In case you haven't noticed, Obama is about to lose Iraq

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Iraq was won the moment we started military operations against that country... which really was a continuous operation since the end of the Gulf War. The moment shock and awe happened, and the US military rolled into Iraq, we won. We won consistently, and soundly, throughout the Iraq operation.

I'm an Iraq War veteran, I combat deployed to Iraq as an infantryman. Based on my own first hand experiences, to include what we saw while we were there, I know for a FACT that the United States military won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory.



Wrong. Those of you that opposed George Bush wanted him to be wrong. You guys; however, were dead wrong.

Again, the "Mission Accomplished" sign on the ship wasn't intended to communicate for George Bush, and it wasn't intended to communicate for the United States military. It was intended to communicate for the ship displaying that banner.

I know. I was in the Navy before I joined the Army. The ships that I was on did the same thing. That banner was intended specifically for the family of the members of the crew, generally for the community surrounding that ship's home port, and loosely for the American public.

If you read the text of his speech he made that day he landed on the flight deck, you'd notice that nowhere in there does he proclaim that the Iraq War was over. He only said major combat operations were over, he never said anything about minor combat operations being over. He also described how it was going to be like over there... to include the "dangerous road ahead" and the fact that we weren't going to leave there until Iraq was stable. That's precisely what happened.

So, those who thought they "knew," quotation marks used strongly, that Bush was "wrong," quotation marks used strongly, simply didn't know what they were thinking... they just ran off with what liberal talking heads said, and allowed the liberal Kool-Aid to be forced down their throats... instead of doing the research necessary to actually know what was going on.



This is an example of a narrative that I'm hearing from liberal propagandists.

When the US military was in Iraq, the military leadership and the US Ambassador made damn sure that al Malaki formed an inclusive government. As the end of 2011 drew near, the Iraqis were becoming more willing to agree on a SOFA. President Obama deliberately didn't want to work with Iraq.

The result? The US military wasn't able to remain behind to put force behind the US Ambassador's will for Iraq to maintain an inclusive government. After the US military left, al Malaki started to arrest key members and to isolate the other groups in favor of his Shiite majority.

That didn't play out very well... it wouldn't have played out at all had Obama worked with the US military and with Iraq, and the Iraqi military would've been able to prevent the terrorists from spilling over.

You're not able to let Obama off the hook on this one. He had a chance to correct his mistakes when the Iraqis, and US organizations, started to raise the alarm about the terrorist groups forming and being able to spread into Iraq in the face of the decline of the quality of their security forces.

Strange, I did the opposite. Two years in the army before a career in the navy. I have said repeatedly that the banner came from the ship's Welfare and Rec fund (not the White House) and was to commemorate the end of the deployment but they will not listen even though my personal source was on the Lincoln at the time in the CPO mess.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Don't worry, AssupRidee, DEM, DOTY 2013-2014. Your title is secure..

Brought to us by the Dipshit who actually started a Dipshit of the Year poll and nominated himself to be a leading contender for the throne!

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

LMAO her ass chair is trying his/her ass off for the dumbest mother fucker on the board award. The babbling/ parroting idiot is really pathetic. Even the other right wingers should bitch slap him/her it is making the rest look bad....

I suspect he (or she) is LLIdiot's Grandson (or Granddaughter).

That being the case it would stand to reason that JDIdiot would be his (or her) "Poppy."

That would certainly explain his (or her) recent fascination with both LLIdiot and JDIdiot.

He (or she) appears to have been cut from their same cloth.

What do they ALL have in common?

1) They will not accept blame!

2) They refuse to take no for an answer!

3) They love to lecture (at great length) about their extremely limited and distorted world view!

4) They have each chosen to lecture the world from a user friendly pulpit on a hooker board!

Repent o' Sinners!

As LLIdiot would say: "Carry On!"

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

I suspect ..... [/B][/SIZE]

Are you retreating from your "beliefs"?

BTW: You still "believing" the "mission" of the "inspectors" was ...


.... to ONLY FIND NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

At least you admitted you were ok with the 2003 invasion, EXCEPT ..

... it was started six months too early!!!!

CARRY ON! In your deluded world of "make believe"!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

The Bush Administration handed a succeeding operation to the Obama Administration. .

Evidently herface needs a refresher on the facts. Not the GOP talking points.

Originally Posted by WTF

You do not have a clue as to what was happening behind the scenes....Someone please quote so JD Cornhole can see what a complete tool he is.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2011/12/how-maliki-and-iran-outsmarted-the-us-on-troop-withdrawal/

The real story behind the U.S. withdrawal is how a clever strategy of deception and diplomacy adopted by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in cooperation with Iran outmanoeuvered Bush and the U.S. military leadership and got the United States to sign the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement....


...Publicly, the Maliki government continued to assure the Bush administration it could count on a long-term military presence. Asked by NBC’s Richard Engel on Jan. 24, 2008 if the agreement would provide long-term U.S. bases in Iraq, Zebari said, “This is an agreement of enduring military support. The soldiers are going to have to stay someplace. They can’t stay in the air.”
Confident that it was going to get a South Korea-style SOFA, the Bush administration gave the Iraqi government a draft on Mar. 7, 2008 that provided for no limit on the number of U.S. troops or the duration of their presence. Nor did it give Iraq any control over U.S. military operations.
But Maliki had a surprise in store for Washington.
A series of dramatic moves by Maliki and Iran over the next few months showed that there had been an explicit understanding between the two governments to prevent the U.S. military from launching major operations against the Mahdi Army and to reach an agreement with Sadr on ending the Mahdi Army’s role in return for assurances that Maliki would demand the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces.



....In July, he revealed that his government was demanding the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops on a timetable.
The Bush administration was in a state of shock. From July to October, it pretended that it could simply refuse to accept the withdrawal demand, while trying vainly to pressure Maliki to back down.
In the end, however, Bush administration officials realised that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who was then far ahead of Republican John McCain in polls, would accept the same or an even faster timetable for withdrawal. In October, Bush decided to sign the draft agreement pledging withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of 2011.
The ambitious plans of the U.S. military to use Iraq to dominate the Middle East militarily and politically had been foiled by the very regime the United States had installed, and the officials behind the U.S. scheme, had been clueless about what was happening until it was too late.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Now THAT'S funny! Reminds me of the crook who assured everyone that "I am not a crook." He didn't fool anyone, and neither do you. WPF!

Quit talking about your crooked self in the third person...

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Now THAT'S funny! Reminds me of the dipshit who assured everyone that "I am not a dipshit." He didn't fool anyone, and neither do you, Whiny!

Too good not to fix!

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Brought to us by the Dipshit who actually started a Dipshit of the Year poll and nominated himself to be a leading contender for the throne!



I suspect he (or she) is LLIdiot's Grandson (or Granddaughter).

That being the case it would stand to reason that JDIdiot would be his (or her) "Poppy."

That would certainly explain his (or her) recent fascination with both LLIdiot and JDIdiot.

He (or she) appears to have been cut from their same cloth.

What do they ALL have in common?

1) They will not accept blame!

2) They refuse to take no for an answer!

3) They love to lecture (at great length) about their extremely limited and distorted world view!

4) They have each chosen to lecture the world from a user friendly pulpit on a hooker board!

Repent o' Sinners!

As LLIdiot would say: "Carry On!"

You know you've justed described Barack Obama. With the exception of the hooker board (and we've been very suspicious of FuckZup for some time now) you've laid out the narcissitic profile of your beloved POTUS.

Was that a Freudian slip?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Was that a Freudian slip?

Not a freudian slip but a comforting dose of reality. The description was of the Notorious Idiot Klan, errrrr Clan from the Patriarch on down to the youngest of the Idiot youngerlings.

Truth hurts, doesn't it Idiot's?

As your Patriarch, LLIdiot would say, ""Carry on"!

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Too good not to fix!

Change the post all you want, Assup. You can't change the truth.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You can't change the truth.

That is absolutely, 100% accurate!

The truth is:

Hanoi COG started a Dipshit of the Year poll and nominated himself to be a leading contender for the throne!

You can't change the truth when the truth clearly has your fingerprints all over it.

Can ya Dipshit COG?

[IIFFOFRDB]

Thanks for servings, herfacechair, JD, JackieS, my son and all war veterans. Thanks to all who served! This video made my allergies act up.





So does this one.

[herfacechair]

BANG! GOT ONE!

ROTFLMFAO! Thanks for the good laugh! Again, there's a purpose behind everything that I do in a post. Every word, sentence, paragraph, concept, etc., is designed to do something to the opposition. Destroying your argument is just the surface of my intent with my posts.

In your case, it's working beautifully. You've adopted the tactic that a complete loser adapts in an argument... You've resorted solely to insults without even addressing any of the arguments that I advance my replies to you.

Gidyup Gay Ridden: HERASSMENT ... This might be the biggest blowhard motherfucker on the board.

By blowhard motherfucker, you actually mean a debater that effectively destroys your arguments no matter which way you turn. There's nothing in any of my replies here that constitutes bluster or boasting. Its simply me telling it like it is and/or presenting the facts.

You're not the first one to breakdown and emotionally rant about me being a "blowhard." And given the nature of the hobby that where in, I take being called a "motherfucker" a compliment. You do realize that many of the women that provide a service here are mothers do you?

In the combat and combat support communities, swearwords are actually terms of endearment that service members use on each other.

Now, if you're referencing my post lengths, be glad that I have written "relatively little" compared to what I've normally done in the past. None of my single posts on this thread have reached 20 Microsoft Word pages long. In the past, my replies have ranged from over 20 Microsoft Word pages to approximately 90 Microsoft Word pages... In a single post.

That's a far better option than quitting an argument. You should be happy that I've kept my posts here relatively short.

Gidyup Gay Ridden: Everything that's arrogant, annoying, intolerant, ignorant, irresponsible, rude and irritating about everybody you find distasteful in this forum is stuffed into one bucket of shit... And then some. No matter which way you lean.

Like other people on the left that I have debated, you have this tendency to project your own traits, or the traits of those on your side the argument, on to someone on my side the argument.

Arrogance is what drives you, and those on your side of the argument, to continue debating on this thread long after you guys have been defeated. Arrogance causes you to resort to ad homonyms instead of taking the honorable act of ceding this argument.

Arrogance drives you to ignore my questions, simple and straightforward questions that call your own arguments into question.

Annoying? The one main action that I'm taking on this thread is to consistently dismantle your opinions. Arrogance drives your actions on this thread and finds my persistence "annoying."

There's nothing intolerant in my posts. I'm simply being thorough in my taking your arguments apart. You in the other hand have demonstrated intolerance to those who do not agree with your side of the argument.

For someone to be ignorant, they have to not be aware of the facts. My arguments are based on the facts, they're also based on my first-hand experience. When I argue based on the facts, you have no legs to stand on to tell me that I'm being "ignorant."

In fact, the fact that my argument seems to be alien to you is powerful proof that you're the ignorant person in this exchange. Those on your side of the argument are also ignorant of the facts.

Irresponsible? I'll tell you what irresponsible would be, irresponsible will be my failure to come here to dismantle your arguments. Your side of the argument, including you, are being irresponsible by arguing a propaganda despite the facts that destroy your propaganda.

Rude? In the threads prior to my jumping on this thread, and on this thread, you've shown rudeness to those on my side of the argument. Your completely breaking down with his current post and resorting to name-calling is a perfect example of someone being rude. It's also perfect example of someone that lost the argument. Do yourself a favor and read up on articles on the Internet that talk about people the resort to name-calling as their main reply.

Irritating? What's irritating about my doing on this thread what you've done in multiple threads? You've replied to other people in other threads consistently. I'm doing the same thing. What's irritating about me doing something to you that you do to others?

But, I could understand why the facts are irritating to you. They seriously harm your argument. The facts hurt your ego in a way that you can't handle.

Distasteful? What I find distasteful is your attitude, as well as the attitude of those on your side the argument, against the veterans on this thread who have experiences related to the topics on this thread.

Instead of thanking us for providing you a factual perspective that you won't get in the news, you people attack us and act as if the propaganda sources that you people refer to for your news is the "real thing."

Distasteful is continuing an argument that your side of the argument lost, even to the point of resorting to attacks as the main portion of your argument.

The only bucket of shit that I see here are the collective posts made by those in your side of the argument including you. You people have consistently failed to defend your argument, or to prove ours "wrong."

Gidyup Gay Ridden: Come on, herassment, argue with every single fucking word of this post, like anybody wants to read it.

That's like telling the sun to go ahead and "rise" in the morning. You know that I'm going to dismantle your opinion point by point. You don't need to tell me to do something that I already intend to do.

I could tell by your response that I'm getting deep underneath your skin with the way I replied to your posts.

Gidyup Gay Ridden: JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOU'D SEEN THE APEX OF DIPSHITTERY, ANOTHER ONE RISES FROM THE OOZE!

Yup, I definitely got you.

You've degenerated to the point to where you are repeating the same insult concepts within the same post. Knowing that, you resorted to the "all capitalization" mode. I could tell that with each time you read my replies, or each time you see my replies, that your blood boils and your blood vessels go to the point of popping.

You appear to be the most thin-skinned among the opposition on this thread. With skillful use of selected words, I'm spinning you like a top. Do realize that after I hit reply, I laugh in anticipation of how you're going to react to my posts. You never disappoint.

Even after I explain all of this, you consistently react the way I want you to react. It doesn't help that you have a thin-skin; you have a largely absent one brain celled activity.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

BTW -- I predict he'll be back every day this week to continue his arguing over his debating tactics.

Please, herassment, prove me wrong.

() YES. () NO

Please prove me wrong by staying out of my booby traps!

What I've said earlier in this thread:

"Those ploys never worked with me. The sooner they realize that my reply to them is almost as guaranteed as death or taxes, the better for their credibility. " -herfacechair

And I also said this with regards to complaints about me replying:

"Here's how it works. Let "X" be your reply to me. Let "Y" be my reply to you. What's happening here is this: "If 'X,' then 'Y.'"

"Meaning, if you rebut something that I said, you could always count on me counter rebutting your rebuttal. This'll keep going on until you take the "X" out of the "If 'X,' then 'Y,'" relationship." -herfacechair

You're essentially begging me to not reply to you. As I've repeatedly indicated on this thread, that's not how I do business. Granted, I could do this every day like I have done in the past. Or, I could do what I have told numerous other people in the past:

Even if I don't reply to you today, tonight, the next day, the next week, the next month, the next year, etc., do know that I will be back to reply to you. Again, my replies to you are almost as guaranteed as your death or most people's tax bills.

You can't claim that you predicted that I would do this based on anything other than what I have stated, and what I have done. It's like you predicting that the sun will "rise" in the east.

Your statement doesn't constitute a booby-trap, it represents a futile attempt to get me to do what you want my side of the argument to do. I have news for you: that's not happening!

Gidyup Gay Ridden: Wait s second! You mentioned him by name!

[color=blue]No, he didn't mention me by name.

Gidyup Gay Ridden: Does this mean you fell into another of his intricately conceived and skillfully laid BOOBY TRAPS?

You aren't the only one that fell for my verbal booby-traps. Everyone in the opposition on this thread fell for at least one of my booby-traps. Not only have you fallen for them, but you're bouncing around in the booby trapped field, tap dancing in them, and reacting accordingly. Your replies make me laugh.

Gidyup Gay Ridden: (SNIP)

I'm going to tell you the same thing I told other people that asked me a question while failing to answer mine. Until you answer my straightforward, non-strawman, non-red herring, relevant questions, you don't have a leg to stand on asking me any questions of your own.

Besides, your questions don't do the same thing my questions do. For instance, you ask if Socrates "is" a mortal. If you're talking about Socrates that we're mostly familiar with, the appropriate question should've been, "Was Socrates a mortal?"

Your other question dealing with veterans. I've repeatedly argued that specific veterans, who have combat deployed to Iraq, generally have a better vantage point in this argument than those who did not go to Iraq. Nowhere in this thread did I argue that only veterans understand or know foreign policy.

Your questions are either red herrings, strawmen, or inductive fallacy questions addressing something that I didn't even argue.

Now, the question you keep ignoring:

"JD barleycorn and I are war veterans from conflict that took place in the part of the world. None of you guys have indicated that you have similar experiences." -herfacechair

Which leads to the question:

Where, in my posts here, did I claim to be the ONLY veteran?

I know for fact that you can look at that question, and the preceding quotes, and realize that you're wrong. You're understandably, and rightfully, feeling embarrassed because of that mistake. If you choose to ignore that question then consider this question:

Where you wrong when you accused me of claiming to be the only veteran on the board? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste that question, along with those "yes" and "no" options to your reply. Put an "X" in the bracket that represents your reply. Spare me any additional nonsense that you're going to want to add to this question.

if you reply to me while failing to answer this question per the parameters that I set, I'm going to consistently ask you these same questions.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Strange, I did the opposite. Two years in the army before a career in the navy. I have said repeatedly that the banner came from the ship's Welfare and Rec fund (not the White House) and was to commemorate the end of the deployment but they will not listen even though my personal source was on the Lincoln at the time in the CPO mess.

I've heard both, that it came from the ship, or that it came from the White House as a gift to the ship. Either way, if your personal source on the Lincoln says that the ship paid for it, then I'll run with that. The mere fact that it came from that ships' MWR funds speaks strongly to the argument that the ship was talking about its own mission, not that of the entire US military... it further weakens the argument that the "Mission Accomplished" sign "was" about Iraq.

Commemorating the end of the deployment makes perfect sense, as the ships that I was on did something similar at the end of our deployments.

These idiots don't care about firsthand experience explaining the "Mission Accomplished" sign. They're invested in the propaganda... not even supported by researchable information... that they could care less if people who were actually in the Navy tell them otherwise.

The mere fact that both of us, also Navy Veterans, former fleet sailors, who'd know what that sign actually meant based on our own experiences, isn't going to phase them either way. Their arrogance is such that they'll cling tenaciously to the propaganda that they believe in simply because they have a deep seated, irrational hatred for the last real president this country had... President Bush... while refusing to listen to common sense.

Guaranteed, if they were arguing on a topic where they had firsthand experiences, they'd push those first hand experiences and do exactly what we're doing on this thread.

[herfacechair]

i'ma beggin for dick: LMAO

I seriously doubt that you're laughing. You're actually pissed that I'm constantly hammering you guys when you'd rather I let your BS stand. But like anything else that you said on this thread, you're full of shit if you want any of us to believe that you're laughing.

i'ma beggin for dick: her ass chair is trying his/her ass off for the dumbest mother fucker on the board award.

The only dummies that post on this thread are those that can't answer my simple questions. You guys advance an argument that's based purely on propaganda. My side of the argument destroyed your side of the arguments' position with facts.

In fact, the way you try to dismiss my actual statement proves that you're liberal. One common tactic that liberals use is to accuse those, who destroy their argument, as being "dumb," or any other similar term. Thanks for proving Ann Coulter right about you liberals:

"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have "racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple them." -Ann Coulter

You label anybody, that destroys your argument, as being dumb, just like a kid on the playground that had just lost an argument to another kid. You liberals act like these playground children when you resort to calling people dumb.

That makes you rather juvenile.

i'ma beggin for dick: The babbling/

Again, this is a typical defense that teenagers, who think they know everything, use when their wiser parents try to give them a clue. Like them, you dismiss a valid argument by accusing the one giving the argument as doing nothing but "babbling," quotation marks used strongly. Once again, you proved to be rather juvenile.

i'ma beggin for dick: parroting idiot is really pathetic.

You're the one that keeps repeating your disproven points. I called you out on that earlier on this thread. The others on your side of the argument have also consistently repeated their disproven points. This is why I've identified you guys as sounding like a parrot.

i'ma beggin for dick: Even the other right wingers should bitch slap him/her it is making the rest look bad....

Yup, continue ranting like a child with gibberish that doesn't make sense to any rational reader. I could tell by your reactions, as well as that of the others on your side of the argument, that your "intellect" has bitch smacked you guys so hard that even you guys realize that you lost this argument.

Your arrogance, as well as that of those on your side of the argument, continue to refuse to admit defeat. You people lash back with the erroneous assumption that your childish wordings would "score" you points.

Well, it doesn't work that way. You people's childish rants only tells my side of the argument that you guys lost miserably, and you people are reacting like juveniles in the face of defeat. With that being said, here is something that you keep running away from:

Once again, you were wrong about what you said with regards to what you were going to do. I was right about what you were going to do. Even when it comes to your actions, you're wrong and I'm right. If you can't get straight what you're going to say, what makes you think that anything else that you talk about is going to be right?

So I'va biggen, were you wrong about you being finished with this "discussion"? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Simply copy and paste this question, and the "yes" and "no" option to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Add no further nonsense to your reply.

[herfacechair]

bigtex: I suspect he (or she) is LLIdiot's Grandson (or Granddaughter).

Thanks for proving how stupid you, and those on your side of the argument, are.

First, both my grandfathers have passed on, one last century, one early this century. This means that if IB is posting here, then obviously he isn't my grandfather. Pardon me if that simple logic caused your brains to hurt really bad.

Second, my username, as well as my reviews, should tell you what my gender is. The mere fact that you people can't guess my gender speaks volumes to your failure at doing simple research. This also explains why you guys are easily gullible, hence are susceptible to propaganda... you people don't do any research.

bigtext: That being the case it would stand to reason that JDIdiot would be his (or her) "Poppy."

Again, this is where simple common sense destroys your illogic. My dad passed away last century. If JD is posting here, then obviously he's not my dad. Pardon me if that simple logic has given you a migraine.

Also, if you've read his posts, he deployed during the Gulf War, so there's a good chance that he's closer to me in age group than to my parents'.

Again, simple research... heck, paying attention to what's being said on these threads, would've prevented you from making an erroneous assumption. You can't even do research when it comes to things that are available on this message board.

And you're wondering why those on my side of the argument are destroying your arguments? :roll:

bigtext: That would certainly explain his (or her) recent fascination with both LLIdiot and JDIdiot.

What fascination? Arguing from their side of the argument doesn't constitute being fascination with them. Referring to one or the other doesn't constitute fascination. I'm more focused on dismantling your arguments, as well as those arguments advanced by your allies on this thread.

bigtext: He (or she) appears to have been cut from their same cloth.

By your logic, you, I'ma beggin for dick, Will Taste Fags, Gidyup Gay Ridden, etc., are all cut from the same cloth. Also, by your own logic, you guys are part of a paternal lineage.

bigtext: What do they ALL have in common?

The ability to research the facts, the ability to call BS on propaganda that your allies and you fall for hook, line, and sinker, the ability to destroy your side of the argument's illogic, etc...

bigtext: 1) They will not accept blame!

Correction, our side of the argument will pin the blame where it belongs... despite you people's efforts to blame your dear leader's issues on his predecessor. Also, your side of the argument's failure to answer my questions is related to your side of the arguments' not being able to accept blame.

You people refuse to recognize where your dear leader should be blamed, you people refuse to admit to your errors.

bigtext: 2) They refuse to take no for an answer!

If by "refusing to take no," you mean, refusing to let your BS stand when you'd rather we stop, then yeah, we're going to refuse to let your BS stand. We're not trying to change your mind, we're just waging war on your credibility.

bigtext: 3) They love to lecture (at great length)

Correction, we love to say as much as needs to be said to prove your arguments wrong. You complain about us "lecturing" you guys at great length, but fail to see you, and your side of the argument, attempting to lecture us, showing us how smart you people aren't.

bigtext: about their extremely limited and distorted world view!

If the facts dictate a specific event, or specific process, and if they don't support the wild fairy tale that you people believe, we're going by what the facts dictate to us. What you dismiss as a "limited" and "distorted" world view is based on first hand observations that aren't filtered... like your information sources.

For instance, the Iraq War. My first hand experience has given me a 360 degree panoramic view of a topic where your side has only read or heard accounts given by a journalist looking at that same scene through the end of a straw.

The cold hard reality is that you people have argued, on this thread, from an extremely limited and distorted world view, based on a description of someone looking through a straw... yet arrogantly insisted that our 360 view of that same scene is "limited" and "distorted."

This is another example of you people projecting your own traits onto us.

bigtext: 4) They have each chosen to lecture the world from a user friendly pulpit on a hooker board!

Says the guy that posts volumes of his nonsense, showing the world how smart he isn't. :roll:

Here's the reality... we've chosen to fact check you people, as your arguments are fact deficient. You people failed to fact check your propaganda sources. You subsequently ran with their propaganda, like the gullible idiots you people are, while erroneously assuming that you people were "right," quotation marks used strongly.

That's yet another form of desperation. Since you took a swipe at me, I'm going to go back and ask you questions that you keep ignoring:

"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)

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

And these two:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq

"This nation, in world war and in cold war, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom and help OTHERS to find FREEDOM of their own." -- George Bush, 2002 (Emphasis mine)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/text-of-...un-12-09-2002/

"Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without FREEDOM for both sides." -- George Bush, 2002 (Emphasis mine)

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.