HOME | DD
Vynnx — Pro-Life?
Published: 2008-04-21 09:34:16 +0000 UTC; Views: 4350; Favourites: 39; Downloads: 296
Redirect to original
Description
I think the deviation speaks for itself.Related content
Comments: 135
Talking down to the 'war mongers' on your own side is easy. Talking down to the 'war mongers' on the opposing side?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
On this side, contrary to popular belief, you aren't harmed for sharing your opinions, now march over to the enemy's camp and tell them to stop fighting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So long as I can get over there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then what are you waiting for?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Contrary to popular belief, this is a country of free speech. And contrary to popular belief, not all the nations who hate the west are.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know they aren't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then you should realize that this isn't a world where talk solves everything.
And this is off topic of the piece anyway.
The piece itself is from a false conclusion and is a strawman argument. And is parallel to western propaganda about japan and germany during world war two.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Sure, we'll appoint you as the U.S. ambassador to Iran, have fun
The problem is that some people don't want to talk, or they won't agree if we do talk. War happens when diplomacy fails. It's not so simple to waltz over to the Middle East and ask people to "play nice" To quote Alfred from Batman: Dark Knight "Some people just want to see the world burn."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, I'm not supporting this particular deviation for various reasons but I would like to comment on your what you said.
The problem that I see with your logic is that you give two appropriate choices (dead civilians vs. dead soldiers) but then you assume that war must be the deciding factor between those choices.
Let's take the war in Afghanistan...
American deaths in 9/11: approximately 3,000
deaths in Afghanistan since start of war: approximately 6,000
Yes, the Taliban were an oppressive regime, but they didn't pull off the kind of carnage that we brought to the country when we invaded.
At the beginning of the war, we were fully capable of sending a small unit into Afghanistan and killing Osama bin Laden without overthrowing the regime.
Simply put, we have a hard time understanding the impact we can have on countries like Afghanistan and Iraq that are much less stable than the United States.
What we can do, however, is learn what we can from 9/11 as to how we can better protect ourselves, starting from the inside.
There will always be people that want to attack America, and no amount of force can ever truly discourage them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Don't try to compare human horrors like they were tallies to be counted up and compared like a checking account. It never ends well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you disagree with my argument, then by all means argue with it.
Don't just blow it off with creative metaphors and rampant generalizations.
Stating human death tolls doesn't necessarily belittle them as human beings.
Reread my argument and you should understand why I used those death tolls.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
COMPARING death tolls is an act of futility. Because it's all too easy to bring death tolls from ANOTHER event and then another and then another. Human beings killing other human beings isn't a balancing act, it's a cycle.
And technically you should be happy one of those death tolls is less than the other, that means the difference in human beings aren't dead.
Wishing there were no deaths to toll is one thing, but wishing them to be even or using it in an argument that they are not even is foolish.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, let's stop fixating on one small aspect of my overall argument, and start focusing on the bigger picture.
Either in retaliation for 9/11 or to catch leaders of al-Qaeda, we engaged in military action with Afghanistan.
As a result of our military actions, thousands of civilians have been killed and the region itself has been sufficiently destabilized for years to come.
By the way, most of al-Qaeda's leadership that has been neutralized has been captured or killed by non-US forces. Our military action didn't aid that goal in the least.
Because of our actions, thousands of people have died, and that's unacceptable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't recalled killing any civilians myself. And I doubt you did either. If you believe our country's military is dysfunctional then start writing bills and start submitting them to your representatives to submit to congress and senate on how you think it should be correct.
"By the way, most of al-Qaeda's leadership that has been neutralized has been captured or killed by non-US forces. Our military action didn't aid that goal in the least."
You should have said 'all of al-Qaeda's' or 'hardly aided' then your above statement wouldn't contradict itself.
And I posted here in the first place, because this image completely misses the point of the pro-life stance and instead inserts how liberals and democrats see the pro-life stance.
I can not speak for the rest of the 51% percent of the country's population. But I myself, nor anyone I know who is pro-life, wants babies not to be killed in the womb so they can die on the battlefield.
That is all I am saying.
And if this is supposed to be a joke, then I'm not laughing. If this is satire, then in my humble opinion, it misses the point. And before you accuse me of having no sense of humor, I find the 'Made Of Explodium' page on TvTrops and the British Comedy series 'Faulty Towers' to be quite funny.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, I'll just go ahead and address a number of things here...
1) However grammatically inaccurate my sentence probably was, I'm going to guess you still understood what I was saying. I apologize for any punctuation errors as well. I generally expect people with whom I'm arguing to fixate less on my grammar and more on my message.
