting each other.

If one kid pinches another kid, and the other kid punches him back, is that not a fight? A fight (physical) is two people engaging in physical "combat" to hurt each other. Pinches hurt, no matter how minuscule they are compared to an uppercut to the jaw.


Get some solid facts down, then tell me you're on fire in this debate. So far you have ignored providing proof, facts, definitions, or any reliable source other then your opinions to dismantle any of my opinions and/or facts.

How about you learn to debate, then actually come back here. Moron.

[Marineking]

I was for Ron Paul. Sadly, he doesn't have a chance for the current election, so I'm not voting. I hate all three candidates equally, and and I've never been a fan of "voting against" someone. If I am ever going to vote, it will be for someone. But thats just personal morals, so whatever.

Now... about this debate. For one, MrWaffles, one more crack and it's an infraction. At the very least, Norrin is not calling names and being immature about the situation. If you disagree with him, fine, state that, and act like the man you propose to be, not a child. Although, Norrin, I'd also like to see you stop boasting about your l33t debating skills. If you are going to call someone immature, then please, don't give anyone else ammo to fire back at you.

And for my final point, who ****ing cares if it was a "legally defined" war? I fail to see how this has any relevance to the thread topic. If you want to debate on something, debate on whether the "war" (Or whatever you choose to call it) is just or not, as that at least pertains some relevance to topic.

Any more flaming, or weaving off-topic, and this is getting locked. Now, if you can both be nice, continue.

[MrWafflez]

First off buddy, I stated that in quotations. Did I originally spell it as "loosing" or "losing"? I originally stated it as "loosing", correct? Thus, I kept it the same in the quotations because that's the way I had spelled it before. You do know what quotations are, correct? Or have you gotten too used to using the quote BBCode on forums?

What post are you implying about? I believe I already dismantled what you stated about it not being a war in any post you made, but I'll go double check now and edit this post.



Edit: You mean the post which you started with this retaliation?:

Because my grandfathers have fought in wars. My elder relatives have seen their city bombed and destroyed. Families in other countries have endured WAR. Not just their country's army, half way across the world, invading a country that had never committed an attack on American soil.

Go to Iraq, and you tell a family there, with a destroyed home and dead loved ones, that this is a "war". War involves everyone, and you're sitting there, peacefully replying to a post about it on a website. You know nothing of war, because this is not one.

I could have swore I addressed that when I stated I was in the Vietnam War and the Cold War. If you don't believe me, I can honestly say that my father was in either a war or several wars. He is pretty old now, so I am not sure which ones exactly. He just used to tell me stories about it, because he does get pride out of the dedication for his country which he showed.

Thus, I know what a war is. So does Webster's dictionary, which clearly, by definition that has been approved by countless people in order to be published, states this is a war.


I asked you to revise your main statement and give me some actual reasoning that this isn't a war. If you can't win that debate, none of your other points are even worth addressing. That's what I've been saying. Do that and I'll address any specific points you want me to address. But until you do that, you serve no purpose in this debate because you've evaded my request for some proof that it's not a war countless times before you asked me to retaliate to that post of yours.

I gave proof it's a war by definition, what's your comeback?

[Norrin Radd]

Just spell it correctly, what's the issue?

It was on the second page.

You haven't dismantled whether it's a war or not, you're wrong, but I'm comfortable enough in the knowledge that I am right to just let you believe what you want if it helps you sleep.

Go reply to everything else I said, because the "war" thing was a tiny part of our discussion.

I could have swore I addressed that when I stated I was in the Vietnam War and the Cold War. If you don't believe me, I can honestly say that my father was in either a war or several wars. He is pretty old now, so I am not sure which ones exactly. He just used to tell me stories about it, because he does get pride out of the dedication for his country which he showed.

You weren't in either, fact, so it's irrelevant, and you proved no point.

Secondly, good for him, whatever makes him happy. What wars did he partake in?

Thus, I know what a war is. So does Webster's dictionary, which clearly, by definition that has been approved by countless people in order to be published, states this is a war.

It's not a war, as I have given reasonable answers to back up. You disagree, I am not going to lose sleep, because facts do not require agreement. If it helps you sleep better to hold this belief, do so. I want to discuss the rest of my post.

I asked you to revise your main statement and give me some actual reasoning that this isn't a war. If you can't win that debate, none of your other points are even worth addressing. That's what I've been saying. Do that and I'll address any specific points you want me to address. But until you do that, you serve no purpose in this debate because you've evaded my request for some proof that it's not a war countless times before you asked me to retaliate to that post of yours.

