A VIDEO THAT WILL FOOL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!

[Neutrino]

Sort of like declaring that the US legal system is a "joke" based on the Roy Pearson case! Remember that one?

Yeah, but that was in response to an entire paragraph, not one measly line. Anyway, I won that argument (everyone on your side gave up, because they couldn't compete with my ultra-arguments, so I won through sheer endurance ) so obviously my arguments couldn't have been all bad.

Anyway, what exactly is the relivance of my shoddy opening arguments to this?

Of course there are a variety of opinions that have to be considered on many subjects. In the US, a majority of liberals don't support the war. A majority of conservatives do. Then the Libertarians come along and tear both sides to shreds, while the Green Party people plant more trees.

Oh, so nnnnooooowwwww we're all for including all possible views. That's a pretty abrupt reversal, considering not a post ago you were out there steriotyping against the 'left' with the best of them.

[Skittles!]

Holy crap Neutrino! I told you how to spell stereotyping, and you still insist on spelling it wrong!

[Neutrino]

Holy crap Neutrino! I told you how to spell stereotyping, and you still insist on spelling it wrong!

Meh. Spelling requires effort and effort certainly isn't worth the effort involved.

I'll get around to fixing it eventually.

[Iz Man]

Sort of like declaring that the US legal system is a "joke" based on the Roy Pearson case! Remember that one?

Yeah, but that was in response to an entire paragraph, not one measly line. Anyway, I won that argument (everyone on your side gave up, because they couldn't compete with my ultra-arguments, so I won through sheer endurance ) so obviously my arguments couldn't have been all bad.

This one should be moved to the ignorance is bliss thread.

[jay_a2j]

Sort of like declaring that the US legal system is a "joke" based on the Roy Pearson case! Remember that one?

Yeah, but that was in response to an entire paragraph, not one measly line. Anyway, I won that argument (everyone on your side gave up, because they couldn't compete with my ultra-arguments, so I won through sheer endurance ) so obviously my arguments couldn't have been all bad.

This one should be moved to the ignorance is bliss thread.

btw Neutrino, I didn't give up....... just waiting for a decent argument to respond to.

[luns101]

Anyway, I won that argument (everyone on your side gave up, because they couldn't compete with my ultra-arguments, so I won through sheer endurance ) so obviously my arguments couldn't have been all bad.

In the world that you live in...I guess you did. Since your mind is already made up, we won't confuse you with the facts.

[joecoolfrog]

I watched George Bush on TV last night comparing Iraq with Vietnam, and in defending his approach, suggested that if the USA pulled out then it would result in 'Killing fields' all over again. All good patriotic stuff with the obvious message that the USA are the good guys holding back the barbarian hordes who would slaughter at will,sadly he used a rather poor example as the 'Killing fields' were in fact in Cambodia of course.
Now I am no great expert on that genocide wrecked country but I have spent time there,have seen the Killing fields , have seen S21 the torture camp in Phnom Penh and have read a few books detailing the recent history of Cambodia. Here are a few salient facts;

1) The USA never pulled out of Cambodia because it was never there.
2) There was absolutely no support for Communism in Cambodia,indeed Vietnam had always been the traditional enemy.
3) Support for Pol Pot amongst the rural Cambodians was tiny until thousands joined in response to massive illegal carpet bombing of their land and homes by the USA.
4) Pol Pot was considered rather a joke by the Vietcong,they were not allies with the Khymer Rouge and of course finally invaded Cambodia and defeated them.

Now the point of this brief summary is that either Bush has absolutely no grasp of history or he has deliberately fiddled with the truth in order to make an emotional point. How many Americans are walking around today determined to avoid another set of 'killing fields' unaware that they have been fed codswallop. It does rather beg the question of whether he knew what country he was invading,after all Iran does start with the same letter!

[Neutrino]

Sort of like declaring that the US legal system is a "joke" based on the Roy Pearson case! Remember that one?

Yeah, but that was in response to an entire paragraph, not one measly line. Anyway, I won that argument (everyone on your side gave up, because they couldn't compete with my ultra-arguments, so I won through sheer endurance ) so obviously my arguments couldn't have been all bad.

This one should be moved to the ignorance is bliss thread.

You know, maybe I should start utilizing the proposed [joke] and [/joke] tags. It would certainly clear up a lot of problems concerning those with an apparently underdeveloped sense of humor.

Anyway, I won that argument (everyone on your side gave up, because they couldn't compete with my ultra-arguments, so I won through sheer endurance ) so obviously my arguments couldn't have been all bad.

