|
herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/7/2010 7:18:27 PM)
|
thompsonx: I am pretty sure he is on the debate team at his high school
One poster on collarchat is listed on my friend's list on facebook. On my "info" page, I've indicated when I graduated high school. So my question is this, "Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Are you willing to BET on that statement? Your failure to accept that challenge will speak volumes about the lack of confidence you have about what you say.
thompsonx: and feels he is more than a match for a bunch of old phoques.
First, there's no "feel" about this. Based on the argument that you, and the opposition, has presented, going against you guys is like a major league team going against a bunch of kindergarteners. I mean, my facts against your opinions? It's like stealing candy from a baby.
Second? Phoques? Don't embarrass yourselves by even hinting about your ages here. Your posts don't do justice for people who supposedly have been around and should "know" more or better.
thompsonx: He wanders off into his own little world but I make an effort to focus him.
No, what's happening is that I'm kicking your azz, so instead of taking the honorable course of action, you step to the side and argue another topic. When I pulverize your azz again, you step aside and argue another topic. You utilize shoot and move as well as strawman arguments. Everytime you do this, I've got you in my cross hairs, hammering away at your misconceptions.
thompsonx: He will never address the facts as they are only the factoids he manufactures.
If we exorcise that retarded ghost that's got you possessed, would you start making sense? Or is this a case where English is your second language, and you're struggling with it? Either way, do you see the contradiction of that statement? Are they facts, or are their "factoids" that I "manufacture?"
Here's the next level where your sentence contradicts reality. I've been spitting facts out, so it doesn't make sense that I'd be "avoiding" them. How could I avoid something that's the centerpiece of my replies to the opposition? I guess if it doesn't make sense to the no nonsense guy, it makes "perfect" sense to you.
thompsonx: Lemee see oh yes wmd ...all both of them that did not work
You're deliberately trying to dilute the point. The three instances that I pointed out, chem agents hence WMD, being used against the US coalition, proves wrong the assumption that there were "none" in Iraq. And if they didn't work, the affected troops wouldn't have been medically treated.
thompsonx: justifies invading a soverign nation REPEAT POINT
But, this war was never just about, 9/11, Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, etc. These were the catalyst that got us into a war that was already being waged against the west.
A war that should be called, "The terrorist war to exterminate western civilization and to establish Islamic holy law throughout the world," rather than just, "The war on terrorism." Iraq is/was very much a part of this war, the asymmetrical threat that faced/face us.
Saddam had to be done away with under asymmetrical warfare context. This fact was seen by Bush' predecessor, Clinton, who concluded that regime change had to take place in Iraq. Saddam's removal was a bipartisan conclusion, a conclusion to what both presidents saw as an ultimate threat to the US's security.
"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." --herfacechair
thompsonx: and the deaths of what ?? over a hundred thousand human beings REPEAT POINT
Not even close. The source that you're using for that rubbish is one that has faulty research methodologies.
thompsonx: and the destruction of billions of dollars of infrastructure for REPEAT POINT
The vast majority of the infrastructure decay took place as a result of decades of neglect, not because of the US invasion of Iraq. Our entry into Iraq resulted in reversing that trend, and in rebuilding their infrastructure. Though some of their cities have power outages, these outages don't last long. They spend more time with electricity than without... something that couldn't have been said for these same towns prior to the invasion.
thompsonx: haliburton to get paid to rebuild. That hailburton sold off kbr somehow, to him, means that haliburton is no longer in business in iraq. REPEAT POINT
WRONG!
"KBR was working for Halliburton when they carried out logistics services for Iraq in the beginning of the war. Since then, Halliburton and KBR split, with KBR continuing with the services for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Halliburton not being involved with Iraq or Afghanistan. So, if you're a stockholder with Halliburton, and they're not involved with Iraq today, then you're not doing what you insinuate you're doing." --herfacechair
"According to Halliburton, they're not involved with providing logistics services in Iraq." - herfacechair
thompsonx: I particularly like REPEAT POINT
Actually, you like taking me out of context because you know that you don't have an argument,
thompsonx: the position he takes concerning punching out officers whom he does not agree with....roflmao
WHERE, in my posts, do I say that we could smack officers around if we don't agree with their orders? Show me the EXACT words that I used that made you fart that comment out.
Now, let me go reeaal slllooooowww for you...
In that scenario, the officer ordered them to do something. The convoy commander offered up a suggestion, but guess what? THEY ENDED UP GOING. Where, in that scenario, does it state that the officer got knocked around in lieu of the convoy going to another outpost? It wasn't until after they FOLLOWED the officers order that they sustained the casualties, found out that the convoy commander was on the right track with his suggestion, and that they didn't have to sustain those casualties. In that instance, the officer got knocked on his azz after the fact, after his orders were followed.
Again, I offered to get a retard interpreter to simplify what I say so that you could understand it.
|
|
|
|
