What bothers me about the Dems right now....

parados wrote:

A Lone Voice wrote:
parados wrote:
A Lone Voice wrote:

I take it that is your responses?

Most impressive.

And typical. In your arrogance, have you forgot how to reason?

Did you forget how to read as well as reason?

Read my second post before you post such nonsense.

When you can point to the logical conclusions based on sound reasoning in your original post we can discuss reason and arrogance. Until then you don't have much of a leg to stand on and deserve the ridicule you are getting.

parados wrote:
Quote:
Tell me where I'm wrong. Tell me what happens, if Petraeus begins to find success, and it looks like our military is starting to turn a corner.

This would be which number corner that we are starting to turn? 12? 48?

This boondoogle has been nothing but "turning the corner" which keeps taking us right back to nowhere.

We have heard the "starting to turn the corner" nonsense far too many times to accept it on face value. The violence calmed for a week before picking up again this weekend. Did we turn another corner?

This would be your paragon of insightfulness?
And you seem to not understand one bit of it. Tell us how many times this administration has promised we have turned the corner. Tell us how many times they have been right. Why is this time different?

Quote:

Are you avoiding my question?
Do you beat your wife? Why are you avoiding my question? Your original supposition is a false one.

Quote:

The change in topic you are trying to invoke in my post is obvious; I'll even agree with you for a moment; how many times will the military try to turn the corner?
Who said anything about the military turning the corner?

Quote:

Being the military, they will continue to try to turn the corner until they win, or are ordered to retreat. We would expect nothing less.
Being the military they will keep marching off the cliff as long as the idiots in the administration keep ordering them too. That is what the military does. They try to follow orders. I have a problem with the idiots that fail to plan and then promise a glowing outcome. The military seemed to be against the present surge until ordered to support it.

Quote:

But how about we return to my topic, your efforts at avoidance not withstanding.
Return to what topic? Your complete lack of any logical argument? You deny it when it is pointed out to you.

Quote:

How will you react IF 'the corner is turned'?
I will be elated and astounded. There is one small problem with the supposition. It fails the test of a logical evaluation. Previous surges didn't work. Every time we have been told the "next thing that happens will turn the corner", it hasn't worked. Your argument is not from strong position but one of "sooner or later we have to get lucky'. It doesn't work that way in planning. Following a plan that didn't work before doesn't give you a much of chance for it to work now.

Quote:

What if the US military starts winning?
The problem has nothing to do with the US military losing. It has to do with the politicians losing. The military isn't going to lose its battles but they can't force democracy on anyone.

Quote:

Will you rejoyce? Will you panic? Will you say it doesn't make any difference at this point, the war was wrong to begin with and winning isn't justified?
You are confused. Tell me when the military has lost. I am happy when they win. I am tired of them winning at the present cost when there is no reasonable political plan to make Iraq stable.

Quote:

I can understand dems rallying against 'The Surge.' Really. Mostly for the reasons you state; how many more people are going to be killed and injured in a losing cause? I think they are being disingenueous, though, by making their vote non-binding.

But since they seem to not have the gumption to cut funding for the war (an interesting strategy in itself), the surge will happen. Petraeus will take command.

And this being war and all, we really don't know what will happen.

But I think I know what some of you will be rooting for.

No? Splain me...
You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Do you think it is OK to say someone supports something when you have no evidence that they are? Your entire supposition is stupid. Your arguments show a complete lack of any intelligence. Do you support the killing American troops? That is the reverse of your silly argument. Should we discuss how your goal is to get thousands upon thousands of US troops killed and there is no other possible reason for you to support the surge? You obviously are so blinded by your idealogy you can't see the complete lack of any integrity in your original statements.

Sadly, you have no idea of my IDEOLOGY (I spelled it correctly for you, genius). Like most narrow minded individuals, you march lockstep with the fascists who paint with such a broad brush they lose sight of the individual. You know, the kind of person who would put a person like me in a camp for reeducation.

Or as my buddy would say, you're a hater.

Gosh, looks like we have sunk to the typical low-level A2k pissing contest, doesn't it?

Hey, I'm glad you say you hope the military will win in Iraq.

By the way, you are number three.

The dems of A2K have filled up eight pages with responses, and you are the third person who has actually said they hope the US military is successful...

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Anybody who's watched Bush create all the problems for Americans and many around this world, no amount of detailed list of Bush failures will mean anything to the likes of Brandon.

It isn't enough that the majority of Americans view Bush as incompetent and a failure in his execution of the Iraq war.

Exactly as I predicted, you changed the subject from supporting your statement about Bush to me.

Interesting that if he's the worst president in history, you refuse to engage in the slightest debate about it.

You say that no amount of detailed listing of Bush's failures will impress me, and that is exactly what you provide, none. According to the liberals, it's already been proven in some past posts you won't specify. The truth is that you cannot support your view.

Quote:

It isn't enough that the majority of Americans view Bush as incompetent and a failure in his execution of the Iraq war.

The argument that "I'm right because many people agree with me" is obviously invalid. This is what you get when you ask exactly what Bush did wrong - subject changes and classic false arguments.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
How can Bush look any worse than he does now? The majority of Americans disapprove of the way Bush has managed this war. Bush is now working on his legacy; probably hit the bottom of the pile in two more years of incompetence and mismanagement.

I'd ask you to, rather than talk about polls, debate exactly what Bush has done wrong, and actually support your points, but I know what sort of evasive response I'd get - the kind of answer liberals virtually always give when asked this question, a subject change.

1. Bush failed to look ALL the evidence on WMD in Iraq or inform the public of that evidence. (See the many reports since that point to the failure to consider the evidence that didn't support the invasion.)

The ambiguity of the evidence, Hussein's long pattern of hiding WMD evidence and obstructing inspectors, and the consequences of a Saddam Hussein with nukes and/or bioweapons combined to make invasion necessary.

parados wrote:

2. Bush failed to listen to military commanders that said he needed MORE troops for the war. (See the testimony to Congress before the war.)
3. Bush failed to implement a reasonable plan for securing Iraq after the invasion. (The plans existed but were ignored and not implemented. They call for 1 soldier for every 50 inhabitants for security.) See this from 2004
Bosnia to Belfast
4. Bush kept incompetent people in positions after they obviously failed and let them continue with their failed policies.

These points may be correct, but they hardly make him the monster the liberals like to paint him as.

parados wrote:

Why don't you do your usual schtick Brandon... We all know it well.

I am doing my usual shtick - trying to get posters whom I disagree with to support their views with actual arguments and with a little dignity.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
I've never claimed to be tongue-in-cheek, nor have I ever claimed to be honest. So MM you're wrong on both counts, as usual. Your applause is shrill din to my ears.

Then we are to believe that everything you have said or will say is a lie?
Since you never claimed to be honest,that must mean that you are an admitted liar,and everything you have ever said is to be considered a lie.

Now we all know what kind of person you actually are.

snicker snicker

Now there's an airtight argument if I ever heard one.

0 Replies

Lone Voice,

Your ideology is clear. You made it clear in your first post with this..

Quote:

This is aimed more at the dems who have the failure of the US military as a big part of their future game plan. The dems who NEED the military to slink out of Iraq, defeated and unsuccessful. The ones who are planning campaigns on the failure of the US in Iraq.

Please provide some support to back up this strawman. You have not done so. It has been pointed out your position is ludicrous. In reality you can't find a single person hoping for a military loss in Iraq. You have had a number of people make fun of your silly position.

Lets assume Bush sent someone to a gun fight with only a knife does that mean anyone that says they shouldn't be there wants them to lose? Not at all. It means some people recognize someone is ill equiped for what they are being asked to do. The military can't solve the problem in Iraq. It is political in nature. Sending more troops won't change the politics.

Of course you trot out more of your ideology with this silly argument.

Quote:

Like most narrow minded individuals, you march lockstep with the fascists who paint with such a broad brush they lose sight of the individual. You know, the kind of person who would put a person like me in a camp for reeducation.

Really? Care to tell me where I have said you should be locked up? I said you have stupid ideas. That is hardly the same as saying you should be locked up? Who is the narrow minded one here LV? Who is making outlandish statements without any evidence? Who is using a broad brush and losing sight of individuals. Go back and read your first post before you accuse others of being narrow minded.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

The ambiguity of the evidence, Hussein's long pattern of hiding WMD evidence and obstructing inspectors, and the consequences of a Saddam Hussein with nukes and/or bioweapons combined to make invasion necessary.

parados wrote:
2. Bush failed to listen to military commanders that said he needed MORE troops for the war. (See the testimony to Congress before the war.)
3. Bush failed to implement a reasonable plan for securing Iraq after the invasion. (The plans existed but were ignored and not implemented. They call for 1 soldier for every 50 inhabitants for security.) See this from 2004
Bosnia to Belfast
4. Bush kept incompetent people in positions after they obviously failed and let them continue with their failed policies.

These points may be correct, but they hardly make him the monster the liberals like to paint him as.

They make him an incompetent fool that sends people off to die without caring enough to do his job. That is monster enough.

Quote:

parados wrote:
Why don't you do your usual schtick Brandon... We all know it well.

I am doing my usual shtick - trying to get posters whom I disagree with to support their views with actual arguments and with a little dignity.

Uh uh.. so when are you going to support your statement that I bolded?
Your shtick Brandon is to require others to do more than you ever even attempt. You are doing that shtick.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

...Uh uh.. so when are you going to support your statement that I bolded? Your shtick Brandon is to require others to do more than you ever even attempt. You are doing that shtick.

As soon as you bold some of my statements or ask me to support an assertion of mine. I will not, however, allow anyone to justify his unsupported assertions by requiring that I disprove them.

I always give an argument or citations for my assertions, at least upon request, which is what I also expect from others. The only time when I do not do this is when the request appears to be designed to waste my time and not a fair debating request - e.g. if someone said something like "check these 30 links and prove them wrong." If someone tells me that president Bush lied, it is perfectly normal and fair for me to ask for an example of the lie, and then to ask for the other poster to respond to any reasonable dsagreements I have with his arguments. I have certainly never asserted that someone lied or that someone is the worst example of something without specifying exactly what I mean.

Indeed, I do exactly what I ask others to do. You guys always have to change the topic of discussion to your debating opponent because your actual case is so weak.

0 Replies

Omg.. you are so PREDICTABLE Brandon.. Rather than dealing with my argument you jumped right to making out how holier than others you are by dealing with the arguments. Quite funny really. The irony was quite delicious. I bet I laughed for 5 minutes over your claim you ALWAYS provide an argument or citations.

This one is priceless Brandon..

Quote:

I have certainly never asserted that someone lied or that someone is the worst example of something without specifying exactly what I mean.

I am unclear what you mean by this statement?

Quote:

As soon as you bold some of my statements or ask me to support an assertion of mine.

Are you denying you said the statement that I bolded?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Omg.. you are so PREDICTABLE Brandon.. Rather than dealing with my argument you jumped right to making out how holier than others you are by dealing with the arguments. Quite funny really. The irony was quite delicious. I bet I laughed for 5 minutes over your claim you ALWAYS provide an argument or citations. This one is priceless Brandon..

You seem unable to simply debate the topic with a modicum of dignity. You'd obviously rather turn it into some childish discussion of personalities.

parados wrote:

Quote:
I have certainly never asserted that someone lied or that someone is the worst example of something without specifying exactly what I mean.

I am unclear what you mean by this statement?

Contrary to your assertion that I ask for a standard of debate which I do not myself provide, I am asserting that I do not make accusations of lying, or of someone being a disgrace, without at least giving an example of the lie or of how the person is a disgrace,

parados wrote:

Quote:
As soon as you bold some of my statements or ask me to support an assertion of mine.
Are you denying you said the statement that I bolded?

No, I couldn't find any statement of mine that you bolded. Now I have located it.

Quote:

The ambiguity of the evidence, Hussein's long pattern of hiding WMD evidence and obstructing inspectors, and the consequences of a Saddam Hussein with nukes and/or bioweapons combined to make invasion necessary.

This consists of three separate assertions:

1. The evidence concerning the existence of WMD and/or programs was ambiguous.
2. Hussein had a long pattern of hiding evidence and obstructing inspectors.
3. There would be serious consequences (probably) to a Saddam Hussein armed with nuke and bioweapons.

