RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

pinkme2 -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 11:07:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

Maybe 'cause it works for them? They bomb a train in Spain and Spain bows out...They bomb a building in America and Americans just get pissed off and come after some terrorist blood...


Then why did Bush, following Bin Laden's demands, remove troop from Bin Laden's homeland Saudi Arabia AFTER 9/11???



You are doing it again. Repeating lies and ignoring facts.



Which of these is a lie, and what facts contradict them?

August 1995: Bin Laden Criticizes Saudi Royals, Threatens Attacks on US Forces in Saudi Arabia
August 1996: Bin Laden Calls for Attack on Western Targets in Arabia
May 26, 1998: Bin Laden Promises to Bring Jihad to US


April 30-August 26, 2003: US Withdraws Most of Its Troops from Saudi Arabia, Fulfilling Key Bin Laden Demand

The withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia has been bin Laden’s most persistent demand since the troops entered the country in 1990.

For instance, in his 1996 fatwa (see August 1996), he said, “The latest and greatest of these aggressions incurred by Muslims since the death of the Prophet… is the occupation of the land of the two Holy Places… by the armies of the American Crusaders and their allies.” [Daily Telegraph, 4/30/2003]

One senior US military official says the decision to leave was made partly to help relieve internal political pressure on the royal family: “The Saudis will be happy when we leave. But they’re concerned that it not look as if it’s precipitous, because it will look like bin Laden won.” [Washington Post, 4/30/2003]

One unnamed senior Saudi prince who participated in high-level debates about the withdrawal says, “We are fighting for our lives, and we are going to do what is necessary to save our behinds.” [New York Times, 4/30/2003]


What's the point, FB?  Others have responded with refutations.  You ignore them, wait a few pages and repost the same crap. 



farglebargle -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 11:07:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Last I checked, one of the witch hunt red flags under DADT was also a single female working too hard and doing a superlative job... surely you aren't accusing Condi of that are you?[:D]



I don't know what kind of hours she's putting in, but anyone who would consider her tenure at the NSA ( 9/11 and fraudulent Iraq WMD intel ) and State ( Iraq Occupation / Getting Saudi Arabia to stop supporting terrorists / Iran / Israel / Hamas ) a "Superlative Job", well, they'd call what FEMA did for NOLA a "Heckuva Job"!.




pinkme2 -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 11:08:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

So I refute all of your "points" earlier, and instead of engaging in actual debate or conceding that you have no grasp on actual facts or logic, you simply declare them again?

This is dishonest debating. I can't believe how little integrity you have, and yet you are calling someone else on it. Shameful.



There's NO DEBATE here.

*I SAY* that Condi is a coward for not taking a stand in support of other homosexuals in the service of her nation.

That's it. Agree or disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to talk about.

What... other than you haven't proved she is a homosexual?  I know it's inconvenient, but there's that.



Alumbrado -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 11:09:38 AM)

Well then, by your own admission, under DADT guidlines she isn't gay...[sm=biggrin.gif]



farglebargle -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 11:12:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

So I refute all of your "points" earlier, and instead of engaging in actual debate or conceding that you have no grasp on actual facts or logic, you simply declare them again?

This is dishonest debating. I can't believe how little integrity you have, and yet you are calling someone else on it. Shameful.



There's NO DEBATE here.

*I SAY* that Condi is a coward for not taking a stand in support of other homosexuals in the service of her nation.

That's it. Agree or disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to talk about.

What... other than you haven't proved she is a homosexual? I know it's inconvenient, but there's that.



That's not my point. My point is summarzed by these questions - three:

1) "Does Condi's Behaviour Cross The Threshold Used For DADT Investigations?"

2) "If so, why isn't she held to the same standards?"

3) "Further, why isn't she championing the changes needed for people to be able to serve WITH HONOR AND INTEGRITY, and not have to lie and engage in other deceitful practices to stay under the radar."




farglebargle -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 11:13:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Well then, by your own admission, under DADT guidlines she isn't gay...[sm=biggrin.gif]


Well, we'd have to wait for the investigation to be completed, wouldn't we?



