What Do You Think Of The Troops Overseas?

[SlowwHand]

David, the thing is, I've answered the questions you ask already.
If you're too lazy to read, and process the information, that's not my fault.


Well, I'm out of this conversation.
Pretty soon, the Hitler analogies will begin.
It's at that point.

[David Floyd]

David, the thing is, I've answered the questions you ask already.

I don't "ask questions", I post arguments. Arguments to which I have not seen you make an effective response. If you can provide a link to one I have possibly missed, I will gladly admit to being wrong (that is, wrong that you've never counter-argued).

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Which they would never do if we were not imperialistic and aggressive.

Imperialistic? Oh yeah, the USA is much larger than it used to be, we are taking lands left and right.

[David Floyd]

Imperialistic? Oh yeah, the USA is much larger than it used to be, we are taking lands left and right.

I suppose I could refer you to a map of the US in 1783, and point out that it has increased it's land area but a MASSIVE amount then, at the expense of other people, but I suppose that would be futile.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I suppose I could refer you to a map of the US in 1783, and point out that it has increased it's land area but a MASSIVE amount then, at the expense of other people, but I suppose that would be futile.

Says a man living in one of those areas. You'd be Mexican otherwise.

And I'm talking about the last 100 years.

How in hell do you think this country got populated with white men anyway?

ACK!

[Japher]

Says a man living in one of those areas. You'd be Mexican otherwise.

And I'm talking about the last 100 years.

How in hell do you think this country got populated with white men anyway?

That's avoiding the topic though. Shame on both of you.

The present condition is the matter that was being argued. I don't think there is room to argue about the US being Imperialistic some 100+ years ago.

David: So, you weigh the terms of the soldier by the policy of the leader?

What's sad is that Jack Nicholson (from a Few Good Men) was right. I do want him on that wall, and I do need him on that wall. What is even sadder is that it is because of his superiors (i.e. the president) and opposing leaders like his superiors that we actually need the wall.

[David Floyd]

Says a man living in one of those areas. You'd be Mexican otherwise.

Why would my ancestors immigrate to Mexico? Most likely, I'd be on the East Coast somewhere, or possibly still in England.

And I'm talking about the last 100 years.

Why that artificial distinction? Why not go from the beginning? Further, that's not a particularly good distinction to make anyway, seeing as how the US has fought more wars in the last 60 years than in the preceding 200.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I don't "ask questions", I post arguments. Arguments to which I have not seen you make an effective response. If you can provide a link to one I have possibly missed, I will gladly admit to being wrong (that is, wrong that you've never counter-argued).

You don't comprehend well either.
The arguments you make, I've answered.
You're being redundant. Umm, repetitive. Umm, over and over.
If you think I need to address again, merely because you're now making an argument, well, isn't that a bit self-centered?

Well, of course it is.
What was I thinking?
[slaps forehead]

[David Floyd]

David: So, you weigh the terms of the soldier by the policy of the leader?

Certainly, in the context that if the soldier is told to do something immoral, he can and should refuse.

[joespaniel]

What's sad is that Jack Nicholson (from a Few Good Men) was right. I do want him on that wall, and I do need him on that wall. What is even sadder is that it is because of his superiors (i.e. the president) and opposing leaders like his superiors that we actually need the wall.

Jack is anti-war.

And has never served on any wall in real life.

Just thought I would toss that out.

[David Floyd]

The arguments you make, I've answered.

1)Point me to a link.
2)I can almost guarantee you that either I or someone else rebutted you. If I already saw a good rebuttal, I didn't bother because it would have been redundant.

[Japher]

And has never served on any wall in real life.

Just thought I would toss that out.

Really!?

And I bet he never tried to kill his familly in some haunted hotel in Colorado during a blizzard.

Your so naive.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Why would my ancestors immigrate to Mexico? Most likely, I'd be on the East Coast somewhere, or possibly still in England.

So, basically, Britain is still Imperialist. As well as France, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, Germany and so on right.

Why that artificial distinction? Why not go from the beginning? Further, that's not a particularly good distinction to make anyway, seeing as how the US has fought more wars in the last 60 years than in the preceding 200.

It's not artificial, unless you still consider all of the above countries imperialist.

I'n the last 60 years how much territory has the US gained from those wars?


ACK!

[David Floyd]

So, basically, Britain is still Imperialist. As well as France, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, Germany and so on right.

I can see the argument for Britain, but much less so for France or Germany, seeing their current positions on the Iraq issue.

I'n the last 60 years how much territory has the US gained from those wars?

The US was not out to gain territory in those wars. The US gained something more valuable, from the standpoint of the interventionists - influence throughout the world, and, following WW2, the position as the (at first) only and (later) strongest superpower.

[Japher]

About 60 years ago France began losing it's positions in Africa (Guinea and The Ivory Coast). I am not sure why. And what's up with French Guiana?