I'm advocating for the solution that save the most Palestinian lives, how does that make me the disgusting one. I guess it's better if Hamas keeps fighting forever using the people in Gaza as human shields instead. It has worked out so well for the past 80 years. I'm the one trying to save their lives. Why is it more important to you that they continue the fight against Israel instead of weeding out the terrorists and saving the rest? Hamas deserves death, they are just using the rest of the Gazans as human shields (and some not insignificant number of said Gazans support this arrangement). I want all the Hamas members to be killed or surrender and the rest of the people to live free and prosperous lives. It is vile that Hamas is endangering nearly 2 million people to fight an impossible war against Israel in which they accomplish nothing. I would relocate them to countries around the world where they can live free and prosperous lives without the burden of an unwinnable war against a far more powerful opponent. Many Palestinians are free and happy right here in California (my high school biology teacher was Palestinian). Clearly, they cannot be trusted to live in peace with Israel, as we have learned over the past 8 decades or so (at least, really more than a century). The Iraqis are welcome to try. They couldn't win when they had the advantage of fighting an insurgency against a foreign invader, so I don't like their odds coming to try to attack the United States. They would have been smarter to welcome the United States as liberators and allowed our benevolent military to destroy the Baath party and bring them freedom and democracy. Alas, they (much like Hamas) chose to throw away countless lives for no real benefit. America stayed until they just didn't really want to stay anymore. For the entire war, the US military had on average about 1 combat death per day in Iraq (weighted toward the beginning, so less than that when they withdrew).
Was this supposed to be satire? I only read where you quoted me, but you can’t be this ignorant right. I think you are trolling, because the “mUh fReeDoMz” shtick became political suicide long long ago. I do appreciate the honestly though, and the backtrack of “kill everyone in Gaza” , then “I’m trying to save the most lives” I’m not biting, you’re the same dipshit that tried to argue life bringing at conception citing studies and empirical evidence that contradicted you. alas we come full circle, the irony in making an argument against abortion when you manifest exactly why it should exist
Be honest. In a face to face discussion you'd b**** out and express the the average amount of empathy public society expects from an adult and not be this brazen about genocide. Come on. We know it. You'd b**** out.
No, it is not satire. What would I be satirizing. The Iraqi people would have been objectively better off not fighting the Americans. There was no point to the Iraqi insurgency. It did nothing. I also never said to kill everyone in Gaza, so I don't see where you get the backtrack from. I have said (even before October 7th) that the outcome of the Israel/Palestine conflict should be the elimination of the terrorists and the relocation of the peaceful Palestinians. You must be confusing me with someone else that advocated for killing all the Palestinians. They are fighting a pointless and hopeless war, and every day they continue is more lives thrown away. Also, there was never any evidence presented that contradicted my argument that life begins at conception (and of course there could not be, because it does). I am very similar online to how I am in real life. It bothers some people (especially communists). Most people are fine with it. I have an advantage in that I don't care if you are butthurt about what I say. I think you mean, "The awesome thing is he's a district attorney who's in charge of putting dastardly criminals in prison."
I'm saying it will bother you. Being edgy as someone over 70 is kinda shameful in a non-internet setting. A 70 year old stuck in teenage edge lord phase is .... really sad. So no, the shame and cringe element would be too strong for you to not b**** out and tone down your rhetoric to more socially acceptable behavior.
I love it, the iraqi people should have welcomed their invaders and destabilized their country. What on earth were they thinking. Nevermind the estimates of said destabilization and half a milllion lives lost, Stupidmoniker played a similar video game and he was taught buhhh muh FreEdOmZ in his nice little suburb upbringing. What a bunch of savages, same for the native americans and other groups thinking they have a right to defend sovereign territory. They should know better. I'm sure when it comes to foreign policy we should just adopt this. Lots of success ahead
I figured you were at a age where peak concentration of leaded gasoline was in the air during your primary brain development days before turning 25.