Alumbrado -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 11:17:09 AM)

Since  DADT is specifically for the military, there isn't going to be any investigation, any more than there was going to be one against Janet Reno



farglebargle -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 11:21:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Since DADT is specifically for the military, there isn't going to be any investigation, any more than there was going to be one against Janet Reno


Yeah, that's my point. It's wrong that State gets a pass ( and DOJ ), while people taking the risk of dying have to be shit on by their branch of service.

Being SHIT ON is worst than being SPIT ON, innit?







pinkme2 -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 11:27:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Since DADT is specifically for the military, there isn't going to be any investigation, any more than there was going to be one against Janet Reno


Yeah, that's my point. It's wrong that State gets a pass ( and DOJ ), while people taking the risk of dying have to be shit on by their branch of service.

Being SHIT ON is worst than being SPIT ON, innit?


I gave you all the reasons that the military was treated differently.  Once again, you've ignored all previous debate, wait a few pages and post the same faulty logic and LIES.



pinkme2 -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 11:31:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

So I refute all of your "points" earlier, and instead of engaging in actual debate or conceding that you have no grasp on actual facts or logic, you simply declare them again?

This is dishonest debating. I can't believe how little integrity you have, and yet you are calling someone else on it. Shameful.



There's NO DEBATE here.

*I SAY* that Condi is a coward for not taking a stand in support of other homosexuals in the service of her nation.

That's it. Agree or disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to talk about.

What... other than you haven't proved she is a homosexual? I know it's inconvenient, but there's that.



That's not my point. My point is summarzed by these questions - three:

1) "Does Condi's Behaviour Cross The Threshold Used For DADT Investigations?"

2) "If so, why isn't she held to the same standards?"

3) "Further, why isn't she championing the changes needed for people to be able to serve WITH HONOR AND INTEGRITY, and not have to lie and engage in other deceitful practices to stay under the radar."



Your "point", which is questionable, all hinges on whether or not she is Gay.  If she's not, then her not telling YOU would not impugn her integrity. 

Second... Since she doesn't fall under DADT, she doesn't need to worry about investigations.

Third, the rest of govt doesn't use DADT, or a lot of things the military does because the military is very different, for good reason.  I gave you all this earlier. 



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 2:30:12 PM)

farglebargle: Yeah, OK. whatever. Saudi Arabia is SO well policed, they've captured all the 9/11 supporters, and have hanged them for their financial backing, and there's no reason for us to look, is there?

Here’s what I said:

quote:

Within each stable country’s boundaries, the POLICE, and other law enforcement agencies, are responsible for spearheading counter terrorism efforts. It’s the POLICE that go in and bust up terrorist cells.

Saudi Arabia is a stable country. And they are going after and busting terror cells.


WHERE, in MY POSTS do I say that Saudi Arabia is well policed?

Referring to them as a stable country, that goes after its terror cells, is NOT me saying that their well policed.

Whether you like it or not, we don’t just go into a country to do something their police should be doing.

You also missed the point behind what we’re, and the world, doing to go after the ENTITY, of which Al-Qaeda is a part:

quote:

The terrorists that planned 9/11 are either dead, under custody, or in the process of being tracked down. This is an international effort, where police in different countries round terror cells up.

Those that engaged our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, who subsequently got captured on the battle field, are either dead, or detained.

Asymmetrical warfare, read up on it. The President is on the right track with regards to engaging this war.


What part of the bold red statement in that quote DON’T you understand?

You’re insinuating that we’re going after the “wrong” target, and further insinuating that we’re not going after the one’s directly responsible for 9/11.

I proved you wrong with that statement, and tied that into how that fits with this war’s asymmetrical nature.

farglebargle: Right.

Considering which one of us is delivering the goods with regards to a factual and logical argument, that’s the only thing that you’ve said that’s applicable to what I said.

farglebargle: Hey, if the Saudis are YOUR FRIENDS, and you wanna give them a pass for 9/11, that's your choice.

WHERE, in my posts, do I say that the Saudis are my “friends”?

Those 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, but they were acting for Al-Qaeda, based in Afghanistan and in cells all over the world.

Using your logic, we should declare Martial Law in the United States, and use the military to bust terror cells in the United States because there’s an American or two in Al-Qaeda. Never mind that we have the police, FBI, and other agencies doing that here.

You consistently forget the other elements that pursue the war on terrorism-- the world’s law enforcement agencies. You forget that multiple countries were used as a basis to plan the 9/11, and other terrorist attacks.

And these countries are using their assets to go after anybody associated with 9/11, and other terrorist attacks in Europe and Asia.

Your position that we should’ve left the troops in Saudi Arabia to pursue terrorists (not in the scope of their mission) shows that you don’t understand how things work with regard to the global war on terror, and with regard to how our different assets, military and civilian, are used.

Don’t mistake proper use of asset as “giving Saudi Arabia a pass.”

The Saudi Government is going after terror cells in their country. I’ve even read news reports that talked about a Saudi Police raid that busted a terror cell or two. While they’re doing that, we should give them the same courtesy and cooperation that we accord a European, or an East Asian country that sends its police force to raid and capture members of a terror cell.

farglebargle: Some of us don't like to appease Terrorist Nations, like Bush Supporters do.

That’s an oxymoron statement.

Your entire argument, as well as that of people that argue your position, parallels what the terrorists want us to do. Your argument argues that we do things that amount to appeasing the terrorists.

As long as you’re going to say things like these:

“And you LOST IRAQ” -farglebargle

“If the US TROOPS weren't there, THEY WOULDN'T BE DYING.” -farglebargle

“I wonder why Bush Supporters want the troops to die?” -farglebargle

“And your false-pride is killing 3 US Troops each and every day?” -farglebargle

It’s YOU that show that YOU like to appease terrorists.

Your statements, with regards to our involvement in Iraq, are parallel to what our enemies argue, your suggestions that we leave because “we lost” is the same thing that our enemies want.

Like them, you think that we “lost”. By pushing for us to pull out of there so that we could “reduce our casualties”, you argue for this country to appease the terrorists.

Action speaks louder than words, there’s a two word statement that describes people like you, something that Lenin coined.

However, people on my side of the argument DON’T appease the terrorists. Our arguments suggest that we do the opposite to that.

farglebargle: Oh, and use REAL QUOTES.

Your problem with those quotes is that they prove you wrong. And you accuse our side of the argument of being “too proud.”

Those ARE real quotes, either of statements that I’ve said, that other people have said on this thread, or that of people like the Vietnamese general.

Your opinions about those quotes don’t make them anything other than real quotes.

farglebargle: Your colored replies just make the conversation harder to follow.

No, your reading comprehension abilities is the problem.

The writing that I use for these message boards is done so that even a grade school student could understand what I’m saying.

I resort to bold red, or other bolded statements when the person I’m arguing with addresses what he THOUGHT I said vice what I ACTUALLY said.

Or when that person persists with a statement/argument that’s so blatantly wrong that I make sure that they see that they’re wrong

There are other reasons to. But once you decide to understand what I’m saying, address what I actually said, and quit putting words in my mouth, I’ll be more happy to use my usual text color.

I’m getting a sense that you’re deliberately taking me out of context because you don’t want to deal with what I actually said. Either because it leaves you with no argument, or it proves you wrong and you’re too proud to do the honorable thing.



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 2:33:16 PM)

farglebargle: Sounds like the guys running the War knew as much about Viet-nam as they do about the Middle East?

Again, you’re making an apples-to-oranges comparison.

The Iraq War wasn’t run the way they ran the Vietnam War. I’ve even read an article where two Vietnam Veterans, who also served in Iraq, said that this was no where near like Vietnam.

The Vietnam War was micromanaged from Washington DC, and they constantly refused to take the military’s sound advice on what to do there.

Iraq is different, where the President is letting the theater commanders run the show.

This has nothing to do with how much, or how little, the leaders knew about the countries we were fighting in.

farglebargle: Really, y'all seem SURPRISED by the Shia/Sunni/Kurd/Turk civil war.

Go back and read my post.

WHERE, in my post, do I say that there’s a “civil war” in Iraq?

I’ve always argued the position that there’s NO Civil War going on in Iraq. In fact:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

“Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.”

That matches the observations of the majority of the troops serving in Iraq.

Who should I listen to in this case? On one side, you who has never been there, or the people who ARE there?

Considering that the insurgents, and militants from both sides, DON’T represent the majority of the Iraqis, who support the Iraqi government, you DON’T have a civil war.

That’s like saying that there’s a civil war going on here in the U.S. because of our gang wars.

farglebargle: Ok, so if they were SO OUT OF TOUCH, the US didn't know they had won, what does that say about the guys at the Pentagon?

This isn’t a case where the Pentagon “didn’t” know that we were winning in Vietnam. They KNEW we were winning. And they knew that if Washington D.C. listened to them, we would’ve ended the war sooner--on our complete terms.

Again, this goes back to what I mentioned before, with regards to the will to fight. It doesn’t matter how well you’re doing in the battle field. If the population back home loses the will to fight, sooner or later we’ll end up withdrawing. That’s the gambit the North Vietnamese utilized.

So they hung on.

What the general was talking about was the message that they were getting from the United States. Washington D.C. and the Pentagon don’t have a monopoly on state side information that reaches our enemies.

They’re competing with other media outlets and organizations. And when they got word that our anti war dissenters were putting the pressure on, the Vietnamese held on banking on the anti war dissenters prevailing.

The terrorists are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan, hoping that you guys could win the war for them. Just like your predecessors did during the Vietnam War for the Vietnamese.



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 2:36:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: EPGAH

True, but remember, if we want to lower troop casualties, we have to let our troops do their job with less micromanagement from afar...


I fixed that for you.



And I fixed that BACK to reflect what EPGAH ACTUALLY said

Your fixed quote doesn’t solve the problem, bringing our troops home may lower casualty in the short term, but that’ll be cancelled out by what we’ll have to do as a consequence.

Guaranteed, your suggestion would lead to a conflict in a larger area, region destabilization, more blood shed, and the need for our troops to go in. This time, losing A LOT MORE than what they’re losing now.

I recommend that you actually think your suggestions through. This time, without ignoring real world factors.



luckydog1 -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 2:37:15 PM)

Consider that according to some Farg's logic...

OBL demanded the US out of Arabia, we did so, hence we appeased him.

OBL demands that we leave Iraq,  so does Farg.....

So is Farg an appeaser of OBL or is his logic flawed?



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 2:40:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

Don’t mistake will to fight as “false pride”. However, if we pull out because we don’t want to lose “3 troops” a day, then prepare for a day when we lose more Americans a day on U.S. soil.


So you admit that all the preparations and spying done by the Bush Administration and Homeland Security haven't enhanced your security, and that the ONLY THING preventing the End Of Days is the continued pointless death of US Troops in Iraq.

You're working for Satan, aren't you?


WRONG.

First, your insinuation that Bush is spying on people like you and me is false. His monitoring programs are aimed at monitoring people here who talk to our enemies. Again, that’s a reasonable search, their privacy rights in this case isn’t protected.

Second, don’t confuse enhanced security with impenetrable security.

My arguing against the misconception that we could just sit behind a defense and forgo our offensive actions doesn’t make me someone that doesn’t believe that Bush’s program’s “haven’t” enhanced our programs.

Because they HAVE enhanced our safety.

But A good defense system has to be coupled with a good offensive action wherever they’re needed.

And right now, we must Westernize the Middle East before they successfully turn us into a series of Islamic Caliphates.

The reality is that there’s NO middle or other option.

Only a fool would suggest that we forgo offense in favor of defense.

Funny how the same side of the argument that complains about Bush’s monitoring programs tries to use this to bolster their “we should only concentrate on our defense” arguments.



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 2:45:45 PM)

farglebargle: Then why did Bush, following Bin Laden's demands, remove troop from Bin Laden's homeland Saudi Arabia AFTER 9/11??? RED HERRING, REPEAT POINT, LOADED QUESTION.

You’ve consistently FAILED to prove that Bush “pulled” our troops out of Bin Laden’s homeland BECAUSE of Bin Laden’s demands.

Therefore, you can’t ask a question as if your opinions about why the troops were pulled out were “fact”.

We were there throughout the 90s, when Al-Qaeda attacked us. Bin Laden even voiced our presence there as one of his justifications for attack.

Yes, that demand was there.

However, our moving our operations from Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with Bin laden’s demands, and everything to do with our changing strategic needs.

With the Iraq threat gone, we didn’t need installations in Saudi Arabia. Moving out of there made perfect sense. We’re currently in Kuwait, Iraq, and Bahrain. We have the Navy in the Persian Gulf to address Iran if need be.

