Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any...


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 12:25:36 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I'm going to put my military hat aside for a moment, and put my MBA hat on.

You have an mba and are playing soldier boy in the sandbox


Do you even know what a floor inventory is? This is where a business, like a car dealership, doesn't have to pay for inventory until it's sold. It just sits as inventory until it's purchased.

Or a leasing company that does not begin to pay for it till it goes out on lease then the payment is a portion of what ever the leasing company is getting.


Until it's sold, it represents an asset in another form... aka inventory. What business, in its right mind, would abandon something that it could convert to cash in the future?


Perhaps when it is leased to the federal government (leases would necessarily be insured either by a third party or self insured by the government.) it becomes abandoned property because of maintainence failures and is written down.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 281
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 12:32:04 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Since you're a tax payer, then you're paying for alleged KBR loses as a taxpayer. Since you obviously are going to stay away from KBR until things "blow over," the money they earn, while in the sand box, isn't yours as a non KBR "stockholder."



It would appear that your mba hat has slid down over your eyes and is obscuring your vision.
Stock holder gets a $100 dollar dividend. If that stock holder makes over $100 K a year the government is entitled to 28% of everything over $100K of taxable income. Why would the taxpayer mind paying some fractional part of that 28% to cover the loss of those generators. The shareholder would get to keep the rest so why should he care.
You do know the reason that kbr and halliburton don't sleep together anymore don't you?

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 282
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 12:49:59 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		Amazing that the OP thinks corps make as much money during peace as they do war.

That is astounding!

If this was the case- we would get the ballyhood peace dividend that was talked on after the wall fell.

The OP reminds me of co-intel pro.   He is a troop-- not a guy who is any type of authority.  War is peace and peace is war- and we are sorry Mofos for not bowing to this guy.

The kicker is when the NWO completes its plan for a one world govt- the mil will be expended.  That is historical precedent.

Wars have everything to do with central banks.   The OP wants to set us straight-  I say-- consider who gets paid 2010.  The ruling banking class does.

While I do consume oil and benefit in many ways from the status quo,  many are unable to see that the banks win.  That the USA is a corporation- that the elite 1% of the globe call the shoots.

While I admire the warrior type- I am dismayed at the gung ho- lick the banker boots that I see here.

We are in a monetary collapse.  This by design.  Anyone who sticks their necks out for the ruling corporations here is a fool.

One day you will see that.

You house, job and retirement all in peril.

God Bless America?

No.

In 10 years- things will be very different then what you think is America.

Follow the money.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 283
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:16:29 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		you are right but I am not going to waste my time with him. -Real0ne

That's what you said to Jeffff, not waste your time on me. The number of times you've made a liar out of yourself with regards to not wasting your time with me: MORE THAN FIVE TIMES.

You can't even get it right about what YOU'RE going to do, how do you expect us to believe that you're going to get straight everything else you say, or do?

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 284
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:17:57 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

But a first hand account from a douchebag is still a first hand account from a douchebag.


Typical playground mentality... call people names when one doesn't have a good argument to bring to the table. Thanks for proving Ann Coulter right when she talks about how liberals resort to name calling when presented with an argument they can't tackle.


Oh NOES!!!!!!!!!

You are not supposed to say "Ann Coulter" on this site. She freaks them all out.


For the record, this is the ONLY poster on this thread smart enough to determine someone's claim of being in the service. While others were subtly, or overtly, trying to cast doubt on my claims of being in the military, she actually did something that the others should've done.

She sent me a question, one that I couldn't answer unless I logged onto my AKO account. My response contained information that you'd only be able to obtain if you had an AKO account. This is the same place I would've gone to get a copy of my ERB... Link on lower right hand corner.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 285
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:20:33 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair
From MSNBC: "Bomb Said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq"


STRAW MAN ARGUMENT

damn good thing they found it before it went off, heel a weapon like that would have taken out the whole east coast.

SAID? Thanks for giveing us the FACTS!

STRAW MAN ARGUMENT



How about quoting the whole thing? Don't let a little thing like the FACTS get into your way:

From MSNBC: "Bomb Said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq"

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED [improvised explosive device] which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy".

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 286
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:21:40 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

"We do not seek a wider war." - Lyndon B. Johnson on March, 1968



we created it already!

gulf of tonkin on tape



What he meant:

"Around the globe, from Berlin to Thailand, are people whose well-being rests, in part, on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Viet-Nam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America's word. The result would be increased unrest and instability, and even wider war." - Lyndon B. Johnson, April 7, 1965 speech at John Hopkins University

"I believe that a peaceful Asia is far nearer to reality because of what America has done in Vietnam. I believe that the men who endure the dangers of battle--fighting there for us tonight--are helping the entire world avoid far greater conflicts, far wider wars, far more destruction, than this one." - Lyndon B. Johnson, 31 Mar 68, declining to seek re-election.

The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed in on August 7, 1964.

