Obama: US Launches Military Action Against Libya

Status
Not open for further replies.
TheWriteAlex said:
No, you said you disagreed with the theory that we create war as a way to generate military expenditure. I answered with VIETNAM as an example.

I thought you were a history teacher (or is it ESL? or is it Geography? Or is it...), so you should know how the premise for the Vietnam War was fabricated, how it dragged on long after it was known that it was unwinable (do the "Pentagon Papers" ring a bell?), how much munitions were used, and how worthless and costly bombings were used daily without having much effect other than to destroy rice paddies and blow up water buffalo...

That all adds up.
Click to expand...

So an English teacher can't teach American Lit and Composition? Or are you not a teacher? You don't understand what a Social Studies teacher does? Okay. Fair enough.

Anyway...I'm not sure if you want to derail this and make it about Vietnam, but we can, I guess.

My point was that your logic was flawed.

"Once, we went to war for Reason X."
"We are in a conflict now."
"Therefore, we are in this conflict for Reason X. Again."
"We will always go to war for Reason X."

No, I don't believe that we go to war because of excess munitions. If I were writing a thesis on the cause of war, it would not be my argument.
 
TheOracle said:
So an English teacher can't teach American Lit and Composition? Or are you not a teacher? You don't understand what a Social Studies teacher does? Okay. Fair enough.

Anyway...I'm not sure if you want to derail this and make it about Vietnam, but we can, I guess.

My point was that your logic was flawed.

"Once, we went to war for Reason X."
"We are in a conflict now."
"Therefore, we are in this conflict for Reason X. Again."
"We will always go to war for Reason X."

No, I don't believe that we go to war because of excess munitions. If I were writing a thesis on the cause of war, it would not be my argument.
Click to expand...


You are the one who opened up the Vietnam avenue in the first place. How? You questioned whether we start wars in order to create defense spending (you didn't offer any sort of rebuttal, just said you disagreed.) That seems to me to be an invitation for debate. I answered your question with an example: Vietnam. You still haven't offered a rebuttal. Instead, you're trying to make it look like I am derailing the thread. As if this thread could get any more derailed than it already is. :roll:

It's pointless to debate with you. You just spin spin spin and use logical fallacies as your rhetorical devices, then you try and turn the fallacies back on the other person. You did this in the earthquake thread and the purse thread. This is getting really annoying. And you wonder why people don't like you around here?
 
souggy said:
What was the Soviet Union's largest export product?

Hint: It was modelled after a German prototype.
Click to expand...

You're not understanding me.

I'm saying that excess munitions does not cause war.

Arguably, the cause of war between the US and other nations Post WWII has been diplomatic - it's the "nation building" diplomacy. (Vomit.)

Vietnam
Bay of Pigs
Iraq
Iran
Israel
etc cetera ad nauseum
 
souggy said:
What was the Soviet Union's largest export product?

Hint: It was modelled after a German prototype.
Click to expand...

The reason I asked is because I quoted TheOrcale clearly saying that she doesn't believe that we enter wars just to get rid of weapons. Which you also validated?
 
TheWriteAlex said:
You are the one who opened up the Vietnam avenue in the first place. How? You questioned whether we start wars in order to create defense spending (you didn't offer any sort of rebuttal, just said you disagreed.) That seems to me to be an invitation for debate. I answered your question with an example: Vietnam. You still haven't offered a rebuttal. Instead, you're trying to make it look like I am derailing the thread. As if this thread could get any more derailed than it already is. :roll:

It's pointless to debate with you. You just spin spin spin and use logical fallacies as your rhetorical devices, then you try and turn the fallacies back on the other person. You did this in the earthquake thread and the purse thread. This is getting really annoying. And you wonder why people don't like you around here?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you can't follow the debate, Alex. I mean...you insert random things about what? What I have a license to teach? Insinuating that I don't teach? Huh? What's that for? Oh! I know. To deflect.

Yes, I did question your statement about getting rid of weaponry. I could see where Jiro was coming from. If you had asked me to give my reasons for why I thought wars happened (a common theme in these Libya threads), I would've given it. Instead, you said Vietnam.

Okay...so are you trying to link the two via diplomatic theory? Or are you trying to say that we're in Libya because we have excess ammunition because that's why you said we were in Vietnam?

We've been talking about why people go to war and what may prevent that.

I would've been perfectly happy to discuss political theory with you, but that doesn't seem to be your interest. Instead you fling ambiguous words around as replacement for intellectual discourse.
 
After being drafted and serving all those years, and, thinking we were in Vietnam to keep the communists from taking over southeast Asia. Now I learn here it was to keep the military buying munitions to keep defense contractors in business. Wow! :jaw:
 
TinCanSailor said:
After being drafted and serving all those years, and, thinking we were in Vietnam to keep the communists from taking over southeast Asia. Now I learn here it was to keep the military buying munitions to keep defense contractors in business. Wow! :jaw:
Click to expand...

I had same thought.
 
posts from hell said:
The reason I asked is because I quoted TheOrcale clearly saying that she doesn't believe that we enter wars just to get rid of weapons. Which you also validated?
Click to expand...

I can see us getting involve in a civil war to create more jobs! We'll have to replace the weapons that we're using in Libya! I could see us entering wars to test our weapons ,that would made more sense to me than just getting rid of them!
 
whatdidyousay! said:
I could see us entering wars to test our weapons ,that would made more sense to me than just getting rid of them!
Click to expand...

What??? We tested the weapons that are being used in Libya years ago. The U.S. does not use weapons as tests in war because if they went wrong, then civilians would surely die. Very bad PR.

The military has destroyed stockpiles of bombs, missiles, chemical weapons as part of a reduction in force. Many of those classes of weapons have never been used in any attack.
 
TinCanSailor said:
After being drafted and serving all those years, and, thinking we were in Vietnam to keep the communists from taking over southeast Asia. Now I learn here it was to keep the military buying munitions to keep defense contractors in business. Wow! :jaw:
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion and the sacrifices you made, but I also know many Vietnam vets who have an entirely different opinion about that war. That's all I'm going to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top