RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack

RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Sanity -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 12:10:07 PM)
I am not meaning that Obama is trying to be aloof, I am of the opinion that he is aloof, totally aloof, and I am by far not the only one making that observation. Critics in his own party openly and loudly resent him for that character flaw, its not something people anticipated when they worked so hard to get him elected. I personally like it though, I like that he is failing to implement the far left agenda on account of it. The bigger issue for me is the contrasting portrayals between him and Mr Bush

MissAsylum -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 12:31:20 PM)
That's more than fair. I would hope that no president would try to fully go along with the game plan of extremes of either side. Results would be disastrous no matter which way it would go.

tazzygirl -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 2:02:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I see your point In many of these threads only the men are capable of addressing posts "with more than bullshit partisan snarks" Do us all a favor and us know when you and lucy are finally manly enough to address us without the bullshit snarks yourself okay quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl When you can man up and address the other threads with more than bullshit partisan snarks, then we can discuss the merits of Eisenhower. Sanity, Eat. Dirt. Ah, thank you hlen. If someone doesnt repost what the.. ahem... say... then I wont see it. and only the .. ahem.... can take my comment about a single person owning up to their partisan lies and denials when faced with proof from many sources and turn it into a man vs woman battle. any wonder why i have the ... ahem.... on ignore?

mnottertail -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 2:07:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The bigger issue for me is the contrasting portrayals between him and Mr Bush W the inept treasonous imbecile, and Obama, the man who sent a whole fuckwad of terrorists on the el Al flight to Allah? What comparisons or contrasts are possible between apples and oranges?

Politesub53 -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 4:39:23 PM)
Nato need to stop getting it wrong with these air attacks. Boots on the ground is the only answer, cheney and rumsfeld felt you only needed to carry out air strikes, but that is proving ineffective. As for Obama taking time off to play golf, when he does this, let me know. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJvRUL81ZU8

Fellow -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 5:01:48 PM)
NATO is just a codename to USA in these matters. It should be clear to everybody.

Lucylastic -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 5:08:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: hlen5 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I see your point In many of these threads only the men are capable of addressing posts "with more than bullshit partisan snarks" Do us all a favor and us know when you and lucy are finally manly enough to address us without the bullshit snarks yourself okay quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl When you can man up and address the other threads with more than bullshit partisan snarks, then we can discuss the merits of Eisenhower. Sanity, Eat. Dirt. Ah, thank you hlen. If someone doesnt repost what the.. ahem... say... then I wont see it. and only the .. ahem.... can take my comment about a single person owning up to their partisan lies and denials when faced with proof from many sources and turn it into a man vs woman battle. any wonder why i have the ... ahem.... on ignore? Sorry Tazz I wrongly assumed you had seen it,but his lie about you and then him implying that he was the only "man" on the board was so laughable that I thought you would be along to deal with it:) My bad.

tazzygirl -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 5:14:48 PM)
[8\|] Thats because he is an ... ahem... and doesnt understand what my initial post was about. more .. ahem... spin

Politesub53 -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 5:17:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow NATO is just a codename to USA in these matters. It should be clear to everybody. Its not a codename to all the dead of other nations, halfwit.

Sanity -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 5:33:48 PM)
I hate to be the one to break it to you but you totally fail to understand what I wrote or "implied" luce quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Sorry Tazz I wrongly assumed you had seen it,but his lie about you and then him implying that he was the only "man" on the board was so laughable that I thought you would be along to deal with it:) My bad.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 6:26:47 PM)
Actually other than forward observers of some type, the best play book startegy out there is almost all air based attacks when fighting an insurgency or rebels that are in rural areas. Good intelligence is mandatory, and then with drones or cruise you can do most of the rest. Very few operations would require boots on the ground, and those would be surgical special ops missions. Not sure about all the bickering, but the US did make a fuck up with what happened, especially since the day before there were talks with the Pakistani militart and improving communication and coordination to prevent this type of things from occuring. Actually, the US has been stomping all over their sovereignty for several years now, along with a few other countries. Now do not get me wrong, I am all behind hitting the enemy where ever they are, but the State dept needs to work something out, or Pakistan needs to be held accountable for harboring terrorist and enemies of the US. As far as a President playing golf, that is just partisan BS because all of the presidents need down time. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Nato need to stop getting it wrong with these air attacks. Boots on the ground is the only answer, cheney and rumsfeld felt you only needed to carry out air strikes, but that is proving ineffective. As for Obama taking time off to play golf, when he does this, let me know. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJvRUL81ZU8

Politesub53 -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 6:32:53 PM)
"Actually other than forward observers of some type, the best play book startegy out there is almost all air based attacks when fighting an insurgency or rebels that are in rural areas. Good intelligence is mandatory, and then with drones or cruise you can do most of the rest" We will have to differ Orion, so far this strategy hasnt worked. If anything, before Obamas troop surge, the allies were on the point of losing out to the Taliban.

tweakabelle -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 7:11:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I was playing off of taz implying that the feminine gender is wholly incapable of posting on topic, and without snark [;)] Where have you disproven taz's gender slam on this thread, lucy? Oh my! What an intellectual tour de force! Sanity's breathtakingly in(s)ane misinterpretations of the comments of two individual women are sufficient grounds for damning the entire feminine gender. Such erudition! Such astonishingly profound powers of analysis and logic! Such a compelling irrefutable argument! Why isn't Sanity a Nobel Prize Laureate? [8\|] Puh-leeeeaze, can someone give the man a frock and heels. NOW!

