Not really. Saying "it isn't objectively good" just means that there is nothing factual to state a clear superiority. All he's stated is that it's an entirely subjective claim.

He's yet to actually substantiate his own claim. He sounds like a broken record repeating his premise without actually elaborating on it in a concise, coherent, and respectful manner.

Obama, from Kenya

Quote from: Decimator Omega on March 30, 2015, 07:53:26 PM

https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ

^ New Mass Effect Ending.

XD LE EBIN RICK ROLL ROFL

lol so random xD

Quote from: Kupo on March 30, 2015, 10:03:37 PM

oh cool, the most overused and misused image in internet history
that image applies way more closely to PC elitists who act like they're better than console gamers

"STOP DISLIKING WHAT I LIKE!"

But it describes your argument to a T.

Care to elaborate on the specifics? Or are we supposed to fire in the dark at an argument that doesn't actually exist?

All you're really doing here is taking the pedant route to try and damage control a source you fucked up on in a haphazard attempt to spin an incorrect narrative, and you're not exactly being inconspicuous about it either.

I'm doing damage control? I... well yes, on this particular point, but this hardly undermines the larger point of my argument. 52% is still something that shouldn't be ignored, and as far as I'm concerned, they make up the majority.

All your poll suggests is that half of Americans disapprove of Obama, and the other half approves. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.

You answered your own question.

Jihad has been around even before America was established as a sovereign nation.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the war directly contributed to the modern incarnation of ISIS.

Honestly, what would you have preferred? A slowly but surely recovering post war nation, or an unchecked megalomaniacal dictator left to ran amok and do whatever he pleases with 20% of the world's oil? If you'd like to offer us a better alternative as to how we should've dealt with Hussein, then please, we're all ears.

I would prefer to stop continuing the policy of unnecessary interventions that have inevitably caused more problems than they solved. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, as you've clearly proven.

But how about you go invade Iran and Palestine and Syria while you're at it? I haven't seen a solid explanation yet as to why those countries are somehow fundamentally different from Saddam's Iraq. (Hint: they're not)

are just as naive as the neocons who think you can run around spreading democracy on a whim.

This is the most ironic thing you've said in this entire thread. Don't talk down to yourself like that. You've been arguing that case throughout this entire discussion, and now you're pretending that it's somehow not your argument? This is the kind of (logical) gymnastics that would give Mary Lou Retton a run for her money.

But I've already dealt with how the situation in Iraq was--and continues to be--different.

Hardly.

Damn right, I wouldn't. The UN's word isn't fucking gospel.

You're part of the problem.

It's an independent country's right to be a shitty place to live.

And if people like you had been listened to: Libya would still have a nuclear arsenal bigger than we ever expected, we never would've traced the AQ Khan network around Pakistan and North Korea, the Taliban would still be playing host to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, Slobodan Milosevic would've made Bosnia part of a Greater Serbia, Kosovo would've been ethnically cleansed, the Clinton administration still wouldn't have done enough about Rwanda, the French wouldn't have successfully combated the Tuareg Rebellion in Northern Mali, Indonesia would've committed a genocide in East Timor and Saddam Hussein would still have a latent WMD capacity with a population riven with sectarianism and subjugated under his fundamentalist boot.
The Saddam argument has more holes than Swiss cheese, but I can't say I would oppose most of the other interventions.

Despite the problems Mordo has dealt with, stats from 2011 don't even begin to comment on how Americans were welcomed in 2003.

I... okay.

Pay attention. Me quite explicitly saying "Yeah, Blair and Bush fucked that one up" is not ignoring the lies and abuses.

The way you're handwaving all of their fuck-ups is basically doing just that.

If you can't see how the post-Saddam Iraq up until 2011 was better, almost invariably, than Saddam's Iraq I really don't have a fucking clue what to tell you.