In the world that you live in...I guess you did. Since your mind is already made up, we won't confuse you with the facts.

Not to piss on your parade or anything, but if you actually check the thread, I posted the vast, vast majority of all links and evidence.

btw Neutrino, I didn't give up....... just waiting for a decent argument to respond to.

Oh, since they're so substandard, you, with all your superior intellectual capabilities, should have no problem demolishing them all

Here's a quick summary:

I am entirely not trying to restart the Fourth of July thread for something to do over the weekend

If anyone else wants to get this thread back on track, here is a list of my arguments to argue with:

1. The US legal system is crap. It is far too expensive for the majority of people to use without making major sacrifices, is incredibly easy to manipulate for those with adequate money to outwait the other party and the systems designed to help those who do not have enough money to use the Legal System employ a majority of below-average lawyers who are so overworked and underpaid that they are wiling to convince clients with a good chance of victory to settle.
2. The US Space Program is crap. Billions of dollars are dumped into it and all that comes out is a series of overfunded probes. These probes then die before completing their mission and another hugely expensive probe must be sent. It's only Surface - Orbit rocket, the Space Shuttle, is the result of a bad compromise born out of the Cold War. Americans refer to themselves as 'Pioneers' yet the 'final frontier' remains overfunded and underexplored.
3. If the US were truely the greatest, then it would let everyone in. Only those who the US decides to let within it's borders (i.e. those with valuable skills to the US) are allowed to enter. If it truely had a 'culture of humanitarian giving' then it's borders would not be inforced at all; they would be left unguarded, sinse all people would be viewed as equal and all would be given an equal chance to make a life in 'the greatest nation on earth'.
People speak of illegal immigrants 'stealing US jobs'. Why are US citizens more worthy of employment than those who have obviously gone through great hardship to gain entry to the country?
If you do not wish to share your country with foreigners, then why not improve the standard of living in other countries? If the standard of living in Mexico and other Central American countries is increaced to anything like that of the US, then it's citizens will have absolutly no reason to cross the US-Mexico border.
Already 2 million have been killed in Congo and the US government has done effectively nothing. Does this seem like the actions (or lack of such) of 'the greatest nation in the world'?

These are the reasons why I do not believe the US to be the greatest nation in the world. A good nation, but not the greatest.

[Stopper]

I watched George Bush on TV last night comparing Iraq with Vietnam, and in defending his approach, suggested that if the USA pulled out then it would result in 'Killing fields' all over again. All good patriotic stuff with the obvious message that the USA are the good guys holding back the barbarian hordes who would slaughter at will,sadly he used a rather poor example as the 'Killing fields' were in fact in Cambodia of course.
Now I am no great expert on that genocide wrecked country but I have spent time there,have seen the Killing fields , have seen S21 the torture camp in Phnom Penh and have read a few books detailing the recent history of Cambodia. Here are a few salient facts;

1) The USA never pulled out of Cambodia because it was never there.
2) There was absolutely no support for Communism in Cambodia,indeed Vietnam had always been the traditional enemy.
3) Support for Pol Pot amongst the rural Cambodians was tiny until thousands joined in response to massive illegal carpet bombing of their land and homes by the USA.
4) Pol Pot was considered rather a joke by the Vietcong,they were not allies with the Khymer Rouge and of course finally invaded Cambodia and defeated them.

Now the point of this brief summary is that either Bush has absolutely no grasp of history or he has deliberately fiddled with the truth in order to make an emotional point. How many Americans are walking around today determined to avoid another set of 'killing fields' unaware that they have been fed codswallop. It does rather beg the question of whether he knew what country he was invading,after all Iran does start with the same letter!

This is unfair to Bush - you shouldn't blame him for appearing to bend history for his political convenience - the man just reads out what he's given! Leave him alone!

Mind you, at the time of (and after) the invasion, it was the Second World War they were invoking, and massively abusing.

Who "stood shoulder to shoulder" throughout WWII? Why, the UK and the US, of course! Because, as everyone knows, WWII started in December 1941!

[The1exile]

Who "stood shoulder to shoulder" throughout WWII? Why, the UK and the US, of course! Because, as everyone knows, WWII started in December 1941!

If yer not in the fight from the start, you ain't in the fight at all!

[luns101]

Not to piss on your parade or anything, but if you actually check the thread, I posted the vast, vast majority of all links and evidence.

Yes, I remember. My political science students got a good laugh from them. I did not include your username though...only your arguments.