He obviously wasn't talking about the Gulf of Tonkin when he made this statement in March 18, 1968:

"We do not seek a wider war. We do not think that is a wise course." -Lyndon B. Johnson, March 18, 1968, Remarks to National Farmers Union.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 287
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:24:07 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair
This war was never about oil. If we were about invading countries with plenty of oil supplies, we would've invaded Venezuela. Again, we get the majority of our oil supplies from the western hemisphere, with Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela being our biggest oil suppliers.

No, we're not in Afghanistan for the drugs... otherwise our troops wouldn't be involved with destroying Afghan drug farms.

Haven't been exposed to the chemicals and drugs that you claim is experimented on us. We don't work for the banks, and we do take an oath as part of enlisting, or accepting a commission.


these people always show up on site where people are starting to get wise to all the bullshit.

Never fails, seen it on every site I am on. prove them stoopid and then its a tag team match.

The war was about money huge fucking money and hussien threatening to sell oil in euros.



I noticed that you've failed to prove me "wrong," as usual. Typical of everybody disagreeing with me on this thread. Didn't address my post at all, just ranted more of your conspiracy whack job assumptions.

Are you getting that desperate that you're going to borrow the concepts behind other people's comments, and change them to your own? My analysis of you people seems to be striking home, isn't it? Or were you especially appreciative of my describing your thought process, and how your ego responded to your "intellect"? You do realize that you have to consistently present a reasoned, logical and fact based argument... and do it across the years on several message boards... before something like this would work for you, do you?

You seem to be full of bullshit for someone insinuating that your side of the argument is "wise" to the bullshit.

HINT: It helps to present facts and a logical argument before you could claim to prove people wrong. You've yet to prove me wrong, don't mistake your rhetoric for earth shattering, reasoned argument that proves the other side wrong.

This war wasn't about money, or euro's. Saddam tried to offer lucrative contracts to three US administrations, all three refused, Republicans, Democrat, all three refused. If this were about money, they would've accepted those contracts. If this was about oil based money again, we would've gone after Venezuela, not Iraq. They have a leader hostile to the US, and they're one of our major oil suppliers, with the other two being Canada and Mexico.

The Iraq War was for reasons that I've explained on this message board and elsewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

cant have that bullshit now can we.

Of course that is vastly oversimplified but you can save your puppy chow for the tards.



This coming from the Lather that insist that there were no weapons on a tape that showed weapons.

What you described wasn't vastly oversimplified, it was nothing but conspiracy nut drivel. Don't mistake misguided opinions as "fact."

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 288
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:25:37 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair
Your disagreeing with my comments here puts you in disagreement with the majority of the troops, who happen to express a stance very similar to my own. Do realize that by your disagreeing with me on this topic, common sense dictates that you're also disagreeing with the assessments of the majority of the troops that ground deployed to Iraq.

To suggest, or argue, otherwise is to insult both, people's common sense and sense of logic.


I wanna see it in fucking writing!

none of the troops I have interviewed remotely agree with your trash.


You've yet to provide evidence on this thread that "supports" your conspiracy whack job posts. You've got no legs to stand on when demanding that someone provide you something in writing.

That attitude reeks of you getting desperate to remain in an argument... you'd constantly move the bar up in order to give yourself the false sense of "not" being "wrong."

I have a better idea, why don't you go back to Iraq with me, and hear it from the troops yourself? The vast majority out there believe in what they're doing. If you had as much exposure to them as I do, you wouldn't be pulling shit out of your ass demanding that I show you something in writing.

Do understand that I've got access to more of the US soldiers than you do. Suggesting that you're "right," based on the number of soldiers you CLAIMED you interviewed, is simply asinine. Either you're lying about the number of troops you've interviewed, or you're purposely filtering out information from troops you've came across who've voiced something that destroyed your myths about the Iraq War.

I'm also calling you out. Why don't you PM me the names of these so called soldiers that you talked to? PM me their first and last names, so that I could look them up on AKO to see if they exist.

Don't worry, I won't contact them or harass them, just needed verification to your claims.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 289
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:28:19 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Poor soldiers always want to fight the "good war."

Those days are done.

Now the best we can hope for is some revisionistic history to make your losses not seem like they were in vain.


This isn't about wanting to fight a good war, this is about the majority of us fighting for what we believe in, this is about us understanding why we're doing what we're doing in the Middle East.

Again, the fabrication that Vietnam was a complete loss is just that, revisionist history. What you argue is the product of revisionist history; we won every major battle in Vietnam. We also won every major battle in Iraq. Those are facts.


domiguy: WRONG.

In order for you to claim that I'm "wrong," you have to present a factual argument. You've failed to do so. You're not even addressing the facts that I presented against you.

domiguy: You are a simple little stupid man....You have read one book on the swiftboaters, congratulations. You are a lying hypocritical idiot.

Yup, there you go again, proving Ann Coulter right about liberals that can't hold an intelligent debate. She dedicates a whole chapter talking about people like you, throwing the "stupid" remark around like a 5 year old kid:

"This is how six-year-olds argue: They call everything 'stupid.' The left's primary argument is the angry reaction of a helpless child deprived of the ability to mount logical counterarguments." - Ann Coulter

The stealth shielding that you use to protect your one brained celled operation (that you call your brain) is very impressive. You must be one of the latest batch of retards they've recently rushed from the assembly line. :rolleyes:

Through all of your drivel, you failed to address my post, choosing, instead, to go into tangents... you've proved Ann Coulter right when she said this:

"If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you've said" - Ann Coulter

And this:

"It's like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder" - Ann Coulter

domiguy: You are serving at the age of 40 because you probably have nowhere else to go.