Well, let's look at the facts:

CONS OF INVADING IRAQ:

-Post 9/11 fearmongering
-Countless lies by the Bush administration
-Mass surveillance caused by said fearmongering
-Unreasonable hostility towards our allies that hurt our standing
-Countless abuse scandals that also hurt our standing
-A false declaration of the 'end of combat operations' that made a farce of the military and the US in general
-Boots still on the ground 12 years later
-A long and seemingly fruitless attempt to get the Iraqis in shape enough to defend themselves from the terrorist groups and general instability caused by the war
-Taxpayers burdened with over 2 trillion dollars
-Between 3.5 million to 5 million displaced Iraqis
-Estimates ranging anywhere from about 100,000 to 500,000 dead Iraqi civilians
-Nearly 4,500 dead US soldiers
-An American public and international community that's skeptical of unnecessary and disastrous military interventions and less likely to intervene in the situations that actually need it


PROS OF INVADING IRAQ:

-Saddam go bye-bye (but for some reason Iraq is the only time this will happen, because non-reasons)
-Look, we found a penny WMDs that did not fit the adminstration's narrative and were consequently covered up, thus denying troops necessary medical treatment
-Oh, and a slight majority the Iraqis feel good about the economy


Fucking pitiful.

Quote from: Noëlle on March 28, 2015, 12:32:31 PM

Quote from: Rinev Jeqkogo on March 28, 2015, 08:41:33 AM

The music in the tie fighter short was pretty good, it fit the video well. If you haven't watched this yet you should. The guy spent four years making it.

YouTube

I was not a huge fan of the animation when I watched that before. What I really like about it though, is that it focuses on the soldiers or pilots in the battle, no heroes like Jedi or Sith. I really want a Star Wars film or game that is just about the soldiers. I also love that they actually showed the shielding on the fighters.

Whomever made this apparently can't differentiate between bombs and missiles.

If you meant Y-Wings with proton torpedoes, that's properly canon. Y-Wings are primarily bombers but they can be outfitted with missiles, like for the Death Star trench run.

Otherwise, you'll need to point out the offending segments to me >.>

You didn't even bait this hook.

yep

Did this ever happen?

Because I wasn't there, sorry

Catzilla said next week (or this week by now?) because he's on spring break.

Quote from: Kupo on March 30, 2015, 06:04:05 PM

Quote from: Nagato on March 30, 2015, 06:01:25 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 30, 2015, 05:58:34 PM

Quote from: Nagato on March 30, 2015, 05:57:20 PM

Quote from: Kupo on March 30, 2015, 05:56:16 PM

this fuckin thread lol

related:

that fucking ending too

Spoiler

I actually have no problems with that, it made sense.
Not all of him was uploaded into super digital god mode that doesn't do anything, so obviously shit was missing.
Of course, it had to be the key to everything, but what were you expecting after watching the rest of it?

Spoiler

I was hoping for something more like 'tonight, you're all going to be part of a social experiment' or at least just some logic behind it for some closure.

LEL!

looooool i imagined YOU JUST GOT PUNKED at the end

Quote from: Kupo on March 30, 2015, 05:56:16 PM

this fuckin thread lol

related:

that fucking ending too

this fuckin thread lol

related:

blazing it turns you gay, true fact

Cheat trashed it. I thought everyone knew this?

I was starting to think the Daily Show might not continue after Jon Stewart. Most of Jon's proteges have gone on to other things by now.

I didn't even think of him because he's so new, but he has a lot of time to practice, so that's good.

Quote from: Kupo on March 30, 2015, 09:58:10 AM

A majority of the Iraqi population says they feel worse off since the country was invaded. 'Welcomed' my ass.

Uh huh. From the article:

Quote

Iraqis expressed concern about the departure of U.S. forces, but are nonetheless cautiously optimistic. Six in 10 Iraqis, said a report on the results, feared a possible civil war, partition of the country, outsized foreign influence by neighbors, terrorism, or economic woes. The concerns played into mixed Iraqi emotions

Nice distortion of the information being conveyed there. All that's really telling us is that the Iraqi population are apprehensive about the future, which is not the same as saying "they feel worse off."

In fact, an ACTUAL polling report suggests that 48% of the Iraqi population feel better off and 52% believe the economy was strong and security and sectarianism were getting better.

al-Baghdadi would like to have a word with you.

But did you even read your own source? 48% is a minority, and either way it's hardly a uniform opinion.