[Neutrino]

Not to piss on your parade or anything, but if you actually check the thread, I posted the vast, vast majority of all links and evidence.

Yes, I remember. My political science students got a good laugh from them. I did not include your username though...only your arguments.

I bet you used my early arguments, and not the later ones that caused all who beheld then to tremble with fear for your example.
Hell, even I thought my initial arguments were pretty crap. But, in the end, they served their purpose and allowed a pseudo-decent discussion to take place (even if most of the second half consisted of various people calling me insane).

You'll notice that as soon as I organised my arguments and started supplying proofs for them, everyone else gave up. This shows that, in addition to showing the immense superiority and correctness of my arguments, that it was a better tactic to stick to crappy arguments and no proofs (assuming, of course, that the ultimate objective was the enjoyment of a good argument and not actually convincing anyone of anything; a futile task at the best of times).

[luns101]

I bet you used my early arguments, and not the later ones that caused all who beheld then to tremble with fear for your example.
Hell, even I thought my initial arguments were pretty crap. But, in the end, they served their purpose and allowed a pseudo-decent discussion to take place (even if most of the second half consisted of various people calling me insane).

You'll notice that as soon as I organised my arguments and started supplying proofs for them, everyone else gave up. This shows that, in addition to showing the immense superiority and correctness of my arguments, that it was a better tactic to stick to crappy arguments and no proofs (assuming, of course, that the ultimate objective was the enjoyment of a good argument and not actually convincing anyone of anything; a futile task at the best of times).

Actually, you had a few supporters. I presented the entire thread without usernames. You have to understand that most of the kids I teach have almost no interest in politics so I use people who put forth their ideas passionately. It's really one of the only ways to gain their attention. Also, I play devil's advocate against my own opinions without telling them. I'm guessing you're about the same age as them (somewhere between 15 - 19?)

The best discussion I had was about this town that passed a local ordinance requiring people to be homeowners in order to vote. (Totally unconstitutional but a rather good discussion)

-EDIT-

I'm not conceding that your points are correct by the way. Just because you post more than other people doesn't validate your points.

[Neutrino]

Actually, you had a few supporters. I presented the entire thread without usernames. You have to understand that most of the kids I teach have almost no interest in politics so I use people who put forth their ideas passionately. It's really one of the only ways to gain their attention. Also, I play devil's advocate against my own opinions without telling them. I'm guessing you're about the same age as them (somewhere between 15 - 19?)

The best discussion I had was about this town that passed a local ordinance requiring people to be homeowners in order to vote. (Totally unconstitutional but a rather good discussion)

-EDIT-

I'm not conceding that your points are correct by the way. Just because you post more than other people doesn't validate your points.

I post more than some people, less than many others. I'm not quite sure of the relivance of your statement. If number of posts had anything to do with the accuracy of your arguments, then Rev Kyle would be correct 100% of the time. Since this is plainly not true, I think we can discard this theory.

It is my assumption that you are refering to links and not actual posts. Links to sites which support your arguments, while not immediatly argument winning, are certainly helpful when proving your point. I was merely pointing out that I supplied far outweighed any proof that you or anyone arguing your point of view supplied.

[got tonkaed]

having read a story about this weeks national intelligence estimate on Iraq i was i guess not surprised...but still caught notice of how grim their forcast was. Essentially the frequently echoed claim from both sides, that violence isnt going to be abated in the near future and that the Iraqi government is going to remain very fragile doesnt sound too good after 4 1/2 years. Considering that the surge deployment numbers are going to have to beging to be reduced from troops being sent home, i guess what im wondering is (at least curious to hear someones opinion)

how must the US handle foreign policy operations such as this in the next couple decades. Essentially Iraq has become a failed state, largely, but perhaps not completley because of US intervention. Supposing that the US gets involved somewhere else (and it seems possible that that will happen) what has to be done differently?

Follow up other question....considering the likelyhood that failed states are most likely to be the ones harboring or developing terrorist aims, should there be a shift in concern in the next few years to states that have been perptual leaders in failed state indexes or should the US continue to focus on radical islamist states as appears to be the status quo?

(i was just bored at 3:40 ish basically)

[Iz Man]

Who "stood shoulder to shoulder" throughout WWII? Why, the UK and the US, of course! Because, as everyone knows, WWII started in December 1941!

Can I assume from your sarcasm you'd prefer the U.S. stayed in the Pacific and not joined the European campaign?
After all, everyone knows the U.S.'s involvement in Europe really had no bearing on the eventual demise of the Third Reich......