I guess you didn't make the connection from one of my responses to you:

"I enlisted for reasons I've debated on this and other message boards over the years. Change the bad guy from the terrorists to the Soviets, and you'll get a good idea as to why I enlisted the first time." - herfacechair

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed that you'd be smart enough to figure out that I've put allot of time in the military and, if all goes well, I could be retired before the age of 44. Pardon me for thinking that you'd understand what foresight is.

As for having nowhere else to go?

One, I'm a freelance writer. I don't have to be in the military, I could rely on my job as a professional writer... writing copy from my home computer and making money. But I'm serving for a cause that's obviously beyond your understanding.

Two. My not having anywhere else to go?

Let's see, where have I ben as a result of signing up... Iraq, Kuwait, Somalia, Germany, Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Greece, Morocco, Palma de Mallorca, Sardinia, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Israel, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Aruba, Panama, Columbia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Azores, Egypt....

Man, with a job like that, who needs anywhere else to go? :o

domiguy: You speak only for yourself just as the swift boaters spoke only for their own political agenda.

I've described my first hand accounts of what I've seen in Iraq, and the Swift Boat Veterans have described their first hand accounts of what they've seen in Vietnam. The only person here that's speaking for their own political agenda is you.

domiguy: You base your facts on "ONE" man that served under John Kerry?

Are you normally stupid, or are you putting in an extra effort today?

The question was:

"now who among them actually served with Kerry, on the boat, and were there when he won his medals?" - mnottertail

To which I answered:

"One of the Swift Boat Veterans, Steve Gardner, served on John Kerry's boat, with John Kerry, as one of his gunners. Based on his first hand accounts, John Kerry did things like... deploying his boat AWAY from a firefight that a sister patrol boat was engaged in. He didn't go in to assist, to suppress, to support, or even attempt to flank had that been feasible. He ordered the boat away from the fight." - herfacechair

How the hell does that translate to me basing all my facts on what one man says?

Your failure to prove what he said wrong, choosing to make a strawman argument instead, speaks volumes about your integrity.

domiguy: What about the testimony of all the others who supported John Kerry that served directly under him?

They had nothing to do with the question of which Swift Boat Veteran for Truth member actually served with John Kerry. Unlike you, I stick to the topic, and remain engaged in a point by point debate.

domiguy: You are so ready to dismiss those because they don't fit in with your political ideology, right?

Don't mistake my not addressing them, due to their not having anything to do with the question asked, and my response to it, as my dismissing them without analyzing what they had to say.

domiguy: You are small, pathetic and weak minded.

That's how your posts portray your intelligence. So tell that one brain cell of yours to quit trying to take you over and to start doing its job... if it doesn't listen, threaten it with a bottle of beer, you know, the thing about killing brain cells.

domiguy: You probably don't deserve to grace the uniform that you swear you are wearing.

Says who? Some fuckwit that posts as if he never served a day in uniform? And the uniform that I'm wearing? What part of "I'm on R and R" didn't you get? You know, R&R, Rest and Recuperation, vacation, not in theater, not in garrison, meaning... NOT IN UNIFORM RIGHT NOW!

Common sense should've told you that, but I guess you don't have any. Wouldn't be surprised if I'm not the first person to tell you that.

domiguy: You are the type that can be convinced to do and believe anything....

Oh really? So all these posts that I've generated on this thread, rebutting people's assumptions of what they think is "true," is me being convinced to do and believe anything? Serious? Are you that stupid that you'd come to that conclusion after I've proven to continue to hold my assessment despite a whole bunch of idiots attempts to get me to believe otherwise?

I lose hope in our public education system every time I see comments like yours. You should go back to the public school system, that punished the world by graduating you, and sue them to get the publics money back.

domiguy: I bet youare comforting the enemy as I type...

The only people that are comforting the enemy right now are those that argue against the Iraq War. No, I'm not calling you guys traitors... had to say that to prevent your kind from putting words into my mouth. Nope, people like you are useful idiots to the enemy.

domiguy: You are probably looking for soft targets on line right now.

You've got no clue about how to conduct surveillance, don't you? You don't even know the teamwork concept behind conducting security and surveillance operations, you know, like operating in a specific AO.

That's something I'd expect a halfwit, that posts like he's never served a day in military uniform, to say.

domiguy: I don't believe you. You are a liar. You accept half truths as fact.

You've farted your rhetoric, now to subject it to blistering scrutiny.

From MSNBC: "Bomb Said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq"

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED [improvised explosive device] which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy.

Were the Iraqi Survey Group, and Kimmitt, lying and telling half truths in that MSNBC article? YES [ ] NO [ ]

I don't want your diarrhea, I don't want your bullshit... Simply copy and paste everything from "From MSNBC" all the way to "NO [ ]." Place an "X" in the appropriate box.

If the facts are on your side, you'd be able to answer it per instructions, and you'd be able to answer it without looking stupid. If you feel the need to try to baffle me with bullshit, to avoid what I'm requiring you to do, then obviously you've got no confidence in your statement that I'm a "liar" and that I "accept" half truths as fact.

"Their contribution to political debate is worthless, since even they do not believe things they say." - Ann Coulter

domiguy: you are a pathetic little weak minded pawn.

So says the guy that argues on here as if he were the blueprint for how to construct idiots.

domiguy: I feel sorry for you.

For my not being close enough to you to hear the ocean? You don't have to be sorry for that.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 290
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:31:45 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		thompsonx: This is the caption under the picture from lupetti. Note that the picture of kerry was taken in 1993. The picture was taken by lupetti in 2004.

When I said this:

"For decades, the Vietnamese had a section in their war victory museum, dedicated to John Kerry and the anti war demonstrators." -herfacechair

You asked me this:

"When were you in viet nam to see this?" -thompsonx

Your implication here was that this didn't exist. Instead of building on your doubts, after I replied, you built on what I said, re, section in their war victory museum dedicated to Kerry and the anti war demonstrators:

"This is the caption under the picture from lupetti. Note that the picture of kerry was taken in 1993. The picture was taken by lupetti in 2004." -thompsonx

Having said that, were you wrong in trying to imply that this wasn't the case? YES [ ] NO [ ].

Simply put an "X" in your chose and spare me your garbage.

thompsonx: If the pic of kerry was taken in 93 and the pic by lupetti was taken 11 years later how is that decades?

"For decades, the Vietnamese had a section in their war victory museum, dedicated to John Kerry and the anti war demonstrators. They might have taken his picture down as a result of the heat John Kerry received during the 2004 Elections." -herfacechair

WHERE, in THAT statement, does it say that the picture was up for decades?

Here, let's break that statement down into two parts so that you cold hopefully get it:

A. "For decades, the Vietnamese had a section in their war victory museum, dedicated to John Kerry and the anti war demonstrators.

B. They might have taken his picture down as a result of the heat John Kerry received during the 2004 Elections."

Second, your attempt to make this about "decades" is beside the point and doesn't prove wrong the fact that the Vietnamese dedicated a portion of their museum to your boy Kerry and your fellow ideologs, the anti war protestors.

Third, your attempt to go that route is nothing but you're desperately grabbing at semantics to stay in the argument. Heck, two could play at that game... we have the decade of the 90s, and we have the decade of the 00s. The time that picture was up overlaps two decades; hence decades. Semantics... you're getting desperate.

The fact remains, the Vietnamese had a section of their war museum dedicated to Kerry and the anti war demonstrators.

thompsonx: If the pic was taken in 2004 where does lupetti come up with the "taken it down" in 2004 if it was up when he was there....

There were 366 days in the year 2004. That picture was taken in May, 2004:

"Photograph of John Kerry meeting with Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, in Vietnam, July 15-18, 1993. Photo taken in the War Remnants Museum (formerly the "War Crimes Museum") in Saigon in May 2004."

Meaning, more than half a year remained. Plenty of time for the picture to be taken down after he left. You do realize that something that was up in the beginning of the year could be taken down long before that year is over, do you?

thompsonx: You wish to imply one thing but the captions on the pics tell a little different story.

Don't mistake failure of reading comprehension on your part with my "implying" something about a picture. The caption doesn't prove what I say wrong.

thompsonx: I have noticed that you have yet to respond to my statements about ace mccain being a trator who signed a confession of war crimes and gave interviews to communist journalists...how many other officers at the "hanoi hilton" signed similar confessions? RED HERRING STATEMENT

Did you also notice that you asked that question to another poster, not me? Even if you quoted me to get to that person's comment, you were still addressing that person's comment. How about sending a PM to that poster, demanding that he answer that question? Better yet, ask that question on a new thread.

Yes, I've answered questions you've made to other posters, but only questions that were relevant to the points I was making with regard to my intentions for this thread. That question has nothing to do with my message.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 291
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:34:04 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

geeeezus

got an army of writers working for ya huh


I've ben involved with perpetual online debate for 6 years, debating with people advancing the same points you guys are advancing here. I've got a system down for doing these online debates... which includes how I'm popping these posts up left and right.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 292
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:40:33 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

The main push behind this is that I have recent, first hand account of what's it like in Iraq, compared to the perspective by those I'm debating with.


But a first hand account from a douchebag is still a first hand account from a douchebag.


Typical playground mentality... call people names when one doesn't have a good argument to bring to the table. Thanks for proving Ann Coulter right when she talks about how liberals resort to name calling when presented with an argument they can't tackle.


Asshat, You say that you read the one swift boaters book ...You already typed that you based your opinion on the testimony of Steve Gardner....


Oh really? I typed that I "base," my "opinion" on Steve Gardner? Then what I'm about to ask you should be an extremely easy job for you turdbrain:

WHERE, in MY posts, do I specifically say that I "base" my "opinion" on Steve Gardner's testimony? Provide me a link to the post where I allegedly made that comment.

Here's what I actually said dumbass:

"One of the Swift Boat Veterans, Steve Gardner, served on John Kerry's boat, with John Kerry, as one of his gunners. Based on his first hand accounts, John Kerry did things like... deploying his boat AWAY from a firefight that a sister patrol boat was engaged in. He didn't go in to assist, to suppress, to support, or even attempt to flank had that been feasible. He ordered the boat away from the fight." -herfacechair

My God, where do they get these people from? Can't even get things straight, even if they're staring straight at it! Please be a snake (poisonous viper) handler. :rolleyes:

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

One of the Swift Boat Veterans, Steve Gardner, served on John Kerry's boat, with John Kerry, as one of his gunners. Based on his first hand accounts, John Kerry did things like... deploying his boat AWAY from a firefight that a sister patrol boat was engaged in. He didn't go in to assist, to suppress, to support, or even attempt to flank had that been feasible. He ordered the boat away from the fight.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

.....only one of them, Steve Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him:

"In 1969, I was Sen Kerry's gun mate atop of the swift boat in Vietnam. And I just wanted to let everu=yone know that, contrary to all the rumors that you might have hear from the other side, Sen. Kerry's blood is red, not blue. I know, Ive seen it.

If it weren't for Sen. John Kerry, on the 28th of February 1969, the day he won the Silver star...you and I would not be having this conversation. My name would be on a long, black wall in Washington, D.C. I saw this mansave my life."

----Fred Short

it goes on and on.......

----David Alston

----James Wasser


None of those other statements proved Steve Gardner's statement "wrong." None of them countered his comment that John Kerry ran from, or rather sailed from, a firefight. Whatever point you attempted to make isn't relevant.

domiguy: You are so easily duped.....

First, if this were the case, I'd be agreeing with your posts. But, I'm not. So this statement fails the first logic test. Now, let's subject it to the second logic test, what caused you to say that I'm "easily" duped.

You quoted snopes dot com, which did nothing to prove what Steve Gardner say as "wrong." If anything, it substantiated the fact that Steve Gardner served on John Kerry's boat, a statement I made to respond to one of your ally's posts. The additional quotes on your linked article failed to prove Steve Gardner "wrong."

So your assumptions that I'm "easily" duped fail the second logic test.

domiguy: This is why I am confident you are a traitor here

You're confident that I'm a "traitor" here because, uh, of your claim that I'm "easily duped." :rolleyes: By your insinuation, you, and everybody else arguing against me on this thread, are "traitors."

dummyguy: to gain intel from the intelligent members of CM that probably not only out rank you but have proven are much more intelligent than you could ever hope to be.

First, I don't detect any intelligence from the people on this thread who are debating with me.

I've debated online for years, one of the things I've been able to do as a result of this is to categorize the people that I've debated with. One thing that I've found is that there's a direct relationship between the stupidity level, and the length of time someone debates with me on a thread.

Meaning, the stupidest posters are the ones that debate with me the longest, while the smartest don't debate with me that long.

Why do I say this? Well, because the stupidest posters ultimately do what the smartest posters do. The only difference is that the smarter posters abandon the debate early. The dumbest ones ultimately abandon the discussion, but after they've been subjected to blistering scrutiny and had their credibility gradually destroyed. Those that abandon the discussion early don't get subjected to that, hence preserve more of their credibility. The smarter ones are driven by common sense, the dumber ones are driven by arrogance.

Having said that, I can't "gather intelligence" from the dumbest posters on this thread considering that they've failed to display such intelligence. Their arrogance simply gets into the way.

Second.

They may have an EXTREMELY low standard for what constitutes intelligence where you come from... but from where I come from, you actually have to prove that you have an intelligent mind, that you could think, that you could reason, that you could connect the dots and come up to an intelligent conclusion, before you could be considered as being intelligent.

Based on what you guys have argued so far, I'd have better luck finding the real El Dorado than I would coming across an intelligent post from your side of the argument.

Now, to demonstrate what I mean by posters lacking in intelligence. Your comment on rank seniority compared to that of other members on the board.

I mean, what are you basing seniority on? You've seen our ranks? I doubt it. Hate to break this to you "Einstein," but we wouldn't be a military power if our officers thought like you, and the people like you, who're arguing against me in this thread.

dummyguy: Go listen to Ann Coulter...

And you think this is an "insult?" You're as lacking in common sense as you are in intelligence if you think you're having a negative affect on me with that comment. Sure I'll listen to her, she displays more intelligence, in one of her articles, than what you, and those in your side of the argument, could display in several lifetimes of articles.

dummyguy: you expose yourself for what you are with every post.

Never tried to portray myself as someone, or something, I'm not... as your allies and you have tried to do.

dummyguy: You are am embarrassment to anyone who has ever served.

Says who? The guy whose posts demonstrate that he possesses none of the tactical knowledge that someone who has served would have?

I've ben involved with perpetual online debate for 6 years, debating with people advancing the same points you guys are advancing here. I've got a system down for doing these online debates... which includes how I'm popping these posts up left and right.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 293
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:44:12 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline 		domiguy: please you are a stooge.