No, they destabilized their country by fighting an insurgency. They should have stayed in their homes, waited for the coalition army to clear out the Baathist regime and then had a free and stable democracy after the fact. It has nothing to do with video games and everything to do with misguided attacks against a superior foe for no benefit. The half a millon lives lost (or 100, 000 or 1.5 million, or whatever number you want to use) was not a result of the war between the regime and the invaders, it was a result of the insurgency. For some reason, no one seems to understand that armies fighting in the open fields results in minimal civilian casualties, but armies fighting insurgents/terrorists/irregulars/Hamas/whatever group you want to include that doesn't stage in military bases and doesn't fight away from their own civilian populations, results in high civilian casualties. It is almost like the groups that choose this type of warfare are relying on the negative press associated with high civilian casualties to be automatically assigned to the people who didn't chose for this to happen instead of the people who absolutely did chose for this to happen, because they cannot win a straight up fight. Yes. Both Hamas and the Iraqi insurgents are a bunch of savages. In fact, everyone that chooses to put civilians in harms way instead of fighting a conventional war are a bunch of savages. Yes, when the defenders have no chance of success, it is a waste of lives to have meaningless insurgent campaigns. Do you think the Commanche or the Lakota or the Creek or the Seminole gained anything from fighting the Americans? Are they better off than the tribes that didn't fight? Are they better off than the tribes that allied with the United States? I love when people lump all of the tribes of North America into one group, as though they hadn't been slaughtering each other since they arrived. I'm sorry to break it to you, but there wasn't one giant peaceful group of people here that the Americans suddenly attacked and wiped out. There were a lot of small warring tribes, some of which sided with the French, some of which sided with the English, and some of which sided with the fledgling United States. Some treaties went okay, some went poorly. Some tribes picked the losing side in wars and suffered as a result. Some tribes were wiped out by other tribes and their allies. None of them benefitted from fighting pointless unwinnable wars against a superior opponent. There was no point to Carthage fighting Rome. There was no point to Czechoslovakia fighting Germany. There was no point to the Aztecs fighting the Spanish, there was no point to the Iraqis fighting the Americans, and there was no point to the Palestinians fighting the Israelis (especially when not joined by multiple Arab allies. October 7th was an abject failure. It resulted in 50-fold deaths for Hamas and their supporters in comparison to the Israelis. They may end up losing all of the Gaza strip, perhaps even the West Bank. They will gain no territory. They best they can hope for is that there are enough useful idiots in the world that take their side over Israel. It seems to be going well for them here on ClutchFans, but I don't think the rest of the US is quite as pro-terrorist as y'all.
And what if the democracy installed in Iraq wanted to lets say.... nationalize their resources and create a sovereign fund or something?
There is a piacular contradiction here if anyone pays close attention. The argument made here appeals to "might makes right" but then language like "savages" implies an appeal to emotion and morality. But I'd like to see if I can actually make you introspect for once. In your current state being born and raised in a stable nation where you've never experienced things like war, food insecurity, raised by 2 parents I assume, have a very comfortable standard of living where concepts like worrying about if you will find clean drinkable water next week is such a foreign concept to you... yet look at how tribalistic, hateful, judgmental, lacking in a baseline level of empathy you are. Now strip those privileges you were born into away and inject some severe PTSD from maybe being a civilian in a war torn region. What quality of human would you be judging by your standards? Savage? By your standards, probably.
This takes some empathy skills but hear me out. Brown people have self interest in having a quality comfortable life. That implies they don't want the resources that can allow that to go to American owned capital interests. That is why a country would want to nationalize its resources. Nothing to do with communism. Everything to do with making sure wealthy capital owners from world superpowers don't come in and take it away and leave scraps.
You are a broken person. I don’t know if you have a neuro divergent disorder or if you failed to develop basic empathy as a child… There are nearly 2 million people there and many of them are women, children and the elderly.
