(01-11-2020 11:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 07:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 07:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 06:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 06:10 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I mean, what you’re saying, is that at some level, you don’t care about ramifications or consequences of your actions and that we should not think about strategy when carrying out military operations. That, if a US citizen is killed, we should not worry about anything besides exacting revenge with force and bloodshed.

When the number is hundreds or thousands of Americans, you mean. At least have your argument fit the facts instead of reverting to your 'edge-case' thingy that you default to so often.

Please note where I said *a single* citizen lad.

In the case when the shitbucket has killed hundreds, or thousands -- yeah thats a pretty gd strong case. Apparently the entire Democratic party is willing to bend over and show their behinds in the case of this particular shitbucket.

Please note where I said I was OK with allowing a terrorist to kill servicemen?

Fun game we got here.

All you said was servicemen - so would me indicating that, at some level, you’re saying you don’t care about ramifications of avenging two or more servicemen be better?

In short, it’s stupid to try and paint me as a terrorist sympathizer because I argue that we should always be strategic with our use of force, and that those who don’t agree with this specific use of force aren’t immediately terrorism sympathizers.

I was responding to your comment trying to place words in my mouth I never said, and your strawman attempt at making an edge position my position. This comment in particular:

Quote:I mean, what you’re saying, is ... [t]hat, if a US citizen is killed, we should not worry about anything besides exacting revenge with force and bloodshed.

No I am not saying that. Please denote where I said this in the slightest.

When you increase your edge example of *a* US citizen to hundreds, perhaps thousands, I find it problematic *not* to respond. Your democratic party, en toto, has chosen to kneel over and show Iran their rear on this apparently.

They are literally refusing to support the removal of a man responsible for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of US deaths. Proud on that stand?

Perhaps you havent noticed that I have consistently used the "hundreds and thousands" statement fairly extensively. But please, focus on the fing time I did not. Good for you.

Tanq, I just played the exact same, stupid semantics game you started with me - the whole "you are seemingly at some level comfortable with allowing not just an individual to continue to murder US servicemen, but allowing a terrorist exporting state to do the same."

Sorry that flipping it back around at you made you butt hurt.

My point is that people who are not supporting Trump's actions are rationale actors that have very solid ground to stand on, that is unrelated to being terrorist sympathizers or being comfortable with allowing US servicemen to be murdered. Because the world is not a vacuum, it's stupid to try and hurl these rather offensive accusations at people - that is one of the reasons we bulldozed our way into Iraq.

1) Notwithstanding your wingflapping and attempt to color my statement as "offensive', nothing in your response detracts from my comment you are not fully backing the removal of a shitbag whom is responsible for rhe death of hundreds, if not thousands, of American servicemen. With that not full backing, there is seemingly at least a portion of your thought process copacetic with those hundreds, if not thousands of US servicemen deaths and copacetic with letting the shitbag continue as such.

2) If you count a 'turnaround' as ignoring the several previous statements made as to the 'hundreds if not thousands' to focus on one that did not contaun that phrase..... uhhh.. good job there sparky. lolz.