2) I know there are things that our government does that neither of us like. While I do vote, pay taxes, and write letters to my representatives, I'm sure there is always more I could do, as could you. In a sense, we both may be equally guilty of not influencing our government enough, but I'm not going to make this a contest of who is a better citizen. For all I know, you do far more than I do for this country, and if you do, then I am thankful for that, as are many other Americans.
3) I don't care why you posted here in the first place. All I know is that you replied to a comment of mine and chose to argue with the point that I was making. Also note that when I first posted, I made it clear that I was not posting in response to this deviation, but in response to another comment that had been posted by someone else. Like you, I don't personally agree with the statement that the deviation makes. I hope you didn't assume that I did either.
5) I've never doubted that you had a sense of humor, just as I've never doubted your commitment to the preservation of proper grammar or the fair use of comparative statistics. As a matter of fact, I think I too might have a sense of humor, as there are various things that I find to be quite funny as well! These include:
-The Emperor's New Groove
-almost any episode of Breaking Bad
-the witty dialogue on Firefly and Serenity
-that one scene in Jurassic Park where the lawyer gets eaten off a toilet by a Tyrannosaurus
-newspaper comics, esp. Calvin & Hobbes, Frazz, and Boondocks (when it was still in the paper)
-listening to funny stories told by friends
- The Ultimate Showdown of the Ultimate Destiny by Dinosaurchestra, Oh Canada by Five Iron Frenzy, and various songs by Weird Al Yankovic
-various standup comedians (I just discovered Demetri Martin recently, you should definitely check his standup out)
I could go on, but I have to get back to studying for an Animal Physiology final. Grrrr...
Talk to you later dude!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's very true, but the problem with just killing bin Laden is that someone else would just take his place and the Taliban would continue oppressing, torturing, and murdering the citizens of Afghanistan, just as they did from the very start... as to "pulling off the carnage that we did" yes they have, they simply did it in the shadows instead of out in the open.
As to your statement "There will always be people that want to attack America, and no amount of force can ever truly discourage them." I agree with you completely.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Someone will ALWAYS take bin Laden's place, just as another organization would take al Qaeda's place if we were able to completely destroy it.
Simply put, if our goal is to truly stop al Qaeda, then we have to convince the rest of the world that al Qaeda's ideology is wrong, that the United States is NOT a belligerent western power that seeks to colonize the Middle East.
al Qaeda was responsible for killing 3,000 Americans, so we should have gone after the organization alone, killed its leader and maybe a few other top leaders, and then we should have backed off.
By invading the country (and even worse, invading Iraq soon after) we have slowly convinced more and more of the Middle East that al Qaeda may not be as backwards after all.
Oh, and the Taliban's killings were hardly in the shadows. The statistics are readily available (check on Google Scholar for the most accurate statistics).
To sum it up:
There was heavy tribal strife within the country for most of the time that the Taliban were in power. Therefore, many of the deaths in that country were from combat between 2 warring groups. These "mutual combat casualties" have continued at about the same rate since the Taliban were removed from power. What's increased is the number of Afghani civilians being killed since we invaded.
The Taliban were an oppressive regime, yes, but there are dozens of other repressive regimes scattered throughout the world that are much worse. There was no reason for us to go after the Taliban, and because of our meddling, civilians deaths have continued to increase.
It was for vengeance that we went into Afghanistan to kill Osama bin Laden, which I think is perfectly acceptable, but we instead involved an entire country in our very personal conflict.
We must learn from terrorist attacks how to better safeguard our country, which should be done with better security measures and more closely cooperating organizations.
Getting ourselves involved in deeper combat in 2 different countries is simply unthinkable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
In the spirit of free exchange of ideas, it might be nice to acknowledge your source on this, may he rest in peace.
Nice deviation!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ignoring the fact that this is a huge generalization, i agree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Claiming to like cats is also a huge generalization. But people still say they like cats.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ehh... not quite. a more accurate comparison would be like someone saying that all cats are nice. or saying that they like cats BECAUSE all cats are nice. someone may really just like cats :I but calling all cats nice? thats a huge generalization.
saying that all right wing conservatives are one way is false. what that has to do with people enjoying cats is beyond me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know ONE guy who really likes cats.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Superior numbers do help. Have you seen the Chinese military?! Thankfully they're on our side economically for now
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
That's applying logic to an entirely logic-free group. May as well say goddidit or biblesaidso.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But the Bible says...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |