Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Apparently there is some interest in a Darth Cheney advice column:
Dear Dick (Cheney): Advice From the Former Veep
Everyone’s favorite American statesman emerged from retirement this week to sound off on Iraq. What if he sounded off on our personal problems, as well? Read on and weep.
Americans everywhere are relieved to hear that this week, after several years out of the spotlight, national treasure Dick Cheney has re-entered all of our lives with a scathing Wall Street Journal column on the current state of Iraq.
It’s so kind of Dick to reassume human form (he’s spent the past few years as a malevolent vapor, à la Hexxus from Fern Gully) and give some advice to President Obama. Apparently, eight years of backseat-driving the presidency wasn’t enough, and old habits die hard.
But what about the rest of us? We’d all love for our favorite war criminal who looks like a friendly boiled potato to weigh in on our issues. We need Dick. We are thirsty for his signature wit, warmth, and homespun wisdom. He is like a grandfather to us, the kind who seems like he should have died a while ago and yet stubbornly clings to life. Or, in Cheney’s case, relevance.
So here, for the first time, The Daily Beast is proud to present our newest advice column: Ask a Dick (Cheney), where real, everyday, imaginary Americans ask the man who, thank God, never was president, for advice how to handle their problems.
Dear Dick,
I’ve been married for three years. My husband is funny, kind, thoughtful, smart, and great with my family. Everyone always comments on what a great match we are. When we got together, we’d always discussed having children eventually. But every time I bring it up, he comes up with another reason to delay, mostly financial. Money is not a problem for us, but he seems to feel like unless we have $50,000 squirreled away, we’ll be bad parents. Dick, I’m 34 years old, and I don’t have forever! What should I do? How can I convince him that now is the right time?
I can’t wait forever,
Megyn in Minneapolis
Dear Regan,
Right now, you are showing weakness when you need to be demonstrating strength in the face of terrorism. Your husband is emotionally terrorizing you, and when you capitulate to him, your standing is weakened, not only in the family but throughout the free world. By tolerating this insult, you broadcast, loud and clear, that you are someone who can be bullied into submission by the court of international opinion. Because if you cannot defend yourself against babylessness, what can you defend yourself against?
There is just one move here: Form a vast, powerful Coalition of the Willing within the your home. Gather up everything, animate and inanimate, that may be on your side, including the dog, Sub Zero freezer, toilet, wallpaper, your friend who came by to watch The Bachelorette, etc. Stick googly-eyes on the things that don’t actually have eyes, just to reinforce the point that there is nowhere that he can go to escape your ironclad will.
Then, Phase 2: While he is sleeping, poke holes in the condoms and go sleep with his best friend. Announce to everyone the next day you are pregnant.
Your fetus will be greeted as a liberator,
Dick
Dear Dick,
I recently bought my first house, and while I knew when I got it that it was a “fixer-upper,” I’ve since discovered major problems that the inspector missed. In fact, it may well need a new foundation. Should I spend money that I don’t particularly have to fix it, or put it on the market and cross my fingers that the new owners are as naïve as I was?
Sincerely,
David in Chicago
Dear David,
Let’s get one thing straight here: Whatever issues the foundation are experiencing come as a direct result of your own shortsightedness and inability to follow the courageous and sagacious vision of the previous owner.
Here you are, writing to a damn advice columnist, while you could be pouring everything you have into that foundation. You are willfully blind to the impact of your actions. Also, do you ever go golfing and/or talk about climate change? If so, stop and return your attention to the matter at hand. Each time you open your mouth about climate change, a new crack develops in that foundation because it is emboldened by your appeasement.
Now: What should you do? Declare a War on Foundations and burn the house down.
Works every time,
Dick
Dear Dick,
I just graduated and, despite the odds, have landed my dream job in the communications department of a nonprofit. There’s just one problem: My boss is a screamer. She is the “kiss up, kick down” kind of person and so is loved by all the higher-ups…and hated by all of us. Is this just what happens in the workplace? I love my job, but I hate being screamed at.
Help!
Elizabeth in New York
Dear “Elizabeth,”
“Elizabeth,” is it? You sound like Pat Leahy. Is this you, Pat? Too scared to address me like a man? No matter. Whether or not you are indeed an effete, weak-chinned senator who wouldn’t know his ass from a well-engineered, profitable, energy independence-enabling hole in the ground, the fact remains the same: No one cares.
i'va biggen: Wow, damn I got a stalker .Who knew it, creepy.
Get over yourself. Even though I don't post here frequently, I do follow the arguments that go on go on. I don't follow a person specifically, but I follow the trend of the arguments. I do this partly to study the opposition. I knew how you'd behave even before I posted on this thread to debate you.
i'va biggen: Typical you answer my questions or else you lose..LOL typical right wing talking point.
My questions are simple, straightforward, and have everything to do with the crux of the argument. The correct answer to those questions destroys the argument that you, and those on your side of the argument, are trying to advance on this thread.
The failure of your side of the argument to answer my questions, per the parameters I set, without the game playing that your side exercise throughout this thread, is evident that you guys are avoiding the questions. You guys would avoid answering the questions when you know that the correct answer harms your arguments.
Asking logical, simple, straightforward questions that challenge the illogic of the opposite side of the argument is an effective strategy. Your side of the argument's failure to answer my questions speaks volumes about the fact that your side of the argument doesn't have confidence in their own arguments.
i'va biggen: Typical right wing BS if anyone disagrees with your radical BS they are automatically a liberal. If you have been following me for so long then you would know I am a independent.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it must be...
Let's visit what you said on this thread before:
"Another shining example of the right wing mantra of it is always someone else's fault" -i'va biggen:
"Typical stupid right wing ploy" - i'va biggen:
"Both you and JD are both right wingers is why you are on the same side of the discussion" - i'va biggen:
"and start your anti democratic rants are typical right wing tactics." - i'va biggen:
"AKA: republican talking points, or drinking the kool aid." - i'va biggen:
Right wingers will defend anything. - i'va biggen:
You've shown a trend where you argued against the conservatives on this thread. If your independent, you'd also be arguing against the people that my side is arguing against. You would've taken a clearly neutral ground where you would've "agreed" to many points on both sides of the argument.
On this thread, as well as on other threads, you've consistently argued the same way that others, that have identified themselves as liberal, have argued. The above quotes clearly show that you are a left-winger.
My position isn't radical, it's center-right. If you had the opinion that I'm a radical when it comes to my beliefs, then it's because you're a radical left-winger.
i'va biggen: One know it all to another???
Wrong. I base my arguments on the facts. These facts are based on both my first-hand experience, as well as on extensive research I've done in this topic. You're basing your arguments on propaganda, and on erroneous information that makes your ego feel good. You're arguing without the support of the facts; therefore, your arguing as a "know it all." I'm arguing as a subject matter expert on this topic. There is no similarity and credibility between the two of us.
i'va biggen: Which one do you want me to?
How about sticking to the argument instead of tap dancing and pulling shit out of your ass constantly?
i'va biggen: Ditto cabbage head.
No similarities in our positions. Your side of the argument, including you, advance baseless, fact deficient, propaganda. My side of the argument is carrying out counter propaganda against your side of the argument. We're doing that with the facts. Your side of the argument argues against what your side of the argument considers as "inconvenient facts."
Quote:
Originally Posted by i'va biggen
(REPEAT POINT)
Every time you rehash your talking points, and this is about the third time you have posted the same long rant I can see your stress points rising.
That is twice, which one do you want me too? Will you repeat this again?
First, if you feel like I'm rehashing my "talking points," it is because you are repeating your talking points over and over again. So, if you're seeing a response for a third time, it's because you said the same thing three times. If you do not want me to see me repeat a point, quit repeating a point that I've already rebutted.
Second, I take great pleasure in taking your arguments apart. My repeating a counter rebuttal to your rebuttal is part of that pleasure. Your responses don't make me stress out, it's just more fun for me as I have more comments to dismantle.
i'va biggen: Yah I know I saw the mission accomplished sign. (REPEAT POINT)
A lot of people equate that mission accomplished sign as Bush declaring the war over. The vast majority those people have never been in the Navy. That, "Mission Accomplished," sign was something the ship was saying to the world. In order not to use the ships funds, they requested that the White House generate a sign for them.
If you actually listen to the speech that George Bush made on the flight deck, he only declared major combat operations over. And in that same speech, he laid out the fact that we would be facing continued dangers in that country. He also mentioned a timeline for withdrawal, and that was when the country was a strong democracy able to secure itself.
We did precisely that before the timeline of withdrawal called for us to leave.
And get this... prior to my being in the Army, I was in the Navy. I know what I'm talking about here.
Regardless of differences between the two parties, you are arguing the talking points of those that support the Democratic Party. I've argued with people like you over the past decade. There is no difference between your argument, and that of those who actually identified themselves as liberals.
i'va biggen: As the anti democratic anti liberal that you side advanses. There are no differences between the two parties they both suck. (REPEAT POINT)
Actually, there are glaring differences between the two parties. You, as well as others that have argued on your side of the argument, are arguing the talking points advanced by the extreme leftwing of the Democratic Party.
If you're criticizing the Democratic Party, along with the Republican Party, then there's a good chance that you're even further left of the extreme leftwing of the Democratic Party. This makes you a left winger still, but one that's closer to socialism or communism.
There's a good chance that if they both "suck" in your opinion, it's because they're not as far left on the political spectrum as you are.
i'va biggen: You have failed to answer or prove my point was wrong.
I've thoroughly proven your arguments here wrong. All you have to do is look at the posts I've made in response to you. You've neither advanced a real counterargument to my arguments, nor have you provided supporting arguments to the arguments that you are advancing.
You're either repeating yourself, or you're retreating towards a different topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by i'va biggen
think you have won is misleading, you are delusional.
LOL if you think so, dream on.
No, this isn't a case where "I think" my side one. This is a case where I KNOW that my side won. Your actions, as well as those who are arguing on your side of the argument, shows that your side of the argument is getting destroyed.
First, my questions are being ignored. The reason they're being ignored is that the correct answer to those questions harms the position of your side of the argument.
Second, you're consistently typing responses within a quote, instead of generating a separate post addressing individual quotes from the post that you are responding to. The replies that I'm addressing here, are weaker than the replies that you've previously given in your previous posts.
Third, your side shifts to slightly different topics when confronted with the facts.
Fourth, your side of the argument is using red herrings, strawmen, and other inductive fallacies. You would not be needing those if you are winning this fight. Those are the tools that the losing side of the argument uses.
It's blatantly obvious that my side of the argument is destroying your side of the argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by i'va biggen
(REPEAT POINT + STRAW MAN + RED HERRING)
then you think the fact of no legal immunity for the troops is not valid?
As I said before and still feel that way. Without legal immunity for our troops was a sticking point that Obama would not sign without. It was a point the Iraq's used to insure the pullout of the Americans. They were in the position they wanted .they had excluded the Sunni, and Kurd's from the government, and had it their way till IsIs showed up.
(REPEAT POINT + STRAW MAN + RED HERRING)
Your argument is both a strawman and a red herring, it's a strawman because it deliberately distorts reality and assumes that we are arguing that alternative distorted reality. You're not addressing the actual reality on the ground there. It's a red herring, because it's designed to draw away from the actual argument.
Again:
First, the Iraqis were willing to give us a SOFA agreement. Had the Obama administration been willing to work with the Iraqis, using channels that would've gotten his an SOFA agreement, we would've had that SOFA agreement.
The Iraqis, and the US military, wanted thousands of US troops to remain behind to train and continue to train the Iraqi forces. We were in a position of strength in that negotiation.
Your question assumes a different reality than the one that was actually taken place on the ground.
Second, you're going to have collateral damage in a firefight. When there is property damage, there was compensation process. The Iraqis that had property destroyed as a result of a firefight, or as a result of negligence on the US military's part, were able to file a claim. Once an investigation proved that collateral damage happened as a result of a firefight where the rules of engagement were disregarded, or as a result of negligence, the Iraqi with a property damage grievance was able to get compensated.
A SOFA agreement would've allowed the US military to hold US service members accountable for negligent homicide on the battlefield. This would be applicable if the rules of engagement were violated, as a result of negligence, or as a result of deliberate acts of murder.
Third, we strictly abided by our rules of engagement. These rules of engagement called for engaging only the enemy. The vast majority of the Iraqi population understood that we strictly followed these rules of engagement. In fact, one of our interpreters related a discussion that he had with one of the local Iraqis.
These local Iraqis understood that if the coalition member shot you, it was because you were shooting at them. He contrasted that with what the terrorists would do. They'd Kill you regardless of whether you were there intended target or not.
The current administration had no desire to work with the Iraqi government to extend our SOFA agreement.
Had this administration worked with the Iraqis in getting SOFA, the military leadership deployed to the green zone, and the US ambassador, would've made sure that Al Malaki would've continued to have an inclusive government.
i'va biggen: Your side is famous for drivel.
Don't mistake the facts as "drivel." Your side of the argument, including you, consistently advance drivel. Your arguments are pure rubbish.
i'va biggen: Well we all have our crosses to bear. I have been calling people like you out on their BS for a while, but I will not invest ten years on it. got better things to do.
Don't mistake the facts as BS. I've been calling you out on your BS on this thread, just as I have called out others on their BS for the past decade. I don't see this as a cross to bear, but as a fun packed roller coaster that I ride. I see this as entertainment. I love dismantling your arguments, as well as that of your side of the argument.
I love seeing your reactions, as well as the reactions of those that I argue with this thread. It's the enjoyment that I get from dismantling your BS that contributes greatly to me doing this.
One point that I made by saying that I've been doing this for 10 years, is that I will continue to dismantle the BS that you, and your side of the argument advances for the next 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, etc. I take sadistic pleasure in destroying your side of the argument, and this pleasure never gets tiring.
i'va biggen: I am not responsible for anyone but myself.
It doesn't matter. You're advancing the same baseless rubbish that the others on your side of the argument have been advancing. By arguing with the others on your side of the argument, you make yourself a member of a collective debate target. I will address you guys individually, or as a group.
Bottom line, nobody on your side of the argument has advanced a fact-based argument to justify our changing our positions. Nothing that you guys have said would give any critical thinker any reason to think that you guys have "won," quotations used strongly.
i'va biggen: Ego is not involved This is not a contest, and I don't think I'm wrong. Do you have a ego problem too?
If this isn't a contest, and if you're not going to invest another 10 years in "doing this," then what are you still doing arguing on this thread? Your actions on this thread proves that you're driven by ego. Your ego prevents you from thinking that you're wrong.
It doesn't matter that you don't think that you're wrong, based on what you have said on this thread, I know for a fact that you're wrong. I've consistently advanced a reasoned, logical, fact-based argument proving you wrong.
It's not my problem if you're letting us know, based on your replies on this thread, that you're suffering from cognitive dissonance. The others on your side of the argument are also showing, through their replies, that they're suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by i'va biggen
Opinions vary.
LOL OK I'm ready, however it is just your opinion, and for your opinion there are many many more opinions that think you are full of shit, and there was ni justification for them.
And you're wondering why I'm telling you that you lost. People who lose an argument consistently pull the "opinion" card without providing facts, or staying on point. It's easier for them to dismiss the facts as "opinion," because labeling it as an "opinion" puts the fact on the same level as the belief in an alternate universe where unicorns exist.
When the opposition escapes into the "it's an opinion" argument, they're trying to diminish the fact that they're wrong where the other side is right. When it's just an opinion, either one could be right and either one could be wrong.
Unfortunately for you, we're not arguing a grey topic. We're not arguing a topic were either side could be right or either side could be wrong. We are arguing a black and white topic, where one side is right and the other side is wrong. I've seen enough facts to prove my arguments right, and these facts are the main reason that I hold the same argument now that I held prior to the Iraqi invasion.
The justifications that I provided are valid justifications. These justifications were heard before the invasion of Iraq, these justifications showed up repeatedly in my extensive research. The justifications became glaringly obvious when I combat deployed to Iraq.
i'va biggen: Really? interesting.
Yes, "really." Both first-hand experience, and my extensive research, support my argument here. When I was in Iraq, there was no possible way that I would've seen any reality in your side of the arguments position, even if I wanted to "drink the Kool-Aid" in order to see things from your perspective.
The facts simply don't support your side of the argument.
i'va biggen: AKA: republican talking points, or drinking the kool aid.
Wrong, these are facts based on my first-hand observations as well as on my extensive research. Now, if you were this passionate in attacking the left, then those on my side of the argument would easily be able to see you as being an "independent."
The fact that you're showing biase against the right, while showing an absence of that same bias against the left, speaks volumes to the fact that you're a left winger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by i'va biggen
(REPEAT POINT)
Other than repeating is there any new ground, or do you forget what was written?
Same shit different paragraph.
You repeated the error that my side of the argument "didn't" prove your side of the argument wrong. You repeated that factually challenged statement, I repeated my rebuttal to it. If you have issues with me repeating my rebuttals, quit repeating yours.
i'va biggen: Yada Yada Yada.
I already know that your retarded. You don't need to open your mouth and prove it to us. Don't fall out the back of the short yellow school bus.
i'va biggen: Works both ways, if you remember it was you who started .
You posted on this thread before I did. I simply jumped in here and rebutted those that I disagreed with. If you never posted a reply here on this thread, I wouldn't be rebutting you on this thread.
i'va biggen: I only had one point that I presented about the OP.
You've presented multiple points on this thread, and when confronted with the facts that destroyed your argument, you presented multiple other points.
i'va biggen: Stunning, and when did you destroy my point? There were others ?
I destroyed every major point that you advanced on this thread. Go back and read every post that I've posted on this thread to see those facts. Yes, you advanced other points. This post is an example of me addressing you point by point. Notice how I am addressing different topic areas when I addressed your different points.
i'va biggen: that is none of your fucking business , and anyone bragging about it on a hooker board...Well I will keep that to myself.
You're going to keep that to yourself because you know for fact that you either didn't serve, or you do have military experience but not the kind that gives you relevance in this argument.
Destroying the arguments advanced by people like you isn't the only pastime that I have. Another pastime that I have is busting valor thieves. I call out people that either claim to have served when they never had served, or people who have served but who are embellishing their service.
Let's just say that I'm one of those who'll defend valor against those who will steal it.
Your comments on this thread argue against you being in the military. If you ever served, you either served completely in the US, or you were mostly in a garrison environment overseas or in the US. You don't sound like an Iraq War Veteran.
Your defensive reply in response to a simple question that I asked you speaks strongly of you being a phony veteran. I've lost count of how many times a person, I knew for a fact was a phony, tell me that his service is not my business.
If you served, then that response is strongly indicative of your not having the military experience that'd give you any standing on this thread.
You responded to somebody else's question on whether you served not. The moment you answered that question, it became my business. Why didn't you tell the other person that it wasn't his business?
The reason that I can see is that it was easy to simply answer "yes" or "no" to the question of whether you served and not. But, start asking the hard questions that other veterans will be able to easily answer? We start having problems. It's like the phony Green Berets that announce that they are "Special forces," but all of the sudden say it's "classified" when you ask them details.
It's "classified" or "non of your business" is a phony or embellisher's way of justifying not being able answer specific questions... questions that those with actual experience would easily be able to answer.
Most of the questions that I've asked you wouldn't provide me that data I need to obtain basic information on your real military service down. For that, I'd need one of two specific pieces of information that I didn't ask here... three if you served prior to a certain time.
Even most of those in our ranks, who are either liberals or oppose the war, would disagree with many of the arguments that you advanced on this thread.
Based on your arguments, and based on your reply to my question, you still don't have a leg to stand on in this argument.
Also, my putting my credentials on the table isn't me "bragging on a whore board." It's me letting you know that 1, I know what I'm talking about and 2, I'm far more qualified to talk about this topic than you are.
Reading your replies to me, as well as the replies of the others that I'm arguing with here, is exactly like listening to Baghdad Bob in this video:
Wrong, We'll defend our position, we're not going to defend "everything" under the sun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by i'va biggen
Not sucking down the party Kool aid.
Considering that you rehashed the same propaganda that I've argued against elsewhere on the Internet over the past decade, you can't say that you're not sucking down the party Kool aid. It's blatantly obvious that you're intoxicated on the extreme leftwing Kool-Aid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by i'va biggen
Other than youtube you area lost sniffy. You are fucked.
You, and the other debaters on your side of the argument, are the ones that are lost. That's what happens when you guys make the effort to track down your lost minds.
Yesterday General Petraeus called for a more inclusive Iraq government, not air strikes. General Petraeus has backed up what H. Clinton said about Malicki not including the other sects in the government.
This has nothing to do with what you quoted from what I said.
I'm not arguing that we resort exclusively to airstrikes. Besides, we need somebody on the ground to identify targets in order for us to use airstrikes. This would require fighter jets flying in combat air patrol stations in the sky waiting for call-for-fire missions.
When we were there, the US ambassador had a lot of say when dealing with Malaki. The US military made sure that Malaki included other sects/groups in the government. When Pres. Obama made it extremely difficult for Iraqis to agree to a SOFA agreement, and when we left, Al Malaki was able to leverage his numeric advantage to exclude the other groups.
A continued US presence in Iraq, under an agreement that Iraqis were willing to have with us, would make sure that we would've continued to make sure that al Malaki would've continued including the other religious sects/groups in government.
With the terrorist gaining ground in Iraq and showing strength, simply sitting down and doing what that article recommends, will show a sign of weakness. At this point, given the psychological nature of the population in that area, the articles recommendation alone won't cut it. Al Malaki has to show strength and advance against the terrorists while doing what that article suggests.
I hate to tell you but the debt slowed in 2003-2007 due to a phony housing boom....one we are still paying for...thus the bigger deficits now.
If you paid attention to what you're reading, and understood what it was that you are reading, you'd know that my bringing that point up was to prove another point wrong. I stated that we should do this "however long it takes" to complete the campaign objectives. Someone erroneously said that we could not afford to do that. They implied that we would run out of both hard currency and credit in order to do what I say we should be able to do.
The fact that the deficit went down during those periods proves that argument wrong.
Just like what you did in the other thread, you're bringing up a strawman. Stick to the topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
herface evidently wants us to cut taxes , get involved in more wars in the middle east and loosen credit standards to the point where even his poor Muslim war buddies can buy a house over here on credit.
You're generalizing something that you obviously don't understand.
I'm in favor of lowering taxes to make the US more competitive to do business in. I'm also in favor of reducing the size of government to include reducing the reach of said government. Our Founding Fathers intended minimal government and maximum power at the personal level. That's a realistic formula to facilitate economic success.
Our Founding Fathers, with their 18th century education, were obviously light-years ahead of you when it comes to understanding how the economy and the world works.
I'm not in favor of new wars the Middle East. For the past decade, I've consistently argued the same theme I've argued here. Our intervention in Iraq and in Afghanistan was to cause a ripple effect that would affect the region. People doubted me back then and tried to argue against that assessment, just like you can't argue against mine today.
That ripple effect came in the form of the Arab spring. With both the Arab Spring, and the victory that we secured in Iraq, and the one that we were headed for in Afghanistan, Wasgington DC had a lot of areas to capitalize on. They failed capitalize and grow on those areas.
Our failure to remain engaged in that process contributed greatly to the mess that were seeing in the Middle East right now.
Had Washington DC capitalized on our successes in the Middle East, and the ripple effect that it caused, the need to go to war in the Middle East would be declining right now.
I'm not in favor of loosening credit standards, I'm in favor of allowing the credit standards to adjust to what the Free Market adjusts it to. I've stated these points repetitively throughout multiple international message boards throughout the past decade.
All you have to do is Google my username to get the facts on where I stand... and to get a clue to see where this argument will head.
But again, this involves doing research. Based on your arguments on this thread and on the other one, and based on articles that you linked to, you don't come across as somebody that choses research over swallowing baseless propaganda. You just spew what sounds good to you.
Considering that you have problems understanding English written so that even a fifth grader could understand what's being said, you should really be ashamed of yourself. You should also consider suing the education system they graduated you. Reason? Dereliction of duty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
We spend 3.4% of our GDP on Military spending and that does not include VA spending and research.
Germany spends 1.4 % of their GDP on Defense, Japan 1%, South Korea 2.8%.
You're either a liar , idiot or both if you think those countries are not piggybacking off our Defense spending to get ahead economically.
There are approximately 40,000 US troops in Germany. The US military is currently drawing down its troops in Europe, and putting more emphasis on rotating troops through there from the US... to include rotatingreserve troops. There are approximately 51,000 US troops in Japan. There are approximately 29,000 US troops in South Korea.
Those numbers include all branches of the military, not just combat troops. If you had a clue about what you were talking about, you'd know that not every single service member would be able to repel invasions.
Combat troops only form a fraction of those numbers.
You'd have to be smoking some serious shit if you honest to God think that those numbers are sufficient to really protect those countries to the point to where they could piggyback off our defense. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that if those countries solely depended on those troops to protect them, the Chinese could easily muster up enough numbers to overrun those countries in Asia.
The only idiot here is the one that lacks military experience, telling a person with a little over a fifth of a century's worth of military experience that the latter is an "idiot". Unlike you, I know how the military works. I'm telling you, based on what I know, that those troops are not sufficient to repel an invasion of those countries. The work required to defend those countries, even with the US soldiers there, still takes money from their economy.
Again, I know for a fact that any savings that they would get from having US troops on their soil would be seriously insufficient to offset any other economic programs to give themselves an advantage.
If you paid attention to the news, the Japanese and the US governments had recently agreed to move more US troops away from Japanese soil. The Japanese wouldn't be agreeing to move our troops away from their soil if the troops' presence there was giving them the savings that you claimed they were getting.
The Japanese government even paid to help move some US troops from Japan to other locations outside of Japan.
Yup, that's where their savings were spent. </sarc>
It's not lying when I'm basing my arguments on the facts and on my experiences. By insinuating that I'm "lying," quotation marks used strongly, you're assuming that your misunderstanding of what you are talking about is the "fact," quotation marks used strongly.
A major way any country in the world could get ahead economically is to have economically sound political laws in place. These policies should make it easier for domestic and foreign businesses to thrive. What each independent corporation does, within each of those countries, collectively benefits the countries that they're inside.
If the corporations competing in the free market within those countries are doing better than their counterparts in the US, those countries' economies are going to have an advantage over that of the United States.
What you believe now, on this point, I used to believe back in the 1980s. I held onto that erroneous beliefs until the facts required me to embrace the argument that I'm giving you here. Considering that you act like a juvenile, I'm not surprised that you hold the belief that I used to hold when I was a teenager.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
(REPEAT POINT)
Like I said policing the world and nation building are losing long term proposition...you are to blind to see that because your life has been spent begging for tax payers money. You cloak that in the form of security for a nation full of chicken shits to scared to challenge your premises.
(REPEAT POINT)
Since you keep ignoring this question, I'll highlight it for easy viewing:
Where, in any of the posts that I've made here, did I specifically state that we should be out there building every country for the sake of "nation building" itself?
Again:
Part of our campaign in Iraq was rebuilding infrastructure to support free economic trade within Iraq and with other countries. You need to facilitate businesses thriving in order to benefit the general population. When businesses thrive, people have a better chance of getting jobs. When people have a better chance of getting jobs, they will have less incentive to fight against the coalition.
Here is an example.
A good number of the people that were planting IED's in Iraq were not terrorists. They were members of the local population who were unemployed. The terrorist were paying these people anywhere from $500-$5000.
That range far exceeds what the average Iraqi earns in a month. In the Arab world, it's a man's duty to work outside the house and to earn money to take care of the family. An unemployed man is generally frowned upon. A man working at home was generally frowned upon to. So, with nowhere else to turn, many accepted the terrorists offer to plant IED's on the side of the roads.
Now, why were the terrorists paying these people large sums of money to do this? The reason is that the vast majority of those that were planting these bombs got killed in their attempt to plant these bombs. You heard about those that successfully went off and killed coalition members. What you didn't hear was that the vast majority of the attempts to do this resulted in the terrorists' deaths.
So, instead engaging in what they knew was a suicide mission, they paid high sums of money to an unemployed person to do the job for them.
The vast majority of the Iraqi people would have rather been working and earning money to take care of their families. As the economic situation improved, thanks to improving business and security conditions, less Iraqis had incentive to take on a suicide mission.
Operation Iraqi freedom, just like the rest of the war on terror, involves more than combat action. It involves a full spectrum of activity to move a population into taking the right course of action.
Because of the resilience of the enemy that were fighting, it also makes sense to send teams overseas to train foreign national militaries. With a drawdown of Afghanistan happening right now, the emphasis has been on deploying Special Forces teams to Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia, to train their militaries to effectively deal with the terrorists that these local national governments have been dealing with.
The fact that you dismiss this as nation building proves that you're clueless about both history and current events. You have very little knowledge of how the world works outside the borders of the United States. Heck, judging by your comments on the other threads, it appears that you don't have that much of an understanding of how things work in United States either.
There is a large difference between telling people what the real threats are out there, and how to handle them, and what you are implying. Accurately identifying a threat, to include statements made by those who are sworn enemies, does not constitute me "begging for money," quotations used strongly.
The people that you dismiss as being too "chicken shit" to challenge the facts that I'm presenting are people who are actually smarter than you are. These people know that you don't simply challenge the facts. You're supposed to challenge BS, which is precisely what I'm doing to you and others that I've proven wrong on this thread.
When you consistently argue against the facts, mistaking them as "BS," you're contributing to the erosion of what's left of your credibility. You're like a person that breathes his own exhaust in.
Nowhere in any of my posts do I argue for a specific industry, outside of what was needed to counter assumptions that the money spent on the war of terror "didn't" benefit people in the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
When you have a hate filled heart....grandstanding is all you hear.
Love all Americans nevergaveitathought, not just your kind
You describe your performance on this thread, and on the other threads, to the "t." You consistently fail to provide the facts. Your assessment of what's going on around world is 180° off mark. If that assessment were anything like your marksmanship, I'd hate to be the person standing behind you as you try to shoot the target of front of you.
All you have left is to grandstand. Your extensive use of red herrings, strawmen, and other inductive fallacies is you engaging in tap dancing and grandstanding.
You just like to hear yourself "talk." It doesn't appear as if you care if you're "right" or "wrong."
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
Move to Iraq and help them with your own money and life....quit asking others to fight your fight.
With the disrespect that you're giving to the veterans on this thread, and to veterans in general, you don't have a leg to stand on telling other people not to ask us to fight their fight.
The war on terrorism is our fight. Your golden boys and your golden girls have failed to capitalize on the successes we had on the war terror. Consequently, the situation in Syria and Iraq has gotten out of hand and have given our enemies momentum.
What you're seeing are news reports of the terrorist intent to create a caliphate from parts of Iraq and Syria. This is an example of what I argued for years. They want to establish a series a caliphate's and areas that used to be part of the Moorish and Islamic empires. It doesn't stop there. The ultimate goal is to establish a series Islamic Emirates and caliphate's throughout the world.
This isn't just a "terrorist versus the United States" issue, this is a "radical terrorist versus Western Civilization" issue. When ISIS took control of the border crossing, they celebrated the reversal of a EUROPEAN "error."
When seen from a bigger picture, that does become our fight. The fact that you're blind to reality, because of your huge horse blinders, and because you have your head shoved so far up your ass that you need class belly buttons to see, makes you argue the arguments that you been arguing on this thread.
The more appropriate question would be, what part of your OWN argument do you NOT understand?
Wrong. That's not a more appropriate question, it's an attempt to dodge a question that I asked you.
Since you saw that, I know that you also saw these statements, which followed the part that you quoted:
"If there was another reason used more to invade Iraq during the spring of 2003 than WMD's, please let me know. Otherwise do us all a favor and STFU!" -- bigtex (Emphasis mine)
What part of your OWN argument do you NOT understand? The thrust of your argument was that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq, te wit:
"WMD's are brought up only because it was THE reason used by the Bush Administration to invade Iraq during the weeks and months leading up to the ill fated and ill advised spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq." -- bigtex (Empahsis mine)
And this:
"PHILLIPS: Two soldiers were treated for what Kimmitt calls "minor traces of exposure," but has since been cleared for duty. We also learned today that a shell containing mustard gas turned up a week or so ago. Both are being studied by the survey group, not to mention CNN's national security correspondent, David Ensor." -- CNN article
I'm going to keep asking you this question for as long as you insist on replying to me or as long as you insist on replying to something I argued:
So bigtex, were you wrong when you insisted that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste that question, and answer options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the reply that represents your honest opinion. Don't add any further information to your reply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
Apparently FAUX News very own Megyn Kelly disagrees with yours, along with The Shrub's, Dick Cheney's and Rummy's
Did you even bother watching the video that the article talked about? Because I've watched it, and nowhere in an interview does it show that Megyn Kelly disagrees with my argument, or that of the Bush administration.
During the interview, she highlighted the main arguments against the Iraq war.
Since you voluntarily let propagandists lead you by the nose, let me spell out what happened. The interviewer gave Cheney a chance to rebut the arguments that were made against the administration that he was a part of.
She gave him a chance to provide a counter rebuttal to the rebuttals to his op-ed article. She did more than that. She allowed them enough time to answer questions, then ended the interview by allowing them to advertise their organization.
Megyn Kelly actually helped the Cheney's get their message, from their article, out to a greater audience. Not just a message, but the Cheney's counter-rebuttals to rebuttals to their article.
If you looked at her twitter account, you'd see her post supportive comments highlighting what the Cheney's said in the interview.
Like WTF, you do an extremely poor job at doing research. In the psychological warfare world, we label people like you as being highly susceptible to propaganda. The article that you link to cherry picks information, which creates a totally different context and message than what's provided by that interview... making it say something that's not supported by the main theme of the actual interview.
Here's a video, spend time to watch it instead of having somebody else force-feed you their own opinion for you to issue out to others:
distorted, inaccurate, and highly partisan version of the facts leading up to the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The only distorted, inaccurate, and highly partisan version of events leading up to the extremely successful, and well advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq, are arguments that are being advanced by those on your side of the argument and you.
As I'll show you later, WMDs WERE found in Iraq post invasion. Also, as a retired Iraqi general who was in the know has stated, massive stockpiles of WMD were moved from Iraq to Syria long before the invasion of Iraq. Also, other justifications were given for invading Iraq. These justifications are addressed by the question above, which the opposition refuses to answer.
The United States military won the Iraq war from the moment they invaded until the moment they left. I was there, I know for a fact that we won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory. At the time I was there, democratic progress was accelerating in Iraq.
The terrorists were on the run, the majority of the Iraqis of all sects were clearly on our side, and wanted the change that we were helping to bring about. When I was there, I saw how blatantly wrong you, as well as those on your side of the argument, were about the Iraq war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
The fact is, it should have never happened and without the WMD issue being front and center, there would have been no reason to invade.
Wrong, what you stated isn't a fact. Again:
The real reason for entering Iraq was asymmetrical in nature. Under asymmetrical warfare, you don't need to have a military capable of attacking United States to be a threat. With Al Qaeda proving that it was willing to strike within the United States, and with a dictator not coming clean with this the WMD programs, we were in an asymmetrical situation that's comparable to being in the room full of easily flammable liquids with a man playing with matches. We had to go into Iraq, which was a perfect next stop in the war terror.
People who have absolutely no clue, about the threat that the United States faces, don't see that the enemy that we are facing has visible and invisible parts. This enemy uses traditional and nontraditional means of warfare. Iraq under Saddam, the Taliban, Abu Sayef (sp) in the Philippines, Hamas, the Taliban, and any other terror group that believes in killing the infidel, are part of a single entity.
Our enemy does not recognize the borders separating the Arab countries. In their eyes, every predominantly Muslim country is part of the Islamic nation. Their ultimate goal is to establish a global Islamic caliphate. The first step would be to create several Taliban style governments across the Middle East. Once the Middle East is turned into a revived Moorish caliphate, the next step would be to work on the rest of the world.
This war was never just about 9/11, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. These were just symptoms of the real issue. This issue is a radical Islamic war to eradicate the West, and to establish global Islamic caliphate's around the world.
With Saddam Hussein hosting radical terrorist conventions, and making death to America speeches, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who he would choose to side with between the United States or Al Qaeda.
If you look at the map the Middle East, and see Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan, you'll see that we have turned the Middle East into a checkerboard of countries in different stages of democracy.
Up to 2005, I predicted a ripple effect that would happen as a result of our interventions into Afghanistan and Iraq. I argued that once these two countries progressed on the path that we set them on, the rest of the Arab world would want the same thing.
What I predicted ended up becoming the Arab Spring which started a few years later. The Obama administration failed to capitalize on this Arab spring.
Again, when the US military and those in DC that supported us handed the United States of victory, we handed you guys a good deal. All you had to do was to vote for people into office that would support policies that favored building on what we accomplished. Those who voted for the Democrats shot us in the foot.
When the Democrats swept both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections, both the Iranians and our enemies in that region were cheering a victory.
The main point that you are missing, bigtex, is asymmetrical warfare.
You're precisely what the author of the book, Unrestricted Warfare, had in mind when they wrote this comment:
"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 bandwidth understood by the American military." --Col. Qiao Liang and Col. Wang Xiangsui
If you read the book, "American military," is interchanged with the West, the world, and the traditional nation state.
Basic concept: The key to defeat a more powerful enemy is through a dimension of warfare that others don't see as "warfare." For you, it's just about the weapons of mass destruction. Not only do you miss the details and facts in the symmetrical sense, you completely missed the detail of facts in the asymmetrical sense.
Having your mindset, and carrying out the argument that you're making here as a national policy, is PRECISELY what our enemies need us to do in order for them to win.
HENCE, the Iraq war was a necessary war. It was the logical next step in the war on terror. As I have explained on this thread, this created a checkerboard pattern of democracies in different states development. It was up to Washington DC to capitalize on the successes that we handed to them. They failed.
This is war. This is a war that has been engaged against us for centuries. As in any war, you're going to have advances and setbacks. Poor decisions coming from the White House will greatly influence whether we advance or have a setback. Right now, the failures that I touched on this thread has brought us to a series of setbacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
As Trendy would say:
FACT JACK!
Facts are what you are getting from my side of the argument. Facts are not what you are getting from your sources of information. If you bothered to watch the video that I post in response to your propaganda piece, you'd see a major difference in context and message.
You advanced no fact. You advanced propaganda, the same kind of nonsense that I have been arguing against for the past decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
I must admit that you (herfacechair) talk a good game but at the end of the day, you're full of as much shit as the Eccie Political Forum's Notorious Idiot Family, led by the Patriarch, Lexi Liar himself.
Like I told the others on your side of the argument, until you prove our side of the argument "wrong," quotations used strongly, you have no legs to stand on accusing my side of the argument of being "full of shit," quotation marks used strongly.
If I'm "full of shit," then certainly you should be able to answer the question that I asked you per the parameters that I set. You wouldn't be avoiding the question. But, the fact that you avoid that question speaks volumes to the fact on which one of us is full of, "shit." Hint, it's not me.
If your references, and your arguments, were "facts," quotation marks used strongly, I wouldn't be able to dismantle your posts the way I'm doing them on this thread.
Quote:
Propaganda Piece:
Megyn Kelly to Dick Cheney: Wrong, sir
By KENDALL BREITMAN | 6/19/14 6:35 AM EDT
FOX News' Megyn Kelly had some tough questions for former Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday night, after he and his daughter, Liz, offered a scathing review of the Obama administration's foreign policy.
"In your op-ed [in the Wall Street Journal], you write as follows: 'Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many," Kelly said on her show "The Kelly File." "But time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well sir."
Kelly then began listing shortcomings of the Bush administration, pointing out Cheney's statements that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that the U.S. forces would be considered liberators and that Iraqi insurgency was "in the throes" in 2005.
First, the headline is misleading. The headline reflects the propagandist's opinion, based on cherry picked information. The propagandist is making an inference from the interview that the interview doesn't support.
Second, Megyn Kelly made those statements, about history "proving him wrong," to give the Cheney's the opportunity to rebut arguments advanced against his article. I'll address them here.
RE: You said that you had no doubts that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction
Again, prior to my going on R & R leave from Iraq, a couple of Iraqi security forces got attacked by a sarin laced IED. Sarin is a chemical agent, it's a weapon of the mass destruction. Since you don't like Fox News, perhaps you would read CNN on another incident:
"PHILLIPS: Two soldiers were treated for what Kimmitt calls "minor traces of exposure," but has since been cleared for duty. We also learned today that a shell containing mustard gas turned up a week or so ago. Both are being studied by the survey group, not to mention CNN's national security correspondent, David Ensor." -- CNN article
Mustard agent is a chemical agent. It's a chemical agent that falls under one of the three main categories of weapons of mass destruction.
Whether you like it or not, WMDs were found in Iraq post invasion.
Let's not forget the statements of a retired general is firsthand experiences indicated that Saddam had WMD:
During the vast majority of my time in Iraq, the vast majority of the Iraqi people showed their appreciation to us. For the most part, that has been the attitude towards coalition forces throughout the Iraq war.
This has been the case since the beginning. Yes, the invaders were met as if they were liberators. The Iraqis were dancing in the street when Saddam's government toppled. I even remember this one episode where an Iraqi man smacked his shoe on the picture of Saddam Hussein.
Iraqis were waving US flags and showing US Soldiers the "victory" or "peace" sign. It was like entire groups of people had won the lottery.
People point out the insurgency that happened post invasion. Guess what? The allies had to deal with a similar insurgency in Germany up to 3 years after World War II ended.
There was an article written in January 7, 1946, titled "Americans Are Losing the Peace in Europe." I believe it was written in Time Magazine.
In that article, they talk about the breakdown and chaos that was going on in Europe, to include the loss in confidence that the Europeans were having with the Americans.
Comparing what happened in Iraq months or years after the invasion to what happened in Europe immediately after the liberation of occupied territories is irresponsible. A more accurate comparison would involve comparing moment of liberations.
The Soviets were advancing their own campaign in Europe, and we came dangerously close to losing our chance at creating a stable Europe. Washington DC remained engaged years, and even decades, after WWII.
RE: He said the insurgency was in the last throes in 2005
In 2006, we initiated the surge. After the surge, the terrorists were drastically in the defensive. The insurgency was never a single, organized, unified, organization. They were a loose network of militias who were quick to fight each other as they were to fight the coalition.
The insurgency fragmented, and the fragmented parts fragmented. This process continued.
Had Washington DC maintained the proper engagement in Iraq, we wouldn't have had the terrorist crisis in Iraq that were seeing right now.
Re: he said that after our intervention extremists would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad
Same thing here, had Washington DC maintained momentum that the military started, had Washington DC taken advantage of the opportunities that the Arab spring offered, the jihadists would've been rethinking their strategy.
In fact, Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups in Iraq were starting to set lesser and lesser goals. The goals were no longer as grandeur as they were prior to the surge.
Thanks to this administration's failures, the terrorists were able to advance, and they once again have larger goals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
Leave it to The Patriarch of the Notorious Idiot Klan, errrr Clan, to distort and twist actual words to his own twisted version of the facts.
bigtex, you're accusing others of doing exactly what I've seen you do. You consistently twist events to fit your narrative. The articles that you reference also twist events to fit their narrative... which happens to be your narrative.
You keep insinuating the KKK in your comments, comparing folks on my side of the argument to "clans." You do realize that the KKK was a creation of bunch a disgruntled Democrats do you? Their first targets were Republicans, Northerners, as well as blacks. This happened after the end of the Civil War, and when the Republican North controlled the Democrat south.
During the immediate aftermath of the liberation of the slaves, the vast majority of blacks were conservative. In fact, the Confederacy was Democrat controlled/dominated.
The Democratic Party has a history of racism. It was the Republicans that pushed for liberating the slaves, and it was a Republican state pushed for the Civil Rights Act. Your party initially filibustered the Civil Rights bill. It was your party that tried to continue to enforce segregation, until a Republican president "castrated" a Democrat governor's ability to get in the way of desegregation.
No, the parties didn't switch either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
According to the Politico article, Megyn's exact words were: "history has proven you (meaning Darth Cheney) got it wrong." There is no other way to interpret those words other than Darth Cheney got it wrong.
But as usual, LexiLiar has his own interpretation in his never ending attempt to distort the facts leading up to the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq.
According to the Politico article? I have a better idea, what about the actual interview?
She made that statement in reference to four points, but not in reference to the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. She made a reference to give them a chance to counter those statements of history proving him, "wrong."
Your interpretation of how the interview went bears very little resemblance to the context of how the interview actually went. If anybody is coming up with his own interpretation of what's going on, it's you, bigtex. You're basing your opinion on the article. You didn't bother investigating what that article was talking about. Apparently it's easier for you to let somebody force-feed you propaganda to issue to anybody else.
The Iraq war was not ill fated, and it was not ill advised. It was successful and well advised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
I did not have to be there. I had the actual printed words.
You have cherry picked printed words. Those words are taken out of context. Now, when you put those words back with the rest of the words that were spoken, you see the real context that they were spoken in.
By saying that you don't, "have to be there," you're excusing yourself from validating the source of your information.
This shows that you'll zero in on any information that supports what you think is a valid argument, no matter how wrong that information is. Like the others in your side of the argument, you're driven by ego. Not by any facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
While on the subject LexiLiar, why don't you share with us your interpretation of the actual printed words in the following question asked by Megyn Kelly.
"History has proven you (meaning Darth Cheney) got it wrong."
I know what my interpretation is.
What she actually says, in context:
"But from time and time again, history has proven you wrong sir, you said that..."
She follows this up with the four points that I rebut, as you could see above. If you listen to the entire interview, she wasn't telling him that every reason and justification for going into Iraq were, "wrong." If you listen to the context of the entire interview, you'd see that she was saying this to allow the Cheney's to rebut those points that she brought up.
She was talking about different instances, not about the overall decision and reasoning for going to war.
After he rebuts those arguments, she doesn't continue to argue with them on those points. She proceeds onto new points.
The entire interview actually helps Cheney counter the arguments against their joint article. It closes with a free airtime for the Cheney's nonpolitical organization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
And while your giving us your interpretation on the Spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq, why don't you share with us your interpretation of Glen Beck's latest take on the subject.
Let's try these printed words on for size! Shall we?
<SNIP> And there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free. I thought that was insulting at the time. Everybody wants to be free. They said we couldn't force freedom on people. Let me lead with my mistakes. You are right. Liberals, you were right. We shouldn't have.<SNIP>
Once again, I know what my interpretation is!
Glenn Beck is wrong.
First, the vast majority of the Iraqis wanted to be free. I saw that from information feeds that I got from units there, I got that from first hand observations when I was there. The Iraqis showed their appreciation for having the chance to enjoy their freedoms.
Even in many areas under ISIS control, strict Islamic law isn't being implemented... the people want to continue being free from that. Also, many Iraqis have answered the Iraqi government's call to take up arms and to be ready to fight ISIS.
They did this, because they WANT freedom.
Glenn Beck doesn't know his asshole from a hole on the ground with that statement, because he's here and isn't privy to what's going on over there... outside of second hand information.
The liberals were wrong about the Iraq War, and they're STILL wrong about it. I'm taking that argument with me to the grave.
The blame should be pinned on Washington DC's failure to capitalize on the successes that the military gained over there. Again, as was stated earlier in this thread, had this administration been willing to keep forces there to provide training and support, the Iraqi Military would've been able to repel borders today.
Obama failed to get an agreement that the Iraqis were willing to agree to... we're seeing the results before our eyes.
Again, see my Europe example above. Glenn Beck is wrong. His abandoning the facts in the face of the situation getting tougher... in order for us to "come together" with the liberals who've always been wrong about Iraq... is a piss poor strategy to take.
I'll be willing to "come together" with the liberals on Iraq the moment they pull their heads out of their asses and remove their horse-blinders. The moment they do this, they'd stop spewing their anti Iraq War drivel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
Looks like LexiLiar's struck out twice tonight! To make matters worse, he never took the bat off of his shoulder! Let's give LLIdiot a hand.
You have a false sense of victory. You quoted a propaganda piece that cherry picked quotes, and that spun an actual event to reflect something that wasn't reflected in the actual interview. Anybody watching the interview that you referenced would see that Megyn Kelly was actually given the Cheney's a chance to provide a counter argument to statements that were being made by the Bush detractors.
Glenn Beck, not having the complete set of data on what's going on in Iraq, raised the white flag. He's no longer one of us (conservatives). We won't take him seriously when he shows that he's willing to cave-in when the going gets tough. I hardly ever listen to any of his shows. But, that rant of his will be the reason to why I'll never listen to his radio show, or watch any of his TV segments, in the future.
That rant is only going to contribute to stoking the fires of our friction and division, not unite us. Again, as long as the liberals have their heads up their asses when it comes to geostrategic issues, I'll never have any common ground with them. I'll perpetually argue with them, and remain divided from them.
Also, what you did here is equivalent to throwing a toothpick at the opposition, missing, then claiming that you catapulted a telephone pole at them. You're pulling straws so that you could continue to advance a strawman argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
After repeatedly debating this subject with LexiLiar since the spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq, it is apparent to me that LLIdiot actually believes :
The only thing that you prove with this statement is that you're willing to regurgitate propaganda that sounds good to your ego. You're emotionally driven to disagree with major conservative initiatives. You're willing to do it at all costs, regardless of whether it's good or not.
It doesn't surprise me that you will go this long arguing nonsense that was shoved down your throat, a set of you taken the steps to do your own research and come to your conclusions. When it comes to emotions, facts mean nothing to you.
You've droned on like a zombie for the past 10 to 11 years, and suffered defeat the vast majority of the time. You essentially told me that you're a glutton for punishment. I've done this because the facts are on my side, and I take sadistic pleasure in destroying the BS that your side of the argument advances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
1) The Shrub and Darth Cheney both walk on water.
That's not what he's saying. You, like the others that I've debated with over the past decade, are emotionally driven by your hatred for the Bush administration and for anything conservative. Based on that emotion, you willingly become ignorant of the real facts and real issues.
Driven by ego, emotion, and susceptibility to propaganda, you sling mud and pillory members of the Bush administration. What our side of the argument is doing is destroying your anti-conservative propaganda with the facts.
This doesn't constitute thinking that any Republican walks on water. It simply constitutes our side the argument setting the record straight. You're insinuating that anybody in our side of the argument would think that any Republican walk on water is you trying to pull the martyr fallacy in the face of your argument being destroyed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
2) The loss of 4500+ American soldiers in Iraq, at a cost of almost $1 trillion was merely the cost of "doing bidness."
Again, that's not what's being argued. What's being argued is that we're engaged in a greater war. This war has been waged against us, as part of a Western civilization family, for centuries. We're dealing with an entity that wants to destroy us, to destroy any way of doing things that's not consistent with the radical view of Islam, and to establish global Islamic law.
Given their mentality, given what life would be like if we were living under their version of strict Islamic law, the sacrifice of our fallen warriors isn't done in vain. Again, the vast majority of the fallen understood what their mission was. They understood the strategic significance of what they were doing. In case you were wondering what that understanding was, go back and read every post I made on this thread.
Your hatred against anybody conservative, or anything conservative, is blinding you like horse blinders to this real threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtex
3) As long as a Republican President authorizes a similar invasion, he would do it again, in a heartbeat.
4) If a Democratic President authorizes a similar invasion, he would be the first to criticize the decision.
That's not what's being argued either. Our side of the argument is saying that we will be willing to take military action to respond to an asymmetrical threat to our long-term security. It doesn't matter what political party the president is.
We will support any president, regardless of party affiliation, that takes the right course of action when it comes to our national defense, our economy, and our Geo political standing in the world.
Bush had NO FUCKING BUSINESS in Iraq. Period. He lied, Thousands died.
The real reason for entering Iraq was asymmetrical in nature. Under asymmetrical warfare, you don't need to have a military capable of attacking United States to be a threat. With Al Qaeda proving that it was willing to strike within the United States, and with a dictator not coming clean with this the WMD programs, we were in an asymmetrical situation that's comparable to being in the room full of easily flammable liquids with a man playing with matches. We had to go into Iraq, which was a perfect next stop in the war terror.
People who have absolutely no clue, about the threat that the United States faces, don't see that the enemy that we are facing has visible and invisible parts. This enemy uses traditional and nontraditional means of warfare. Iraq under Saddam, the Taliban, Abu Sayef (sp) in the Philippines, Hamas, the Taliban, and any other terror group that believes in killing the infidel, are part of a single entity.
Our enemy does not recognize the borders separating the Arab countries. In their eyes, every predominantly Muslim country is part of the Islamic nation. Their ultimate goal is to establish a global Islamic caliphate. The first step would be to create several Taliban style governments across the Middle East. Once the Middle East is turned into a revived Moorish caliphate, the next step would be to work on the rest of the world.
This war was never just about 9/11, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. These were just symptoms of the real issue. This issue is a radical Islamic war to eradicate the West, and to establish global Islamic caliphate's around the world.
With Saddam Hussein hosting radical terrorist conventions, and making death to America speeches, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who he would choose to side with between the United States or Al Qaeda.
Now, in order for Bush to have "lied," quotation marks used strongly, there would have to be "no" the WMD in Iraq up to, during, and after the invasion. However, Sarin, Mustard, and Blister agents were used against our troops as part of the IED bombs that were used.
Those agents that I mentioned are chemical agents. Anybody that has been the basic combat training learns the chemical agents are one of the agents to make up weapons of mass destruction. The other two consists of biological and nuclear agents.
If there were "no" WMD in Iraq, then how do you explain those chemical agents being used in our soldiers post invasion? Only an idiot that is susceptible to propaganda would believe that President Bush lied, especially since politicians from both sides of the political aisle insisted, and argued, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
I would love to see you try to tell the service-members, who got injured by chemical agent laced IED's, that there were "no" weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
You'll speak for the fallen, nor do you speak for their families. Shame on use for using their deaths in an argument against an operation that the vast majority of them believed in and supported:
Since you erroneously believe that there were "no" weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I'm expecting you to answer the questions I've asked others on your side of the argument, with regards to weapons of mass destruction. These are the "yes" and "no" questions that I've asked on this thread.
If you insist that Bush lied, I expect you to answer that question... per the parameters that I set for the other person that asked that question to.
This goes for anybody reading this that believes that President Bush "lied," quotation marks used strongly, about WMD. I'm expecting you folks to answer that "yes" and "no" question per the parameters that I set for the other person that I asked that question to.
"PHILLIPS: Two soldiers were treated for what Kimmitt calls "minor traces of exposure," but has since been cleared for duty. We also learned today that a shell containing mustard gas turned up a week or so ago. Both are being studied by the survey group, not to mention CNN's national security correspondent, David Ensor." -- CNN article
Wow, that was some major league putting down. You stripped them bare and then flogged them with their own words. I am afraid that like an ox they are intellectually insensitive and will barely notice.
i'va biggen: Wow, damn I got a stalker .Who knew it, creepy.
Get over yourself. Even though I don't post here frequently, I do follow the arguments that go on go on. I don't follow a person specifically, but I follow the trend of the arguments. I do this partly to study the opposition. I knew how you'd behave even before I posted on this thread to debate you.
i'va biggen: Typical you answer my questions or else you lose..LOL typical right wing talking point.
My questions are simple, straightforward, and have everything to do with the crux of the argument. The correct answer to those questions destroys the argument that you, and those on your side of the argument, are trying to advance on this thread.
The failure of your side of the argument to answer my questions, per the parameters I set, without the game playing that your side exercise throughout this thread, is evident that you guys are avoiding the questions. You guys would avoid answering the questions when you know that the correct answer harms your arguments.
Asking logical, simple, straightforward questions that challenge the illogic of the opposite side of the argument is an effective strategy. Your side of the argument's failure to answer my questions speaks volumes about the fact that your side of the argument doesn't have confidence in their own arguments.
i'va biggen: Typical right wing BS if anyone disagrees with your radical BS they are automatically a liberal. If you have been following me for so long then you would know I am a independent.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it must be...
Let's visit what you said on this thread before:
"Another shining example of the right wing mantra of it is always someone else's fault" -i'va biggen:
"Typical stupid right wing ploy" - i'va biggen:
"Both you and JD are both right wingers is why you are on the same side of the discussion" - i'va biggen:
"and start your anti democratic rants are typical right wing tactics." - i'va biggen:
"AKA: republican talking points, or drinking the kool aid." - i'va biggen:
Right wingers will defend anything. - i'va biggen:
You've shown a trend where you argued against the conservatives on this thread. If your independent, you'd also be arguing against the people that my side is arguing against. You would've taken a clearly neutral ground where you would've "agreed" to many points on both sides of the argument.
On this thread, as well as on other threads, you've consistently argued the same way that others, that have identified themselves as liberal, have argued. The above quotes clearly show that you are a left-winger.
My position isn't radical, it's center-right. If you had the opinion that I'm a radical when it comes to my beliefs, then it's because you're a radical left-winger.
i'va biggen: One know it all to another???
Wrong. I base my arguments on the facts. These facts are based on both my first-hand experience, as well as on extensive research I've done in this topic. You're basing your arguments on propaganda, and on erroneous information that makes your ego feel good. You're arguing without the support of the facts; therefore, your arguing as a "know it all." I'm arguing as a subject matter expert on this topic. There is no similarity and credibility between the two of us.
i'va biggen: Which one do you want me to?
How about sticking to the argument instead of tap dancing and pulling shit out of your ass constantly?
i'va biggen: Ditto cabbage head.
No similarities in our positions. Your side of the argument, including you, advance baseless, fact deficient, propaganda. My side of the argument is carrying out counter propaganda against your side of the argument. We're doing that with the facts. Your side of the argument argues against what your side of the argument considers as "inconvenient facts."
First, if you feel like I'm rehashing my "talking points," it is because you are repeating your talking points over and over again. So, if you're seeing a response for a third time, it's because you said the same thing three times. If you do not want me to see me repeat a point, quit repeating a point that I've already rebutted.
Second, I take great pleasure in taking your arguments apart. My repeating a counter rebuttal to your rebuttal is part of that pleasure. Your responses don't make me stress out, it's just more fun for me as I have more comments to dismantle.
i'va biggen: Yah I know I saw the mission accomplished sign. (REPEAT POINT)
A lot of people equate that mission accomplished sign as Bush declaring the war over. The vast majority those people have never been in the Navy. That, "Mission Accomplished," sign was something the ship was saying to the world. In order not to use the ships funds, they requested that the White House generate a sign for them.
If you actually listen to the speech that George Bush made on the flight deck, he only declared major combat operations over. And in that same speech, he laid out the fact that we would be facing continued dangers in that country. He also mentioned a timeline for withdrawal, and that was when the country was a strong democracy able to secure itself.
We did precisely that before the timeline of withdrawal called for us to leave.
And get this... prior to my being in the Army, I was in the Navy. I know what I'm talking about here.
Regardless of differences between the two parties, you are arguing the talking points of those that support the Democratic Party. I've argued with people like you over the past decade. There is no difference between your argument, and that of those who actually identified themselves as liberals.
i'va biggen: As the anti democratic anti liberal that you side advanses. There are no differences between the two parties they both suck. (REPEAT POINT)
Actually, there are glaring differences between the two parties. You, as well as others that have argued on your side of the argument, are arguing the talking points advanced by the extreme leftwing of the Democratic Party.
If you're criticizing the Democratic Party, along with the Republican Party, then there's a good chance that you're even further left of the extreme leftwing of the Democratic Party. This makes you a left winger still, but one that's closer to socialism or communism.
There's a good chance that if they both "suck" in your opinion, it's because they're not as far left on the political spectrum as you are.
i'va biggen: You have failed to answer or prove my point was wrong.
I've thoroughly proven your arguments here wrong. All you have to do is look at the posts I've made in response to you. You've neither advanced a real counterargument to my arguments, nor have you provided supporting arguments to the arguments that you are advancing.
You're either repeating yourself, or you're retreating towards a different topic.
No, this isn't a case where "I think" my side one. This is a case where I KNOW that my side won. Your actions, as well as those who are arguing on your side of the argument, shows that your side of the argument is getting destroyed.
First, my questions are being ignored. The reason they're being ignored is that the correct answer to those questions harms the position of your side of the argument.
Second, you're consistently typing responses within a quote, instead of generating a separate post addressing individual quotes from the post that you are responding to. The replies that I'm addressing here, are weaker than the replies that you've previously given in your previous posts.
Third, your side shifts to slightly different topics when confronted with the facts.
Fourth, your side of the argument is using red herrings, strawmen, and other inductive fallacies. You would not be needing those if you are winning this fight. Those are the tools that the losing side of the argument uses.
It's blatantly obvious that my side of the argument is destroying your side of the argument.
Your argument is both a strawman and a red herring, it's a strawman because it deliberately distorts reality and assumes that we are arguing that alternative distorted reality. You're not addressing the actual reality on the ground there. It's a red herring, because it's designed to draw away from the actual argument.
Again:
First, the Iraqis were willing to give us a SOFA agreement. Had the Obama administration been willing to work with the Iraqis, using channels that would've gotten his an SOFA agreement, we would've had that SOFA agreement.
The Iraqis, and the US military, wanted thousands of US troops to remain behind to train and continue to train the Iraqi forces. We were in a position of strength in that negotiation.
Your question assumes a different reality than the one that was actually taken place on the ground.
Second, you're going to have collateral damage in a firefight. When there is property damage, there was compensation process. The Iraqis that had property destroyed as a result of a firefight, or as a result of negligence on the US military's part, were able to file a claim. Once an investigation proved that collateral damage happened as a result of a firefight where the rules of engagement were disregarded, or as a result of negligence, the Iraqi with a property damage grievance was able to get compensated.