This has NOTHING to do with Bin Laden’s demands. Had we not gone into Iraq, we wouldn’t have removed those troops from Saudi Arabia.

farglebargle: Seems to me, it's Bomb the WTC, and the US Obeys your demands.

The timing of the incidents DON’T support your hypothesis:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2984547.stm

quote:

Tuesday, 29 April, 2003

The BBC's Middle East analyst Roger Hardy says this is a strategic shift of great political as well as military significance.

Technically US troops there have been part of Operation Southern Watch, which has enforced the no-fly zone over southern Iraq set up after 1991.


The bombing happened in September 11, 2001. The announcement that we’ll leave Saudi Arabia came in April 2003.

A BIG time lap between what you say is a “cause and affect” event.

However, look at what I’ve bolded in red. THAT’S what I’ve been arguing.

After the fall of Saddam, Operation Southern Watch became obsolete. The mission was no longer needed, so we no longer needed the assets that carried out the mission.

Not even the left leaning stance of this paper supports your claims of us “caving in” to Bin Laden’s demand that we pull out. The best it does is tie that in to our influence in the region, in the eyes of the Saudis.

Anybody with any sense of reading comprehension abilities would see that reduction in troop levels in Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with Bin Laden’s demands, with Bush “caving in” after the 9/11 attacks, and had EVERYTHING to do with a shifting strategic environment.

farglebargle: I know there are people living in Fantasy Land where OBEYING TERRORIST DEMANDS is not, in some way, OBEYING TERRORIST DEMANDS, but they're probably just crazy.

The only people that are living in Fantasy Land are the one’s that continue to believe that we “obeyed” terrorist demands after they’ve been presented with facts that proved that we DIDN’T obey terrorist demands.

Kind of reminds me of people that breath in their own exhaust.

HINT: Prove your statements before you accuse people of not seeing something “for what it is.”



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 2:48:51 PM)

farglebargle: Then why attack Iraq? It's not like they were any sort of a threat to anyone EXCEPT Bush's alleged manhood.

Under asymmetrical warfare, allowing a dictator to play cat and mouse games with regards to his WMD programs, given his past history of supporting terrorists, given his hosting radical terrorist conventions, given his making death to America statements, and given Bin Laden’s search for WMD, and better ways to kill more Americans, not going into Iraq would’ve been equivalent to letting someone play with matches in a room you’re both in, when it’s flooded with gasoline.

Iraq under Saddam had as much connection to the greater asymmetrical threat as Al-Qaeda had.

Your refusal to see a connection, and your refusal to see why we have Iraq in custody when 19 hijackers were not from Iraq, shows that you don’t understand the nature of this war.

Precisely what our enemies need to accomplish their objectives.

Go back and read the link to Unrestricted Warfare. You’ll see the two authors describe people like you when they talk about a war method being “beyond the frequency bandwidth.”

farglebargle: IN FACT, Bush had to commit Felony Fraud in violation of 18 USC 371 to invade and occupy Iraq, so it's pretty clear that invading Iraq was the mistake,

Invading Iraq wasn’t a mistake, given the explanations I gave above with regards to asymmetrical warfare. And it wasn’t a fraudulent action.

Here’s the law that you reference:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000371----000-.html

quote:

371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States.

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to affect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.


NOWHERE in that statement does it prove that bush “committed fraud”. All I see is YOUR OPINION that he “committed” fraud. Then you’re referencing a law dealing with conspiring against the United States.

You’re suggesting that he committed high crimes and misdemeanors, yet the only thing that you have to back your position is that you THINK he “committed” fraud based on your OPINION about the Iraq war.

If you’re going to accuse a sitting president of “fraud”, then you need to have the evidence to back your arguments.

You’ve failed to do that.

Understand that congress voted on a resolution that blessed President Bush’s pending actions against Iraq. It was a bipartisan vote. Also understand that many of Bush’s conclusions about Iraq also came from President Clinton’s, as well as other Democrats at the time, mouths.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

quote:

President Clinton Statement, December 16, 1998

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.


Bush’s Saddam conclusions aren’t to far from Clinton’s. They’re very similar. Regime change for Iraq became official policy years before President Bush took office.

farglebargle: NOT keeping troops in Saudi Arabia to 1) Prosecute the fight against the terrorists who planned, FINANCED, and executed the 9/11 attacks,

First, it’s not the military’s job to do in a STABLE country what that stable country’s courts and law enforcement agencies are responsible for doing.

Second, the troops we had stationed in Saudi Arabia weren’t trained to prosecute the fight against the terrorists. They were trained to support Operation Southern Watch. Once that Operation became null and void, those troops weren’t needed.

Third, the terrorists who planned, financed, and executed the 9/11 attacks were in multiple countries throughout the world. Again, its not our military’s job to enter STABLE countries, whose governments are actively pursuing terrorists in their borders, and prosecute the war on terrorism in that country.

Unless a government asks our military to support it’s military. Something the Saudi’s didn’t ask us for.

Again, terrorists involved were arrested in multiple countries throughout the world, and brought to trial. The planning for 9/11 took place in multiple countries. And those countries have either captured them, or are tracking them down for later capture.

You seem to have problems grasping the law enforcement angle on the war on terrorism.

farglebargle: and 2) Show the Terrorists DEMANDING our withdrawal that WE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE, and since they've DEMANDED we leave, we ain't leaving.

This coming from the guy that argues that we should leave Iraq, the very thing the terrorists want us to do.

We didn’t negotiate with Al-Qaeda, and we didn’t follow any of their demands. Realize that we stayed in Saudi Arabia as long as we needed to conduct Operation Southern Watch. We left when that operation no longer was applicable, NOT when Bin Laden demanded that we pull out.

farglebargle: And now, wounded pride at falling for the Con, prevents some from "Manning-Up" and admitting their mistakes.

Again, in order to admit to a “mistake”, one has to be committed first.

And all we have is YOUR OPINION that a “mistake” was made.

You can’t demand that someone own up to a “mistake” unless you could logically prove that they made a mistake. You’ve constantly failed to do that.

You’ve got no legs to stand on when talking about “wounded pride” and “manning up” and “admitting to mistakes” when you refuse to do that when your argument is constantly proven wrong.

I’ve yet to see you prove that a mistake was made.

Going into Iraq WASN’T a mistake, therefore, nobody needs to “admit” to a “mistake”.

farglebargle: The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Considering that you’re using that to describe my side of the argument, that’s almost like a quack doctor insisting that a patient has a sickness that they don’t have, then prescribing a medicine that they don’t need.

However, the sooner you realize that you have a problem grasping the asymmetrical realities of this war, the sooner you’ll be able to take the first steps in understanding what we’re up against. And the consequences for not engaging this threat as it is, not as you want to see it.

Until you make that first step, expect me to continue to fact check your comments.



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 2:52:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

Do tell. Feel free to elucidate, my capriciously vociferous compatriot.

~stef




Well, as a High Profile homosexual, Condi has a duty to other homosexuals to be a vanguard for their equal rights.

Since she's Secretary of State, she *should* give a shit about those serving this nation who are discriminated and harassed simply because of their orientation.

Since she's apparently more than happy to hide in the closet, it shows a lack of guts. She *should* resign, saying, "If you're going to discriminate against gays in the military who desire to serve, than I cannot."

She *SHOULD* put "It's ME or your narrowminded bigotry" as the 2 options Bush has. But she's willing to hide in the closet.



So I refute all of your "points" earlier, and instead of engaging in actual debate or conceding that you have no grasp on actual facts or logic, you simply declare them again? 

This is dishonest debating.  I can't believe how little integrity you have, and yet you are calling someone else on it.  Shameful.



You hit the nail right on the head with that one.

Farglebargle throws his opinions into the fray, fails to prove his position, fails to provide a logical argument against the other person, then turns around and repeats the same proven wrong statement.

Reading his posts, I’ve had the same reaction someone would have after hearing something that completely defies something they know to be a fact. His arguments are weak, and shows that he’s not looking at the obvious variables that play. Just those convenient to his argument.

Then he has the audacity to insinuate that people are “too proud” to admit mistakes.

And spot on with regards to his integrity. He’s arguing that we should leave Iraq “to reduce casualties” and because “we lost”. But he fails to concede, or move on from, an argument he’s getting pulverized in.

