RE: Resolve

RE: Resolve (Full Version)

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

Message

caitlyn -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 6:20:29 PM)
Wow ... I'm shocked (not really) that NG, who seems to be building a posting career out of hammering American lifestyle ... and Sinergy who pretty regularly calls people monkeys ... would take exception to a little bit of poking. Apologies to everyone else for a comment that was really only meant to get under two people's skin.

Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 8:38:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Wow ... I'm shocked (not really) that NG, who seems to be building a posting career out of hammering American lifestyle ... and Sinergy who pretty regularly calls people monkeys ... would take exception to a little bit of poking. Apologies to everyone else for a comment that was really only meant to get under two people's skin. [sarcasm] You are absolutely right. Here is your "I am the poor little misunderstood victim posting who is beset upon by two mean people" badge. [/sarcasm] Enjoy your evening, caitlyn. Let me know when you are willing or able to provide empirical information to support your true beliefs. Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 8:47:06 PM)
To what end? You already know everything ... just ask you. [;)] Repeat of the same question. Which are you? A. Examine facts, then change (or not) your point of view to fit the facts. B. Have a point of view that can't be changed, then find "facts" to support it.

Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 8:54:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn To what end? You already know everything ... just ask you. [;)] Repeat of the same question. Which are you? A. Examine facts, then change (or not) your point of view to fit the facts. B. Have a point of view that can't be changed, then find "facts" to support it. Good call. I make a comment asking you to support your ridiculous comment and you insist I support your ridiculous comment. I am going to assume you still have not bothered to read the sources I already provided. Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 9:05:39 PM)
What statement are you talking about Sinergy? All I said, is that you are not an expert on current events in Iraq, because none of us get a clear enough picture of what is really going on. You don't know if we have enough troops, or not. You don't know if the new command will have success, or not. That seems pretty cut and dried. You aren't in Iraq. Your data is as incomplete as mine.

Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 9:09:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn What statement are you talking about Sinergy? All I said, is that you are not an expert on current events in Iraq, because none of us get a clear enough picture of what is really going on. You don't know if we have enough troops, or not. You don't know if the new command will have success, or not. That seems pretty cut and dried. You aren't in Iraq. Your data is as incomplete as mine. Sorry you missed it, but this is the last time I respond to your inability to comprehend, caitlyn. The United Nations have a guideline about how many ground troops are required to pacify a country. This works out to be approximately 1 peacekeeper per 40 civilians. The united States sent 250k or so to pacify a country of 40 million people. Do the math. Sinergy

caitlyn -> RE: Resolve (4/22/2007 10:05:23 PM)
I didn't make that comment ... you did. Since I didn't make it, why should I support it? I think it's less an ability to comprehend, and more a desire to see the statement supported by the person that actually made it. That would be you. On point ... I certainly did read the link. The United Nations didn't have close to that percentage in the Balkans, and has nothing close to a fraction of that percentage in Lebanon. I would rather see you point out an instance on a large scale, where the United Nation actually had a 1:40 force ratio, and every instance of large-scale success with a lesser percentage. I'm off to bed. Come stick egomania pins tomorrow ... I promise to respond. [;)]

meatcleaver -> RE: Resolve (4/23/2007 12:17:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn On point ... I certainly did read the link. The United Nations didn't have close to that percentage in the Balkans, and has nothing close to a fraction of that percentage in Lebanon. I would rather see you point out an instance on a large scale, where the United Nation actually had a 1:40 force ratio, and every instance of large-scale success with a lesser percentage. The UN wasn't occupying the Balkans, it was peace keeping under the agreement of both sides. Clinton never used ground troops in the Balkans against the Serbs, only the air force until the Serbs acquiesced and stopped their campaign. It was only then that any ground troops went in. As for Lebanon, ditto. Both sides of the conflict agreed to UN troops going in as peace keepers and again, both sides of the conflict saw it in their interest to have UN troops on the ground separating both sides. Very different to Iraq, where no one agreed to US and British troops being there, apart from some ambitious Iraqis in Washington.

caitlyn -> RE: Resolve (4/23/2007 7:28:01 AM)
Sinergy didn't use the term occupy ... he used "pacify" and "peacekeepers." He asked for a response to what was said. Thats what I gave.

Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/27/2007 9:26:07 PM)
So I am reading news, and I see that AnencephalyBoy gave a speech and indicated he would continue to veto congressional spending bills and bills requiring the removal of US forces from Iraq. I cannot find anything where he has actually vetoed a bill. I posted this in Resolve because if Bush is truly "resolved" to do something (like veto a bill) he needs to learn to put his money where his mouth is or he loses all credibility. Or, in the words of Douglas Adams, "there are some people who think this has already happened." Sinergy

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.320313E-02