[mandalorian2298]

Who "stood shoulder to shoulder" throughout WWII? Why, the UK and the US, of course! Because, as everyone knows, WWII started in December 1941!

Can I assume from your sarcasm you'd prefer the U.S. stayed in the Pacific and not joined the European campaign?
After all, everyone knows the U.S.'s involvement in Europe really had no bearing on the eventual demise of the Third Reich......

It would have been very ungratefull for USA to join the war against Hitler, right after he has has portrayed the U.S. in his Zweites Buch as a “racially successful” society that practices segregation and eugenics. You can't respond to compliments with war! I am sure that U.S. leaders felt mightly ashamed when they finally did declare war on nice mister Hitler.

In the end, the competitive spirit which made USA such a great nation necessitated USA's involvment in the war. You see, the Nazi Germany has been competing with USA for the title of the "First nation to use an atomic bomb". Some analysts argue that the USA's involvement in the war has been triggered by a short note that Adolph Hitler had sent to president Roosevelt:

Dear Frank,

The last one to kill a million civilians or more in one go is a rotten egg!

Superiorly yours,
Adolph

[Stopper]

Who "stood shoulder to shoulder" throughout WWII? Why, the UK and the US, of course! Because, as everyone knows, WWII started in December 1941!

Can I assume from your sarcasm you'd prefer the U.S. stayed in the Pacific and not joined the European campaign?

No, it was an obscure reference to something I thought Bush had said - but actually it was Tony Blair. The point I was making was that supporters of the Iraq War and the "War on Terror" have consistently abused the history of the Second World War, and now Vietnam, to suit their own ends.

An article published in October 2001 which refers to this particular incident.

While Blair's mantra on his US trip - that the US was the only country to have stood "shoulder to shoulder" with Britain during the Blitz - revealed the Prime Minister's heartbreaking ignorance of modern international history, his bellicosity emerged as one of the most disturbing and depressing side features of what has developed since 11 September.

[luns101]

I post more than some people, less than many others. I'm not quite sure of the relivance of your statement. If number of posts had anything to do with the accuracy of your arguments, then Rev Kyle would be correct 100% of the time. Since this is plainly not true, I think we can discard this theory.

I have to admit your reference to Rev. Kyle made me laugh I'm speaking to the fact that you took one or two sentences from texts and applied it to an entire assessment of the US. You also took one crazy court case (Roy Pearson) and applied it to the entire US legal system to make your point. The website that you pointed to in reference to indigent defense also refuted your own claim. I stopped debating you because it appeared you were only being stubborn (but I did continue to read). If you're going to use a bad incident that happened to your friend's dad at Bunning's Warehouse (I do wish him the best, btw) in Australia and apply it to the US in order to make your point, that is a bit disingenuous. Others took you up on it and pointed out how your theories were incorrect. Instead of owning up to it, you came out with a stubborn refusal to admit it, and challenged people to take it to the Flame Wars.

It is my assumption that you are refering to links and not actual posts. Links to sites which support your arguments, while not immediatly argument winning, are certainly helpful when proving your point. I was merely pointing out that I supplied far outweighed any proof that you or anyone arguing your point of view supplied.

I guess that depends on one's point-of-view. Seriously though, the website you provided refuted your own accusations against the US legal system. When confronted with that you just continued to post that everyone else was wrong. If you truly believe that, then it's hard to get through to you.

[Neutrino]

I have to admit your reference to Rev. Kyle made me laugh I'm speaking to the fact that you took one or two sentences from texts and applied it to an entire assessment of the US. You also took one crazy court case (Roy Pearson) and applied it to the entire US legal system to make your point.

Starting arguments and reasoning = crap. I already said this. They were cheap, nasty and quick, but they did their job. You'll notice I have a summarised version of arguments that actually make sense. If you want to disprove something, go for them.

The website that you pointed to in reference to indigent defense also refuted your own claim.

... where? I re-read the last 5 pages of the thread and didn't find it. If you can kindly show me where, then I can make up some excuses

I stopped debating you because it appeared you were only being stubborn (but I did continue to read).

Huh? I can say the exact same thing about you. Throught the entire thread, no-one gave any decent reason why the US is the best.