He might think that by constantly taking people out of context, refusing to read and deal with what they actually said, and dismissing supporting evidence, he’s giving an “effective” “refutation” and, by logical extension he’s “winning”.

Sadly, despite his speech about how other people are too proud to admit mistakes, how some people are “living” in “Fantasy Land”, his posts are typical of poster that’s too proud to see that he doesn’t really have an argument. 



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 2:55:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pinkme2

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

Maybe 'cause it works for them? They bomb a train in Spain and Spain bows out...They bomb a building in America and Americans just get pissed off and come after some terrorist blood...


Then why did Bush, following Bin Laden's demands, remove troop from Bin Laden's homeland Saudi Arabia AFTER 9/11???



You are doing it again.  Repeating lies and ignoring facts.



farglebargle, this was in response to your repeating something I rebutted, which you subsequently labeled as “brand of crazy”. This is what I was talking about when I said this:

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

farglebargle: No-one's here is buying your brand of Crazy.

Correction, you’re REFUSING to accept my explanation. However, I beg to differ about nobody agreeing with my analysis.


Your premise that “nobody” accepts my explanation as to why we pulled out of Saudi Arabia is proven false.



herfacechair -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/1/2007 2:58:03 PM)

mnottertail: Yep, and so what does that have to do with this?

You insinuated that if we pulled out of Iraq before we accomplish our objectives, we wouldn’t have to worry about “being laughed at” and being attacked. You used our military power as your explanation, and indicated that others wouldn’t be crazy enough to attack us.

I came back and pointed out that not even that military prevented a weaker organization from attacking us.

Building on my argument that we’re involved in asymmetrical warfare, and we’re fighting with an enemy with full intent of eventually fighting the war against us here.

My statement has everything to do with the argument you were involved with, it was a no brainer.

mnottertail: Your statement there above this, might, but has owt to do with mine.

Again, your argument’s thrust was that if we pulled out prematurely, we wouldn’t have to worry about our security here, because nobody would be “crazy enough” to attack the greatest military power.

mnottertail: This, is in a nutshell, a great deal of the issue.  There were many vets here (and others) that said, ok fuck it, we are dead set against you going in here based on some notion of WMD and terrorism, but if you are willing to kill every man woman and child in the middle east that affronts us (including saudis and whatnot) then we will back you because to be exactly like saddam hussein is what it is going to take to govern the place. But none of this has owt to do with 9/11.

You mentioned the vets in here and what they said.

I know of allot of veterans, and active military, who didn’t see things that way. I know for a fact that the majority of the troops, and veterans, supported our going in. Their justifications for doing so closely matched what I’m arguing on this thread and elsewhere.

And this isn’t a case about “some notion” about WMD and terrorism.

Take the terror attacks of 9/11, then match it with this scenario:

We had a dictator playing cat and mouse games with regards to his WMD programs, given his past history of supporting terrorists, given his hosting radical terrorist conventions, given his making death to America statements, and given Bin Laden’s search for WMD, and better ways to kill more Americans. Under asymmetrical warfare, not going into Iraq would’ve been equivalent to letting someone play with matches in a room you’re both in, when it’s flooded with gasoline.

Under asymmetrical warfare, Iraq had EVERYTHING to do with asymmetrical warfare.

On one hand, you have the one that approved 9/11 looking for a way to take thousands, millions of Americans out at one time. On the other hand, you have a dictator playing cat and mouse with the very program that could result in the first person getting what he wants.

My side of the argument asks the other side of the argument to simply connect the dots.

mnottertail: Note that a great deal of the furor here in the states is not coming from the pinko faggot communist hippy preppy college richies of yore, rather it is coming from 'the establishment'.

What matters is that communists and socialists, or people who hold such beliefs but don’t identify themselves as such, form the opinion leaders for the other side of the argument.

Pinkme2 and I provided sufficient evidence that the people leading the other side of the argument, the protest organizers, are associated, directly or indirectly, with communists and socialists.

The people on this board may not be communists, or pinkos, but if they don’t support such organizations, they need to realize that many of their opinion leaders have those associations.

Especially if they’re not examining the side of the storey under represented in the media.

My side of the argument comes to these forums to present another side of the debate. I’ve talked to people, face to face, good people with well intentions, who believe in the Anti Iraq hype because they don’t have access to the total picture, the proper perspective.

