3 ms·

You flew right over the point, and you had to slather your post in ad hominem to get there. It's not about justifying carpet bombing, it's about not fighting w

You flew right over the point, and you had to slather your post in ad hominem to get there. It's not about justifying carpet bombing, it's about not fighting when you don't have to. Vietnam was a horrible idea, not because we didn't have precision munitions and rules of engagement, but because we didn't belong there in the first place. War used to be a big fucking deal. Now, George Bush gets on the television and says "don't worry, we won't hurt any kids, we're using JDAMs." And it's bullshit, we end up killing tons of civilians because people think that ROE and precision munitions will actually make war zones safe. News flash: they aren't, and they never will be. If people realized that, then we wouldn't be in Iraq right now, which is the right thing.

cynicalkane 17y ago
You're advocating total war or no war at all. "In my opinion, we should only ever declare total war, and we should not allow ourselves the opinion that some wars are less gruesome than others." If that's not what you meant, then you need to seriously re-examine what you are saying, or else don't act offended when people read your words and not your mind. Anyway, you are logically incorrect to the first degree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma . Some wars are less gruesome than others. By multiple orders of magnitude. You are wrong. And the very notion that total war is even permissible angers and disgusts me. Also, while you're at it, you might as well educate yourself as to what "ad hominem" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- oconnore 17y ago
  I'm not acting offended. I did mean that. And at this point you are adding nothing to this discussion. Quoting generic Wikipedia articles, of which you only skimmed the first paragraph, does not prove your point, whatever that may be. Neither does the sentence, "You are wrong." Have a nice life. PS. You called me "an idiot of the first class." I have no idea what the first class is, and I'm sort of curious what an "idiot of the second class" might be, but that is irrelevant. You infer that my intelligence is lacking, and that that implies my argument is weak. That manner of argument is known as ad hominem. You should read your own Wikipedia article.

cynicalkane 17y ago

You're advocating total war or no war at all. "In my opinion, we should only ever declare total war, and we should not allow ourselves the opinion that some wars are less gruesome than others." If that's not what you meant, then you need to seriously re-examine what you are saying, or else don't act offended when people read your words and not your mind. Anyway, you are logically incorrect to the first degree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma . Some wars are less gruesome than others. By multiple orders of magnitude. You are wrong. And the very notion that total war is even permissible angers and disgusts me. Also, while you're at it, you might as well educate yourself as to what "ad hominem" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

oconnore 17y ago
I'm not acting offended. I did mean that. And at this point you are adding nothing to this discussion. Quoting generic Wikipedia articles, of which you only skimmed the first paragraph, does not prove your point, whatever that may be. Neither does the sentence, "You are wrong." Have a nice life. PS. You called me "an idiot of the first class." I have no idea what the first class is, and I'm sort of curious what an "idiot of the second class" might be, but that is irrelevant. You infer that my intelligence is lacking, and that that implies my argument is weak. That manner of argument is known as ad hominem. You should read your own Wikipedia article.