So says the guy that could do the physical and intellectual work of three men; Larry Curly and Moe.

domiguy: A political hack that could careless about the truth

Claims the guy that ignores the facts that I do present, yet makes false claims on this board. Still waiting for you to address those facts... hint, I left questions right next to them.

domiguy: and are only here to spread your conservative views.

Don't mistake first hand accounts as "spreading conservative views." If it comes across as "conservative" to you well, then it speaks volumes of reality tending toward the conservative side of the house. :rolleyes:

domiguy: Go back to being Ann Coulter's facechair....

And you consider being a hot woman's facechair an insult? Wouldn't mind being her facechair, I'd find more intelligence in her ass than what I've found coming from your one brained celled operation that you call your "brain," I'd also find more intelligence there than what I'd find in the posts that you, and everybody else arguing against me, have generated.

domiguy: You have been exposed.

To be smarter than you on this topic, I know, didn't need you to tell me that.

domiguy: You are weak,

On the intellectual front, no, as my arguments still stand, and neither you nor your allies have successfully argued against them. On the physical front? Still no. Don't recall you running five miles with me, and I've been running on an almost daily basis.

domiguy: you have not the ability to think for yourself.

Being wrong comes naturally to you, doesn't it? My posts here represent the assessments I've came to while thinking for myself. You've yet to prove otherwise... don't mistake your farts to be "proof" of what you say here.

domiguy: You don't care about the truth

I've presented the facts, and you've constantly avoided them. How does that constitute me "not caring" about the truth? Speak for yourself.

domiguy: and you dishonor everyone who ever served with your lies.

You don't dishonor the troops by coming here and arguing a belief that most of them share. You don't dishonor the troops when you destroy the arguments of the very people whose arguments attempt to erode America's will to fight.

domiguy: You are a worm.

So says one of this board's bottom feeders.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 294
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:44:50 PM   
domiguy


Posts: 12952
Joined: 5/2/2006
Status: offline 		domiguy: What about the testimony of all the others who supported John Kerry that served directly under him?

ann coulter'sface chair..."They had nothing to do with the question of which Swift Boat Veteran for Truth member actually served with John Kerry. Unlike you, I stick to the topic, and remain engaged in a point by point debate."


You so easily discount all of the people that served with John Kerry and some were there when he received his medals that to this day support him.

You are a liar. You are a closed minded pathetic conservative.

You have not the capability to answer a question that places your beliefs in jeopardy...So you just dismiss them.

I don't believe you. You are as transparent as you are unintelligent. I place no value on you or your service. I don't believe you at all. You are an embarrassment to anyone who has ever served.

Go Fuck yourself!


< Message edited by domiguy -- 5/9/2010 2:45:54 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 295
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:47:35 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Ann Coulters facechair only uses one source or less to make his opinions. Makes you wonder how he is developing his opinions on what is going on in Iraq?

Ann Coulters facechair is a liar. He should be dismissed.


Don't mistake pure facts as mere opinions. And don't take the approach that someone with horseblinders would use when assessing what I use to come up with my analysis and assessments. What I actually said:

"This isn't just about "one man's account." This is about a first hand account of what's happening in Iraq, versus what people get from the news, or what they get from conspiracy whack jobs." -herfacechair

"I based that statement on my research, which included listening to the words of the very people we're fighting against" -herfacechair

And did you forget my sourcing both MSNBC and Fox? That's a far cry from your claims of my, "just basing my 'opinion' on one man." If your posts are a good indicator of how you did in school, I'd say that you did horrible in math, reading comprehension, and on any subject that required logic.

Before you could accuse me of being a liar, you have to do something, like, say present "facts" to support your opinion, and to prove "wrong" the facts that I've presented here. So far, nobody, on this thread, on this message board, on other threads on this and other message boards, has proven me "wrong."

So you say that I should be "dismissed?"

People on this board "dismiss" me by ignoring me, putting me on ignore, and by not devoting any time to replying to my posts.

Let's see if you're willing to walk the walk, and not just blow hot air out so that you could flap your lips in the wind, by your doing what you need to do to "dismiss" me. If other people fail to "dismiss" me, then that speaks volumes of how seriously they take your words here.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 296
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:52:43 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda


He's wasting his time with a lot of other people, too. I agreed with a lot of what he said at first, and it sounded credible to me, until he made the assertion that our troops were attacked with sarin, mustard gas, and other chemical agents. Now I don't believe a word he says about anything, unfortunately.


Yeah, I have to agree with you. That's the problem in today's climate. Question anything and you are not supportive of the troops.


Which is exactly what he is doing, using that to promote his agenda.



FIRST:

From MSNBC: "Bomb Said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq"

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED [improvised explosive device] which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy.

Were the Iraqi Survey Group, and Kimmitt, lying and telling half truths in that MSNBC article? YES [ ] NO [ ]

I don't want your diarrhea, I don't want your bullshit... Simply copy and paste everything from "From MSNBC" all the way to "NO [ ]." Place an "X" in the appropriate box.