Just to watch them change their positions when given a proper perspective of what’s going on.

People on my side of the debate come here to provide that proper perspective.

mnottertail: There has not been one soul here that says you get out after the terrorists and the people who did 9/11 or financed it, or planned it or was ancillary to it, that we won't back that fuckin' job to the hilt.

Doesn’t sound like farglebarlge is with you there.

“And you LOST IRAQ. The Locals Won, and the world didn't end” -farglebargle

“If the US TROOPS weren't there, THEY WOULDN'T BE DYING.” -farglebargle

“I wonder why Bush Supporters want the troops to die?” -farglebargle

“And your false-pride is killing 3 US Troops each and every day?” -farglebargle

“if we want to lower troop casualties, we have to let our troops *COME THE FUCK HOME.*” -farglebargle fixed statement

Allot of people that you do describe actually don’t support the military’s job to the hilt, I call these the “support the troops but not the war” crowd. If you don’t support the war, then you’re not backing the military’s job to the hilt.

mnottertail: Regarding your quip about vietnam, as I remember that great and venerable 'Democrat' of a Richard Nixon was the one who threw in the towel on that little imbriglio. So lets not spill over with examples that have no bearing on everything all the time.

Here’s what your memory left out.

Richard Nixon did what his predecessors failed to do, rolled his sleeves up and got to business of winning.

He drastically reduced troop numbers, reduced the section of the budget dedicated to the Vietnam War, and commenced bombing the day lights out of North Vietnam. It got to the point to where the North had no other choice but to come to the peace table to negotiate an end.

This resulted in our troops pulling out and letting the two Vietnams carry out the remainder of our agreement.

Remember, the last US combat unit was out of Vietnam MONTHS before the fall of Saigon.

Now, given that congress has the power of the purse, they’re the one’s that appropriate money. Nixon’s successor begged them to NOT UNDERFUND, or CUT THE FUNDING for the South Vietnamese.

His requests fell on deaf ears. The DEMOCRAT congress cut funding for South Vietnam, essentially making us abandon an ally at a time of need. Without that funding, they couldn’t hold up, and they fell.

My statement stands. The DEMOCRATS pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory, and contributed to winning the Vietnam War for the communists--on US Soil.

mnottertail: As you may have guessed, I am in complete disagreement that your refutations were logical, germain or topical.

I wouldn’t have rebutted you point by point if you were in complete agreement with me.

Your opinions as to whether I presented a logical, reasoned argument or not doesn’t dismiss the fact that I’ve presented a reasoned, logical argument backed by facts. Look at my posts with an impartial mind, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

Your disagreement with me is going to cloud your judgement, and partiality, about the nature of my argument.

Anybody’s pride would do that to defend a position that was just proven wrong. Or in the wrong.

mnottertail: I don't possess the will to sit here and refute neo-conservatives

That’s because the facts, geostratetic, geopolitical, and other realities don’t support your position, but that of these “neo-conservatives”.

Common sense, arguing with people with a better grasp on the subject is like entering a gun fight with a spork.

The person “with the spork” loses the will to conduct massive refutation for fear of the consequences.

mnottertail: with their ass in a swivel chair and their feet in the wastebasket

This coming from the guy that said this:

“Note that a great deal of the furor here in the states is not coming from the pinko faggot communist hippy preppy college richies of yore, rather it is coming from 'the establishment'. -mnottertail

There’s a word for someone that denies a stereotype applied toward that person’s group, but turns around and applies a stereotype to a group he disagrees with.

mnottertail: sockpuppeting unlearned cogitation, word for word or sentence for sentence.

You’re assuming that those of us that argue against your position “didn’t” come up with our position on our own. That assumption doesn’t come anywhere near to reality.

What I’m arguing here, are my own assessments. I didn’t need someone to tell me what to think, or tell me what position I should hold.

I came up with my assessment, what you’re disagreeing with, from my military experiences, from my research, reading books, accessing multiple information sources, and so on.

The same is applicable to other people fighting on my side of the argument, they came up with their own assessments based on their experiences and sources of information.

I recommend that you voice something other than the same message and themes that I’ve refuted over four years, against multiple liberals, before insinuating that those on my side of the argument are just “parroting” what we were “fed”.



Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625