Sanity -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 7:15:58 PM)
I was just joking at first, but... its becoming apparent that there could be something to taz's little anti-fem admonition

Lucylastic -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 7:20:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I was playing off of taz implying that the feminine gender is wholly incapable of posting on topic, and without snark [;)] Where have you disproven taz's gender slam on this thread, lucy? Oh my! What an intellectual tour de force! Sanity's breathtakingly in(s)ane misinterpretations of the comments of two individual women are sufficient grounds for damning the entire feminine gender. Such erudition! Such astonishingly profound powers of analysis and logic! Such a compelling irrefutable argument! Why isn't Sanity a Nobel Prize Laureate? [8\|] Puh-leeeeaze, can someone give the man a frock and heels. NOW! most CDs I know have more testicular fortitude than he will ever have

tweakabelle -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 7:25:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 "Actually other than forward observers of some type, the best play book startegy out there is almost all air based attacks when fighting an insurgency or rebels that are in rural areas. Good intelligence is mandatory, and then with drones or cruise you can do most of the rest" We will have to differ Orion, so far this strategy hasnt worked. If anything, before Obamas troop surge, the allies were on the point of losing out to the Taliban. It's worth adding (IMHO) Polite, that the tactics of air attacks are regarded with contempt by Afghani people. They see such attacks as cowardly, an unfair fight. Add the element of nationalism - the air crews and planes are foreign, their victims are Afghani - and you have a recipe for disaster. If the overall aim is to win "the hearts and minds of the people" - the critical objective upon which the success or failure of a counter-insurgency campaign swings - it's hard to think of a method more likely to produce the opposite effect with Afghanis, short of putting the entire peasantry up against a wall and shooting them.

tazzygirl -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 7:26:16 PM)
Just to set the record straight. pops has avoided me on many threads lately. posting things he insists are true, then running away when its proven they are not.... and he could have saved himself the embarrassment if he had not gone the snark route in those threads and simply fact checked himself before posting. lies are bs. being snarky in posts containing lies is stupid. running from a thread, not admitting you made a mistake.. an action of a boy... not a man.

Sanity -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 7:27:27 PM)
To many, that depends entirely on whether the president has a D or an R by his name, hence the premise of the thread (at least before the usual trolls went for their usual derail). quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf As far as a President playing golf, that is just partisan BS because all of the presidents need down time.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 7:29:36 PM)
It is because of bad intel. The tribal chiefs have to be pulled in to get the intel. Even the soviets thought boots on the grounds was the way to go, and see what that got them. Putting more troops there doesn't do much other than secure an area somewhat, and the insurgents just move to another area and now have a target for hit and run, and ambush attacks. Good intel and unmanned strikes reduce our casualties, increase effectiveness of not know where we are going to hit, and if actually done surgically with good intel, reduces agitation of the locals. The problem is the good intel at the moment. It is not so much my opinion, but a tactical guide written several years ago by a retired Admiral. Would have to do some searching to find it. quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 "Actually other than forward observers of some type, the best play book startegy out there is almost all air based attacks when fighting an insurgency or rebels that are in rural areas. Good intelligence is mandatory, and then with drones or cruise you can do most of the rest" We will have to differ Orion, so far this strategy hasnt worked. If anything, before Obamas troop surge, the allies were on the point of losing out to the Taliban.

tweakabelle -> RE: 24 Pakistani Soldiers Killed in NATO Attack (11/26/2011 7:35:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity I was playing off of taz implying that the feminine gender is wholly incapable of posting on topic, and without snark [;)] Where have you disproven taz's gender slam on this thread, lucy? Oh my! What an intellectual tour de force! Sanity's breathtakingly in(s)ane misinterpretations of the comments of two individual women are sufficient grounds for damning the entire feminine gender. Such erudition! Such astonishingly profound powers of analysis and logic! Such a compelling irrefutable argument! Why isn't Sanity a Nobel Prize Laureate? [8\|] Puh-leeeeaze, can someone give the man a frock and heels. NOW! most CDs I know have more testicular fortitude than he will ever have That's my experience too, Lucy. I do hope that I haven't given the impression that I was denigrating CDs. That wasn't my intention at all. As someone said, it takes balls for a male to wear a frock. Rather, given that we know the location of most male brains, I was hoping that the boost in testicular fortitude might give rise to a desperately-needed boost to Sanity's lamentable powers of intellectual analysis and discourse - eternal optimist that I am! [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875