kingblaze84;3105070 said:
Um, we are blowing up whole towns and villages in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
maybe you better define "blowing up whole towns and villages," then
kingblaze84;3105070 said:
Do you realize the amount of refugees coming from those countries because of our endless wars there?
somehow i don't think we are at endless war in Pakistan and running scores of refugees out of it. as for Afghanistan... are we saying that refugees there are ONLY about the US and ONLY started in 2001?
kingblaze84;3105070 said:
Do some research and you will see what I'm saying-
what did we say about this
kingblaze84;3105070 said:
-the drone attacks are beyond destructive to civilians.
however, a drone attack is not blowing up an entire town or village. so are we talking about drone attacks here?
kingblaze84;3105070 said:
However, as I've said before, I do understand their anger at American foreign policy, which is the main reason so many in the Middle East want us killed.
however, let's be clear about this: their anger also includes things like "Saudi Arabia embarassed us by letting the US handle the first Gulf War." things like this i don't consider as understandable.
kingblaze84;3105070 said:
We can dismantle Al-Qaeda much more efficiently if we change our foreign policy or at a minimum, reduce the amount of troops in the Middle East.
well, yes, i agree that addressing Al-Qaeda is not being done efficiently with massive amounts of troops. that might be the limit of our agreement, though.
And Step;3105415 said:
This is not true in the past or present.
since he hasn't defined what he's saying, it's not true or untrue. but don't tell me that kingblaze doesn't exaggerate for effect. and since we know he does (i mean, that's his style of debate), then don't expect me to take those remarks as literally true.
And Step;3105415 said:
LOL. This type of diseased thinking is why globally people look at the US with an increasing hatred.
it's "diseased thinking" to think that accidents DO legitimately happen? i guess this is the point where we stop debating this seriously, right?
And Step;3105415 said:
As well as they shouldn't. If you had not been there killing people then there would be no need for all of this.
let's not pretend that people would immediately stop killing civilians in Afghanistan if the US wasn't there.
And Step;3105415 said:
Insurgents? LOLOLOL. How are you an insurgent in a country that is yours and you are fighting an aggressor?
we can just start with the people who are not from Afghanistan. then there's this part: unless the US has annexed Afghanistan, there's still an Afghan state that you'd be fighting against.
And Step;3105415 said:
hahahahahah. There were more Cubans killed in Grenada than that.
Cubans not being from Grenada, i wouldn't call them civilians there, would i?
And Step;3105415 said:
Tulsa came in because the little homey was talking about the practice of killing civilians. I slid in a couple examples of the US doing so.
thing is, he's talking about the US military killing civilians with military action; this is yet another time you have thrown in the Tulsa thing, and then seemed perplexed as to why i think it's off topic. not getting the confusion.