If the facts are on your side, you'd be able to answer it per instructions, and you'd be able to answer it without looking stupid. If you feel the need to try to baffle me with bullshit, to avoid what I'm requiring you to do, then obviously you've got no confidence in your statement that I'm using that to promote his agenda... I have a feeling that you're about to prove Ann Coulter right.

"Their contribution to political debate is worthless, since even they do not believe things they say." - Ann Coulter

SECOND:

WHERE in MY posts, do I say that you don't support the troops if you don't agree with me? Link me to the post, quote what I said, exact words.

Your failure to show me this will prove that you're willing to take the lemming approach simply because you agree with what a like minded poster said, and not because you sat down and had an "intelligent" thought process that lead you to that conclusion.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 297
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:55:55 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikeyOfGeorgia

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

I'm here on R and R from Iraq. Ben deployed there with 1 ID. Figured I'd start a thread to answer questions you guys may have about what's going on there.


why is America still there? they already screwed up and didn't get Bin Ladin. it's no longer our problem. Can anyone remember Vietnam?


WRONG, we didn't screw up in Iraq. I saw the results of our success, and doing things right, in Iraq.

Second:

I've been debating online with people holding your opinion for years. Since you guys tend to advance the same opinions, I've saved posts I've made in debates I've been involved with since 2006 (been debating years earlier than that, lost saved data from debates prior to that as I used another computer then).

Here's a copy and paste of my response in a debate I was involved with in the fall of 2006, which I've used in response to points similar to what you're making above:

robertson89: which for him, just like for Clarke (and for yours truly) has represented a HUGE diversion of the real war, which was that against terrorism and which had started really well, until our Pres' decided to severely refocus his time and energy on Irak.

Both of them are wrong if they assumed that the Iraq war was a huge diversion from the War on Terrorism.

1. The War on Terrorism is not confined to Afghanistan or Al-Qaeda.

2. If Osama Bin Laden leaves Afghanistan, there is nothing any amount of troops INSIDE of Afghanistan can do to

Let me run this to you again.

Our troops in Afghanistan are limited to that country's boundaries. So, it does not matter if we have 1 million boots on the ground in Afghanistan, or just 10. If Bin Laden is OUTSIDE of Afghanistan, there is nothing any amount of boots on the ground INSIDE Afghanistan would be able to do to secure his capture.

3. Iraq was not a huge division on the war on terrorism. Anybody that claims such fails to understand the true nature of the war we are involved with.

"Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by Bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwiths understood by the American military....This is because they have never taken into consideration and have even refused to consider means that are contrary to tradition and to select measures of operation other than military means" Col. Qiao Lian and Col. Wang Xiangsui, Unrestricted Warfare, 1999.

In the book Unrestricted Warfare, these two Colonels interchange the U.S. military with the United States and the West.

You've proven these two colonel's point - "to the letter".

Means other than tradition.

The fact that you would label Iraq as a "big diversion" proves that you failed to see "outside of tradition". Actual and potential alliances of hostile nations and organizations against the west.

So NO, Iraq was NOT a huge diversion. Under asymmetrical warfare, you do not need to use your own military to attack another nation. You do not even need to send a military over to be an imminent threat. Iraq under Saddam was an asymmetrical threat to the United States. Al-Qaeda had the manpower. They had the martyrdom brigades willing to send suicide bombers to the United States. What is missing is WMD. Something that Saddam HAD and was working on.

Connect the dots . . . I dare you to.

And later on in that same thread:

robertson89: In my view, the White House has achieved what's called a self-fulfilling prophecy, and we should NOT be grateful to them for that achievement. We lost our focus big time when we shifted from terrorism to Irak even though as everybody now knows, there was absolutely no connection between the 2 in the first place.

And your view does not match reality.

Had we failed to go into Iraq, many of the problems that we are facing in Iraq would have reared their ugly heads in Afghanistan. Recent history gives us an indication of this. See the period of the Soviet invasion. This was even happening prior to our going into Iraq. Right when we thought that things were winding down, we engaged in one major operation after another. News reports were talking about how Afghanistan was becoming a quagmire.

Then, right after we invaded Iraq, the pressure shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq. Which IMPROVED our odds. Now, instead of fighting these same foreign fighters in hostile terrain, we are fighting them in flatter terrain, terrain that improves the odds in our favor. While they channeled their foreign fighters into Iraq, Afghanistan went full steam ahead with its reconstruction.

Their military is now to the point to where they can be dangerous against the enemy in the battle field. Each year the terrorists are bogged down in Iraq, the Afghan army gets stronger.

We did not lose our focus. I call that a strategic stroke of genius. We are fighting the insurgents in an environment that accommodates our use of advanced weaponry as opposed to fighting them in terrain that hampers the use of many of our ground equipment. Just ask the Russians.

In response to another poster in the same thread:

Cherished1: I had many friends that were stationed over there. After we decided to go to Iraq they pulled out almost half of the troops from there.

That would have happened regardless of whether we went into Iraq or not. Bin Laden's trail got cold before 2002 - according to the special warfare unit that was chasing him. By the end of 2002, we were involved with low intensity warfare. The number of troops we had then was excessive.

