What argument? You do know what he was trying to prove right? That people who promote non-interventionism are highly patriotic and therefore must be hated/ridiculed/attacked. It makes no sense. You can't attack people for being interventionist while at the same time saying they shouldn't be non-interventionist. Then he said that Americans on WL are highly nationalistic. Again he failed to prove that since its a generalization with no evidence or examples. Its not an argument. He just made generalizations and got pissed when I pointed them out.

You're an idiot and you're shouting into an echo chamber. Nobody has enough time in their life to deal with you.

Besides that unsupported insult, I bet you'll be surprised what not being hostile will get you. Many have time to deal with me. Even Conservative, who is obviously very patriotic, when I talked bad about America, he kept being nice and polite. Also, I'm obviously not going to let you the last reply when it's awfully insulting.

Please don't call me a bigot for having a different opinion than you.

That's what all bigots say. But I'm calling you a bigot since you 1: looked at one of my stat, then said, ha, that's wrong, without really any evidence, and 2: you're leaving in the middle of an argument without even saying "We'll have to have an opinion difference", just saying that I'm wrong.

No one else cared about your post except me and even I don't care.

First, that's a paradox. Second, this wasn't for anyone except you. Third, that's fine if you do, but don't leave the argument saying that you lost the argument. Leaving the argument usually means forfeiting the argument.

I won't concede anything because there's nothing to concede since you didn't make an argument.

How would you know if there was or wasn't anything to concede? You didn't read the post where I last answered your actual arguments. But let me tell you, since you seem to be as lost as a brick. The original point I made is that Americans on Warlight, being so numerous, and partially since culture, glorify their country the most out of any nationality, and so get the most hate for being patriotic.

Good luck with your clan and have fun being an ass to other people on OT forum.

Stop being pretentious, you don't wish me good luck at all.

What argument? You do know what he was trying to prove right? That people who promote non-interventionism are highly patriotic and therefore must be hated/ridiculed/attacked.

That was the point all along - there was no positive correlation with that, I criticised them on their l(ower level of) patriotism, not on them going for a non-warmongering policy.

Then he said that Americans on WL are highly nationalistic. Again he failed to prove that since its a generalization with no evidence or examples. Its not an argument. He just made generalizations and got pissed when I pointed them out.

The most I said is that they are relatively more patriotic than other nationalities, and I showed you a contrast stacked bar graph, which you basically shrugged off, and then I showed you a Gallup study, which you again shrugged off, and then I said that I wasn't going to actually show examples of how all the folk on my list were patriotic, as that would be too tedious.

Edited 2/10/2016 02:16:50

That's not what bigot means X.

Bigot means anyone who is closed-minded, or as Oxford says, "intolerant to other opinions".

Yep yep. Sounds like you juq.

Back your claim up. Get me some of those stats or logic arguments so I know what they look like and can use them in the future.

Edited 2/10/2016 02:19:30

I'm sorry...... But did The Conservative say that the French wasn't beneficial in the Revolutionary war ? Pfttttt what a lie.

Jai, please stop, go calm down, have a glass of water, and stop embarrassing yourself.-

The way I see it, we're in a tricky position.


Although it is important to bring troops back (saves lives and money), it's also necessary to make sure terror groups don't reach the point where they are now: well-armed, equipped, striking across the globe, have infrastructure...
Yes, Israel is an ally of the US. Probably due to its very western influence in a region surrounded by more, "conservative" nations. And I think Israel's a good ally (I'm also a Jew, so keeping Israel alive is good in my book. My stance on the 2-state solution is another story.).
But a major reason we're there is because of oil, like Wolf said. And like Wolf, it will be a long road to alternative fuel, but one I hope we can see the result of.
Should we still keep an eye in case a group similar to ISIS or the Taliban rises up? Yes.
Should we always keep ground troops there all the time? No.
Should we still be an ally of Israel? Yes.
Should we help rebels? Possibly.
Overall, I think US presence is needed, but I don't think that sending troops there all the time is the best idea.

But I do want the US and Russia to work together to defeat ISIS. Finally give the two superpowers a thing to agree on.

But Russia is just backing their own interests by supporting Assad.

But as long as Russia is doing so to fight a common enemy (ISIS) we should allow it for now. The most important thing is to end the Syrian civil war and remove ISIS as a major power in the region. Russia can help in both ways. I also think Russia can be helpful in removing Assad later on. For example if we promise Russia to end some of the sanctions in return for removing Assad we may be able to convince them (along with some other concessions concerning troops in Eastern Europe and the the Minsk II accords).

I really don't think the U.S. could defeat Russia if it came to war in the Middle East, Jai.

Also, Sir Salty, you saying that is soooo idiotic, considering you first attack the US for being "Imperialist" then imply we should stop Russia in the middle east, which is the Imperialist thing to do...

I didn't say anything like that. How is stating that Russia is supporting Assad actually saying we should stop them? Perhaps you don't understand the context(the above post) or maybe you are just ignorant and stupid.

I really don't think the U.S. could defeat Russia if it came to war in the Middle East, Jai.

That's a really really really good question I think. Do you think that Russia and USA will go to war in the Middle East. You see I don't see a scenario where it would be in Russia's interest to do so and I don't see a scenario where it would be in America's interest to do so.


Another interesting question that relates to this: Why do Americans seem to continue to be Russophobic, even though the cold war is over and they are much much weaker than us?

maybe you are just ignorant and stupid.

1). This is way overboard, and this is why I don't have respect for many of the Democrats and Republicans on this forum.

"But Russia is simply backing their own interests"

SirSalty, if you cannot see that I could, knowing that you are an anti-Imperialist, would think that you would want someone to stop Russia imperialism in the middle east, then you need a dictionary.

though the cold war is over and they are much much weaker than us?

Define "weaker"



Oh, and on another note Salty, if you don't think Russia should be stopped in the Middle East, than your not anti-Imperialist, your simply anti-American.

I'm stating a fact that corresponds to Tchaikovsky' post about Russia and America working together to fight ISIS. I'm not supporting Russian imperialism one bit.

Russia would win just because the American public would have no stomach for a fight. The Russians are a) in Siberia and completely clueless, b) in the West and completely drunk, or c) in the government

Then you wouldn't have a problem with America trying to take down the Russian puppet Assad to install an American puppet?

Have I posted more than I think I have, because you seem to be pulling arguments out of your arse.

Edited 2/10/2016 02:46:16