I've won the debate, you're just not accepting it, and I am quite aware that you are being remarkably childish about it, so in the knowledge that I am right and have proven that, I am not pushing for your agreement. If you tried arguing that water wasn't wet, I wouldn't spend my time arguing it was just to get you to agree. Same with this war definition. You are dwelling on it because you are shit scared to reply to everything else I said in that post.

I have posted proof, you have ignored it. All I can do is provide fact, not make you see it.

I gave proof it's a war by definition, what's your comeback?

The proof...that it's not a war.

Conflict? Yes. Conflict does not definitely mean war. You have a conflict with a guy who touches your girl, you have a fight with someone who picks on your friend. The Iraq situation is not a war, it's a conflict. It's a massacre, it's not a war.

War is a KIND of conflict, but there are many kinds of conflict, and just because this is a conflict, does not make it a "war". Do you not grasp that? To say it's a war because it's a conflict, well, that's like saying abortion is murder because it involves killing. Killing is an act, murder is a kind of killing. Conflict is a situation, war is a kind of conflict. Iraq? Not a war.

Go and reply to my post, or I will take it simply as a shameful admission of defeat.

con·flict

1. to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash: The account of one eyewitness conflicted with that of the other. My class conflicts with my going to the concert.
2. to fight or contend; do battle.

War is defined as two nations at war, like Israel is at war. What have Iraq done to the States as a country?

[Civil]

I will say it the American way;

**** you guys.
Barrak (SP) is a hippie.
Damned Terrorizers.
You can all suck my presidential cock.

[Chronine]

So you say this isn't a war because Iraq didn't attack us? Well lets look at Vietnam and Korea...did they attack mainland United States? I'm pretty sure that they didn't. So by saying that this isn't a war because Iraq didn't attack us is pretty stupid.

[krnbatman]

i've heard that if McCain gets elected, we all have to sign up for the army, and if there's a war we will get drafted

[Norrin Radd]

That is why you take the time to vote.

Otherwise, if you don't vote and McCain does get elected, your right to complain is gone.

There're not many valid excuses for not voting.

[daroth]

Wow, MrWafflez and Norrin_Radd hijacked the thread. Interesting read though. I voted Hillary based on her history of helping the US..

[MrWafflez]

Yes, that's true but that dosen't give reason to claim "war" on an innocent nation.

But that's just the thing. Do you have an idea of why it is/was so damn hard trying to find Osama? Everyone hid him because that's part of their (going on on a limb because I don't remember the article exactly and am not on expert on the Middle East) culture.

Therefore, depending upon your point of view, they might not be innocent. I personally see them as being innocent, but some don't.

We didn't really claim war. We jumped on the bandwagon because Iraq is/was filled with conflict between the Sunni Muslims and the Shi'ite Muslims. That's not the only part, but that was a large part of the conflict. We kind of jumped into their battle, and they didn't appreciate that, but who would.




If you guys want to rant over something, I've got a good topic for you. This is mainly for American residents, but UK and other residents can answer as well;


I believe it was idiotic for America to have gone into Iraq. Why? Because we're spending billions of dollars every year to try and make another country a better place, when that money could be used to fix up our horrid disgrace of a country. I have no disrespect for America, but there's a ton of problems right now. Disease, starvation, homelessness, etc. That money could be used to help out our own country, which should have had the higher priority.

That's just how I feel. Which is why it is hard to find a candidate who
I agree with on this issue. I do not feel we should leave Iraq. Most of the troops feel the same way, just look at some documentaries. Leaving is making a mistake, we can't just abort a mission at this point in time. But we need to find a quicker solution, because we are hardly making progress as of now.

[shadowsworn]

I've been saying Barack Obama for a long time now.

[aMastermind]

Already covered this, September 11th.

This has nothing to do with Iraq, It was Al'Quada which attacked the trade center. The fled from Afganistan to Iraq which was thier arguement for invadeing Iraq, which conteracts your point of who started this also, Iraq didn't do nothing so therefor it was America invading Iraq which was the first move.

Not trying to get in on this, but stating facts. Also its a matter of Opinion, To me this is not a "War" as there was no real reason behind invading Iraq. There could have been other ways to deal with Al'Quada other then to over throw the nation they were hiding in.

[aMastermind]

I would just like to clarify from my post at the top.

To me this is not a "War" as there was no real reason behind invading Iraq.

I ment that in a political since, but now for all our troops over seas in the middle of this to them it is a "War" they are in the line of fire, being killed, and in fear of ambushes. So, for them they are fighting a war, but for us it is not a "War" we are completly safe and it has no effect on us(minus haveing a family member in the line of fire, it dose affect you and you are as much in this war as they are.)