Cherished1: I think that was a huge mistake.

Going into Iraq was NOT a huge mistake. Had we failed to invade Iraq, North Korea and Iran would still be doing what they are doing right now.

Going into Iraq

(1) Drew the terrorists from fighting us in hostile terrain (Afghanistan) into terrain more accommodating to our environment (Iraq) - sparing us the headache that the Russians suffered.

(2) Prevented a scenario where not only do we have Iran catching up to the North Koreans, but an Iraq catching up to the North Koreans in terms of nuclear technology.

(3) Applies two future pressure points against Iran - to assist internal changes favorable to the west.

Going into Iraq was NOT a mistake. It was as stroke of genius.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 298
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 2:58:50 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Just when all hope was lost....Mikey saves the day. Thank God. USA!! USA!! USA!! USA!! USA!! USA!! USA!! USA!!


Not a good vote of confidence for the series of posts you've made prior to him jumping in. Not surprised that you'd lose hope despite your posts, thanks for proving Ann Coulter right:

"Their contribution to political debate is worthless, since even they do not believe things they say." - Ann Coulter

I just love the way you keep proving her right, she's got your kind pegged to the "T." Your desperation shows with your praising a man that would've gotten his answers had he read this thread from page one.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 299
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 5/9/2010 3:03:35 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

Their issue with me isn't really my departure from the thread shortly after starting it... their issue is what I'm communicating... first hand observations that destroy their perception of what's going on in Iraq.

How dare I present facts and observations that contradict what they feel the facts should be.

I've debated with way too many people that, when presented with a first hand account of what's happening in Iraq, react adversely to the fact that the world isn't exactly going the way they think it's going... that their opinion about what's going on isn't the fact they believed them to be... that the world isn't operating the way they think it operates.

I have to shake my head at the people who doubted my service, and the fact that I've deployed to Iraq, will return there... simply because they disagree with me, my observations, etc... never mind, for a second, that most these people don't have a first hand account of what's recently ben going on in Iraq.

Guaranteed, had my posts been aligned with their ideology, they would've thanked me for my service, my courage to "stand up and not toe the military brass' line," etc. They wouldn't be on here questioning my statements of being in the military... and they would've taken me at my word of being a service member, recently ben to Iraq, even if I had actually "ben" a "poser."

They can't stand the fact that a service member would present information that destroys their misguided interpretation of what's going on out there... dismissing my service is much easier for them than it is for them to swallow their ego and accept the fact that they're on the wrong side of the argument.

And many of the people, on their side of the argument, accuse people on my side of the argument as being "narrow minded."


No, what I can't stand is someone who appears to be a blatant liar and fraud.

Now I can't prove that anymore than you can prove you are what you say.


WRONG.

The first sentence is motivated by your disagreement with what I've said on this thread, and what I've intended for this thread. It proves what I've said:

"They can't stand the fact that a service member would present information that destroys their misguided interpretation of what's going on out there... dismissing my service is much easier for them than it is for them to swallow their ego and accept the fact that they're on the wrong side of the argument." -herfacechair

The first part of your second sentence is accurate, there's no way you could prove your assumptions, as they're not based on fact, and they contradict what I know for a fact. However, I can prove that I am who I say I am.

Are you willing to place a bet?

I've been in Iraq, and will be back there in a few days. There's no question that I'm both, in the military, and an Iraq Veteran, and will be going back there. Heck, I could get with someone here, preferably in the Virginia Beach area, an independent party, and show them a copy of my DA 31, My ERB, my LES, and other documents proving that I'm in the military, and am in a deployed status, etc, then have that person come on here to verify my statements.

So how about it? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is at?
So far, nobody has accepted that challenge. If you're sure about what you say here, you'd have no problems accepting this challenge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

You can, however, bolster your credibility by giving us some tangible proof of the many outlandish statements you have made.

You can start with the use of chemical weapons that no one but you seems to know about.


From MSNBC: "Bomb Said to hold deadly sarin gas explodes in Iraq"

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," said Kimmitt, the chief military spokesman in Iraq. "The round had been rigged as an IED [improvised explosive device] which was discovered by a U.S. force convoy.

Now, in order for you to prove your statements, you have to answer the following question, without adding your bullshit, or giving me your bullshit in lieu of the response I'm looking for:

Were the Iraqi Survey Group, and Kimmitt, lying and telling half truths in that MSNBC article? YES [ ] NO [ ]

I don't want your diarrhea, I don't want your bullshit... Simply copy and paste everything from "From MSNBC" all the way to "YES [ ] NO [ ]." Place an "X" in the appropriate box.

If what you say about me is true, you'd be able to answer it per instructions, and you'd be able to answer it without looking stupid. If you feel the need to try to baffle me with bullshit, to avoid what I'm requiring you to do, then obviously you've got no confidence in your statement that I'm a "blatant liar" and a "fraud." I have a feeling that you're going to prove this correct:

"Their contribution to political debate is worthless, since even they do not believe things they say." - Ann Coulter

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.125