A SOFA agreement would've allowed the US military to hold US service members accountable for negligent homicide on the battlefield. This would be applicable if the rules of engagement were violated, as a result of negligence, or as a result of deliberate acts of murder.
Third, we strictly abided by our rules of engagement. These rules of engagement called for engaging only the enemy. The vast majority of the Iraqi population understood that we strictly followed these rules of engagement. In fact, one of our interpreters related a discussion that he had with one of the local Iraqis.
These local Iraqis understood that if the coalition member shot you, it was because you were shooting at them. He contrasted that with what the terrorists would do. They'd Kill you regardless of whether you were there intended target or not.
The current administration had no desire to work with the Iraqi government to extend our SOFA agreement.
Had this administration worked with the Iraqis in getting SOFA, the military leadership deployed to the green zone, and the US ambassador, would've made sure that Al Malaki would've continued to have an inclusive government.
i'va biggen: Your side is famous for drivel.
Don't mistake the facts as "drivel." Your side of the argument, including you, consistently advance drivel. Your arguments are pure rubbish.
i'va biggen: Well we all have our crosses to bear. I have been calling people like you out on their BS for a while, but I will not invest ten years on it. got better things to do.
Don't mistake the facts as BS. I've been calling you out on your BS on this thread, just as I have called out others on their BS for the past decade. I don't see this as a cross to bear, but as a fun packed roller coaster that I ride. I see this as entertainment. I love dismantling your arguments, as well as that of your side of the argument.
I love seeing your reactions, as well as the reactions of those that I argue with this thread. It's the enjoyment that I get from dismantling your BS that contributes greatly to me doing this.
One point that I made by saying that I've been doing this for 10 years, is that I will continue to dismantle the BS that you, and your side of the argument advances for the next 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, etc. I take sadistic pleasure in destroying your side of the argument, and this pleasure never gets tiring.
i'va biggen: I am not responsible for anyone but myself.
It doesn't matter. You're advancing the same baseless rubbish that the others on your side of the argument have been advancing. By arguing with the others on your side of the argument, you make yourself a member of a collective debate target. I will address you guys individually, or as a group.
Bottom line, nobody on your side of the argument has advanced a fact-based argument to justify our changing our positions. Nothing that you guys have said would give any critical thinker any reason to think that you guys have "won," quotations used strongly.
i'va biggen: Ego is not involved This is not a contest, and I don't think I'm wrong. Do you have a ego problem too?
If this isn't a contest, and if you're not going to invest another 10 years in "doing this," then what are you still doing arguing on this thread? Your actions on this thread proves that you're driven by ego. Your ego prevents you from thinking that you're wrong.
It doesn't matter that you don't think that you're wrong, based on what you have said on this thread, I know for a fact that you're wrong. I've consistently advanced a reasoned, logical, fact-based argument proving you wrong.
It's not my problem if you're letting us know, based on your replies on this thread, that you're suffering from cognitive dissonance. The others on your side of the argument are also showing, through their replies, that they're suffering from cognitive dissonance.
And you're wondering why I'm telling you that you lost. People who lose an argument consistently pull the "opinion" card without providing facts, or staying on point. It's easier for them to dismiss the facts as "opinion," because labeling it as an "opinion" puts the fact on the same level as the belief in an alternate universe where unicorns exist.
When the opposition escapes into the "it's an opinion" argument, they're trying to diminish the fact that they're wrong where the other side is right. When it's just an opinion, either one could be right and either one could be wrong.
Unfortunately for you, we're not arguing a grey topic. We're not arguing a topic were either side could be right or either side could be wrong. We are arguing a black and white topic, where one side is right and the other side is wrong. I've seen enough facts to prove my arguments right, and these facts are the main reason that I hold the same argument now that I held prior to the Iraqi invasion.
The justifications that I provided are valid justifications. These justifications were heard before the invasion of Iraq, these justifications showed up repeatedly in my extensive research. The justifications became glaringly obvious when I combat deployed to Iraq.
i'va biggen: Really? interesting.
Yes, "really." Both first-hand experience, and my extensive research, support my argument here. When I was in Iraq, there was no possible way that I would've seen any reality in your side of the arguments position, even if I wanted to "drink the Kool-Aid" in order to see things from your perspective.
The facts simply don't support your side of the argument.
i'va biggen: AKA: republican talking points, or drinking the kool aid.
Wrong, these are facts based on my first-hand observations as well as on my extensive research. Now, if you were this passionate in attacking the left, then those on my side of the argument would easily be able to see you as being an "independent."
The fact that you're showing biase against the right, while showing an absence of that same bias against the left, speaks volumes to the fact that you're a left winger.
You repeated the error that my side of the argument "didn't" prove your side of the argument wrong. You repeated that factually challenged statement, I repeated my rebuttal to it. If you have issues with me repeating my rebuttals, quit repeating yours.
i'va biggen: Yada Yada Yada.
I already know that your retarded. You don't need to open your mouth and prove it to us. Don't fall out the back of the short yellow school bus.
i'va biggen: Works both ways, if you remember it was you who started .
You posted on this thread before I did. I simply jumped in here and rebutted those that I disagreed with. If you never posted a reply here on this thread, I wouldn't be rebutting you on this thread.
i'va biggen: I only had one point that I presented about the OP.
You've presented multiple points on this thread, and when confronted with the facts that destroyed your argument, you presented multiple other points.
i'va biggen: Stunning, and when did you destroy my point? There were others ?
I destroyed every major point that you advanced on this thread. Go back and read every post that I've posted on this thread to see those facts. Yes, you advanced other points. This post is an example of me addressing you point by point. Notice how I am addressing different topic areas when I addressed your different points.
i'va biggen: that is none of your fucking business , and anyone bragging about it on a hooker board...Well I will keep that to myself.
You're going to keep that to yourself because you know for fact that you either didn't serve, or you do have military experience but not the kind that gives you relevance in this argument.
Destroying the arguments advanced by people like you isn't the only pastime that I have. Another pastime that I have is busting valor thieves. I call out people that either claim to have served when they never had served, or people who have served but who are embellishing their service.
Let's just say that I'm one of those who'll defend valor against those who will steal it.
Your comments on this thread argue against you being in the military. If you ever served, you either served completely in the US, or you were mostly in a garrison environment overseas or in the US. You don't sound like an Iraq War Veteran.
Your defensive reply in response to a simple question that I asked you speaks strongly of you being a phony veteran. I've lost count of how many times a person, I knew for a fact was a phony, tell me that his service is not my business.
If you served, then that response is strongly indicative of your not having the military experience that'd give you any standing on this thread.
You responded to somebody else's question on whether you served not. The moment you answered that question, it became my business. Why didn't you tell the other person that it wasn't his business?
The reason that I can see is that it was easy to simply answer "yes" or "no" to the question of whether you served and not. But, start asking the hard questions that other veterans will be able to easily answer? We start having problems. It's like the phony Green Berets that announce that they are "Special forces," but all of the sudden say it's "classified" when you ask them details.
It's "classified" or "non of your business" is a phony or embellisher's way of justifying not being able answer specific questions... questions that those with actual experience would easily be able to answer.
Most of the questions that I've asked you wouldn't provide me that data I need to obtain basic information on your real military service down. For that, I'd need one of two specific pieces of information that I didn't ask here... three if you served prior to a certain time.
Even most of those in our ranks, who are either liberals or oppose the war, would disagree with many of the arguments that you advanced on this thread.
Based on your arguments, and based on your reply to my question, you still don't have a leg to stand on in this argument.
Also, my putting my credentials on the table isn't me "bragging on a whore board." It's me letting you know that 1, I know what I'm talking about and 2, I'm far more qualified to talk about this topic than you are.
Reading your replies to me, as well as the replies of the others that I'm arguing with here, is exactly like listening to Baghdad Bob in this video:
Wrong, We'll defend our position, we're not going to defend "everything" under the sun.
Considering that you rehashed the same propaganda that I've argued against elsewhere on the Internet over the past decade, you can't say that you're not sucking down the party Kool aid. It's blatantly obvious that you're intoxicated on the extreme leftwing Kool-Aid.
You, and the other debaters on your side of the argument, are the ones that are lost. That's what happens when you guys make the effort to track down your lost minds.
How many times are you going to repeat over and over the same thing? This is at least 3-4 I am not going back to count. Seeing you cannot move on after each point has been addressed and bring anything new to the discussion I'm not going through all this again. So now you can claim victory, and your mother will put a gold star next to your name on the fridge.
L'il eva, flighty, WTFagboy, big kotex, assup ridee...
Look! Up in the sky!
herface is a Defense Department welfare queen. Nothing he nor Dick Cheney have said will ever change the fact that nation building if a long term losing proposition for the building country as a whole. It does redistribute wealth from many to a few. herface is part of that few wanting the charity and taxes of others to pay for people like you chickenshitness.
You are fucked.
