And since Obama feels like it is an important operation, Bush must have done a good job of it then.

 

Eight years after a war that initially seemed to be won after a month, the United States is still fighting. I do not see how that can be considered a good job.

 

You certainly do not improve deidre79's attitude with that kind of behavior. Instead, you show deidre79 that you are everything you think she is.

I have found myself that if I am flamed I tend to adopt a more extreme position. I try to respond to malice with reason. This is true, regardless of who I respond to.

 

Are you by chance confusing the Iraq war with the one in Afghanistan? If you are not, why hasn't Obama decided to leave there right now? Perhaps is it that the objectives have not been achieved?

So, if the initial decision to go after the Taliban and bin Laden was a good one, who initiated that? If you are saying that the effort was not backed up properly, then why is Obama actually endorsing what Bush was doing by doing the same thing he did?

You can't have it both ways.

 

Cough, cough

 

Before the invasion the Taliban government indicated a willingness to extradite Osama bin Laden. The United States should have investigated that possibility more thoroughly. There was no good reason to invade Iraq. The best thing one can say about the War in Iraq is that Bush started an unprovoked war because he made a legitimate mistake, and that the war continued because of additional mistakes that were equally legitimate.

What matters is that Bush started two wars he could not win.

 

When I proved that the atomic bombing of Japan was unnecessary you said that I am not patriotic. You are right. I am not. That has nothing to do with the atomic bombing of Japan however.

 

You would have a point if I were in any way interested in changing Deidre's behavior for the better. As far as I'm concerned, that's a fool's errand. She's way past mending her ways, and has no interest in doing so herself. MY interest, therefore, is in holding her up to as much ridicule as possible, which is marvelously easy to do.

 

Act your age, Kimiko.

 

I act my age in real life...why should I do it here?

Seriously, though, if you want to play pattycake with someone who expresses the views Deidre does, in the ways she expresses them, by all means, it's your lookout. But you run the constant risk of ignorance by association.

 

No, I am not right and you are not wrong about the A-bombing in Japan, this is the whole freaking point. We just have different opinions.


You have opinions, I have opinions, neither of us are right or wrong. We simply express how we feel about a subject, it ain't a contest.

 

Just as you constantly run the risk of being thought a bully.

 

That might be kind of fun, actually. I've never been capable of being a bully in my life -- people would laugh.

 

There is a difference between a reality perception and a value. "The atomic bombing of Japan was necessary to end the Second World War," is a reality perception. "The government should guarantee everyone health care," is a value.

With reality perceptions facts matter. A person's stand on a statement of value is only a fact about that person.

 

Will you stop going on with this idiotic theme.

When did I say that the A-bombs were necessary to end the war? Were does it say that the government should "guarantee" everyone health care?

Personally I believe, and have stated, that all citizens should have access to health care. The difference is how we do it, as a socialist program or with a program that fits what we already have?

Here is how both of the arguments are a matter of opinion.

 

A matter of opinion, yes. But all opinions are not created equal. If you have to misrepresent and distort facts to make the case for your opinion, it is not as valid as the opinion of someone who is not compelled to resort to such tactics.

 

There is no such thing as an opinion that is purely factual. If it is a fact, it is not subject to an opinion.

Gravity is not an opinion, it is a fact. The idea that gravity causes your tits to sag, is an opinion.

 

My tits do NOT sag, thankyouverymuch!

But I didn't say the opinion was purely factual, I said that an opinion founded upon false, misleading or distorted data is a very suspect opinion. Many people express their opinion that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, but they do so only by disregarding or misrepresenting pertinent facts.

 

I want to believe you, but I would need to see for myself to be sure.

 

Since I have no first HAND knowledge of the state of your tits, I will take your word for it.

Yes, I would agree with you there.

But these are folks who also think that it's okay to destroy others for not thinking as they do.

We are not talking that extreme in here, we are discussing topics that interest us in some way. These discussions will most likely not bring about change in the real world, they are mostly for entertainment and enlightenment.

As an example, as much as it pains me to bring it up, the topic of the A-bombs is a classic example of two opinions on whether the use of them was justified. Neither opinion is based solely on fact, but rather on the digestion of the facts that were presented, tempered by the individuals knowledge of the times.

There is no way to come to a conclusion than one opinion is wrong and the other right. Each is has merit to the holder of the opinion.