Freedom of Speech - Everyone else fit to call themselves developed has it too.
Democracy - *see "Freedom of Speech"*
"Culture of humanitarian giving" - You're joking aren't you? The US government only has a "Culture of Humanitarian Giving" when dealing with situations that are politically advantageous. Millions die each year in Africa due to war, starvation and disease and nothing decent is done, while a dictator killing some members of another ethnic group warrants an invasion and occupation (I'm not trying to reduce it's significance, just put it in perspective. There are many, many worse ethnic cleansings going on all over the world, yet they get practically no interference)

There are probably some others, but I can't remember them.

If you want to convince, or at least silence, me, then post one uniquely American trait that clearly sets America as 'the greatest nation in the world'. I, for one, will certainly not be waiting with bated breath.

If you're going to use a bad incident that happened to your friend's dad at Bunning's Warehouse (I do wish him the best, btw) in Australia and apply it to the US in order to make your point, that is a bit disingenuous.

I do have that site declaring America's and Australia's legal systems (and in fact, the nations themselves) as 'very similar'. I'm sure I can find more. What will it take to convince you that Australia and the US are very similar (and thus, examples for one can equally be applied to the other)?

Others took you up on it and pointed out how your theories were incorrect.

Where? In addition to outposting you in links at least 2 or 3 - 1 (the more proof, the stronger the arguments) I had a response to every single point posted (except, maybe, a few that I missed. It was a lot of text, after all). In fact, there remain quite a few of my points that remain unresponded too. How can you claim that all my arguments are wrong when you have all this against you?

Instead of owning up to it, you came out with a stubborn refusal to admit it, and challenged people to take it to the Flame Wars.

Actually, It was telling them to go away and to stop cluttering up the thread with meaningless drivel. They clearly wanted to flame me, but, because it was clearly not the place, I handily suggested an alternative. If you'll look closely, you'll notice numberous statements of mine for them to
a) shut up and/or take it to flamewars or
b) Make some relivant points and actually bcome part of the discussion

[luns101]

Yes Neutrino, I guess I could try to make my case again to you, but you have proven that you will have no part in it. I gave you more than one reason as to why I think America is the greatest country on earth. I guess I could post it all over again...so you could just dismiss it all over again. Round and round we go, so what point would there be in pursuing that. After all, you view the US through the lens of economic/military oppressor. So go ahead and tell yourself that you won some type of victory. If someone wants to see our points they can always go back to the July 4th thread and see for themselves. I'm just glad that at least 2 people were convinced by what I had to say.

Of course, the bias against the US is such here at CC that when someone like myself says something like I did, it is misinterpreted as "we think we're superior to everyone else". What I said was highly subjective and only meant as expressing patriotism. If someone from France, Australia, or the UK said that I wouldn't throw the hissy-fit that was expressed in that thread. It's merely someone expressing patriotic feelings.

[got tonkaed]

having read a story about this weeks national intelligence estimate on Iraq i was i guess not surprised...but still caught notice of how grim their forcast was. Essentially the frequently echoed claim from both sides, that violence isnt going to be abated in the near future and that the Iraqi government is going to remain very fragile doesnt sound too good after 4 1/2 years. Considering that the surge deployment numbers are going to have to beging to be reduced from troops being sent home, i guess what im wondering is (at least curious to hear someones opinion)

how must the US handle foreign policy operations such as this in the next couple decades. Essentially Iraq has become a failed state, largely, but perhaps not completley because of US intervention. Supposing that the US gets involved somewhere else (and it seems possible that that will happen) what has to be done differently?

Follow up other question....considering the likelyhood that failed states are most likely to be the ones harboring or developing terrorist aims, should there be a shift in concern in the next few years to states that have been perptual leaders in failed state indexes or should the US continue to focus on radical islamist states as appears to be the status quo?

(i was just bored at 3:40 ish basically)

bump because instead of getting into an argument we could discuss some of the things that i was looking for some responses on?

[The1exile]

Those how take the time to argue will rarely be swayed.

How many concessions have you seen from people on this site saying other people are right on a major issue? Really, I want to see these.

[got tonkaed]

Those how take the time to argue will rarely be swayed.

How many concessions have you seen from people on this site saying other people are right on a major issue? Really, I want to see these.

meh i dont think that is necesarily a sign of whether or not an argument was fruitful....as evidenced by the harmony clarity thread a bit ago. But i would agree, very few times does anyone move at all from their original position....unless one can defeat an opponent by twisting their words against them. But thats not all the time, and hey when it happens it happens.

At least for claritys sake you get a different viewpoint no?

[luns101]

GT,

I don't think we can deny that the US, and other countries, are selective to a certain point in dealing with problems out of what they view as a national interest. But really, why wouldn't they do so...either for economic or other reasons?