The mission: Destroy terrorists.
The restriction: Protect as many innocents as possible.

So my friend and I were "debating" about whether or not innocent lives are an acceptable cost in the "War on Terrorism."
My stand is that you must kill terrorists first, protect innocents and civilians later.

What does Cemetech think?

And that makes you an idiot.

Please read the first statement.
Mission: Destroy terrorists.

This cannot be done efficiently when so much focus is being put on protecting civilians. If you want to have this mission done well, you have to realize that you can't save everyone, and that innocent lives will be lost in the process of carrying out this mission. The elimination of terrorists should be the higher priority, with civilian protection directly underneath.

Except the method you propose to go about destroying terrorists only serves to help create MORE terrorists. Thus, you are an idiot.

Umm.. I did not state a method?
I stated a cost for a particular result, and the needed shift in priority from protection of civilians to the elimination of terrorists.

Kllr, about that image, the issue is that we don't think that the government will effectively use the tax dollars to save people.

This exactly. I could just as easily image-macro up a poster along the lines of "the main difference between righties and libtards: Object to the government take their money intended for helping people and spend it on pork // Object to people who want to help without being coerced into it by the government" But that isn't the point of this thread. We're discussing the war in Iraq.

That may be your objection, but that isn't the common objection.



Only yours isn't catchy, sucks, and doesn't make much sense.



lol wut? No we aren't. We are discussing a hypothetical situation that isn't really valid in the first place.

Actually, it is one of the primary objections of any traditional conservative. Christian conservatives are STILL the largest single demographic for charitable giving in the country, and their objection to government welfare programs isn't that they don't want to help. It's that when the government takes their money and decides which charitable programs get funding and which don't, they no longer have control over who their money is helping and huge chunks are siphoned off into other parts of the national budget.

Traditional conservative != republicans/conservatives

Traditional conservatives typically aren't insane like the people at Fox News are (*cough, Glenn Beck, cough*).

The problem with that statement is that most traditional conservatives still vote Republican, because even if they are no longer the controlling interest in the party they sure as hell aren't represented by the Democratic party.

My stand is our country is still fighting the Bush crime family's political War of Terror (though didn't we already pull out of Iraqi cities so this debate is moot?)

We do need to eliminate terrorists, but the way you do that is by first eroding their "moral" base, not bombing the shit out of every brown thing that moves.

The mission: Defend the internet from trolls.
The restriction: Minimize non-troll losses.

I say we defend cemetech from trolls. Reapex certainly acts like a troll, so we should ban them. Even if they aren't a troll, why does it matter? We should ban them anyway.

What does Cemetech think?

Well corporations aren't doing it. So without government involvment, more and more people would just die of treatable illnesses. Including me, as a matter of fact. Without Obama's healthcare law, I'd be kicked off my parent's insurance this August. I could quite possibly have MS, so you can see why this would be a problem for me.

Is our national mentality so far down the drain that the ONLY two options we see are nationalized or corporatized?

Those ARE the only two options. What, you think fairies will fly down from heaven and magically give you healthcare?

The only reason that corporations failed in the first place was government interference that sank them before they started. From taxes to tarp money, government interference is just plain bad news.
We libertarians believe that the ultimate source of economic woes is the government. They upset the delicate balance of factors involved in economics and thusly cause permanent damage to us.

False. Unchecked capitalism is a terrible idea that leads to pain and suffering. It also led to the most recent economic collapse.

Suck it, idealist.

Oh, so since Somalia has no government interference they must have no economic woes, right?