As for #2, here are a couple of examples:

Quote:

June 1997- Iraqi escorts on board an UNSCOM helicopter try to physically prevent the UNSCOM pilot from flying the helicopter in the direction of its intended destination.

June 21, 1997- Iraq again blocks UNSCOM teams from entering certain sites for inspection.

June 21, 1997- The Security Council adopts Resolution 1115, which condemns Iraq's actions and demands that Iraq allow UNSCOM's team immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any sites for inspection and officials for interviews (emphasis added).

September 13, 1997- An Iraqi officer attacks an UNSCOM inspector on board an UNSCOM helicopter while the inspector was attempting to take photographs of unauthorized movement of Iraqi vehicles inside a site designated for inspection.

September 17, 1997- While seeking access to a site declared by Iraq to be "sensitive," UNSCOM inspectors witness and videotape Iraqi guards moving files, burning documents, and dumping ash-filled waste cans into a nearby river.

Source

As for #3, Saddam Hussein was an evil man who had twice tried to annex neighbors. Had he come into possession of these weapons and the means to make more, he could either have vaporized cities of enemies, or at least used the knowledge of his weapons to force neighboring countries to give in to various demands.

As for #1, if you seriously maintain that the evidence was unambiguous, I will try to provide some evidence that it was ambiguous. I have stuff going on at home that I have to at least temporarily pay attention to.

0 Replies

None of the 3 lead to invasion being "necessary". Invasion was a choice but it was hardly "necessary."

1. Ambiguous evidence doesn't lead to one choice. It leads to many choices. The primary choice would be to find better information.

2. Saddam's long pattern of hiding evidence and obstructing inspectors doesn't lead to one choice. Again it leads to many. "Trust but verify" comes to mind. (Your arguments from 1997 were not current with the circumstances in 2003. One could as easily list Bush's drinking and driving charges from the 60's as evidence he still does it but it doesn't make it true. )

3. Saddam having nukes is not an argument. It is a scare tactic. Anyone having nukes could lead to wrong consequences. That doesn't lead to the necessary choice of imprisoning anyone and everyone that even mentions nukes. The lack of evidence of nukes does not lead to an invasion as the only necessary solution. In the 12 years since Saddam was ordered to destroy his WMD he had not annexed or threatened anyone. It appears that the current containment was working. Again, you use out of date facts to try to support your "necessary" invasion.

Your case of events leading to invasion being "necessary" is logically faulty. In reality what the Bush administration did was take the LACK of evidence and used it to build its case. There was no hard evidence that supported Saddam having any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. There wasn't even much in the way of circumstantial evidence. There was no evidence that Saddam had plans to use these non existent weapons. There was no evidence that Saddam had plans to threaten or annex any neighboring countries. There was no evidence he had plans to vaporize cities. There was no hard evidence he had WMD. There was only a lack of confirmation that all his precursors, and possible delivery systems had been destroyed.

0 Replies

There is also the question: was imminent invasion neccessary? I haven't seen a good answer for this from any Right-winger, as to why we had to invade as quickly as we did.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Here's one possibility; the Bush gang knew that the intel on WMDs were skimpy, and he had to chase out the UN weapon's inspectors to start his war to revenge the assassination threat on this father.

Bush continued to tell the lie that congress had the same intel, but we all know now that was an outright lie.

0 Replies

Bush Resurrects False Claim That Congress Had "Same Intelligence" On Iraq

0 Replies

parados wrote:

In reality you can't find a single person hoping for a military loss in Iraq.

Surely there must be at least one person on this forum who wants the US to lose the war in Iraq.

0 Replies

Well, I didn't want it to happen, but I recognize that we have already lost. Is that the same thing?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

parados wrote:
In reality you can't find a single person hoping for a military loss in Iraq.

Surely there must be at least one person on this forum who wants the US to lose the war in Iraq.

Well, there's always dyslexia.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

parados wrote:
In reality you can't find a single person hoping for a military loss in Iraq.

Surely there must be at least one person on this forum who wants the US to lose the war in Iraq.

we lost this war when we landed there. It doesn't matter if anyone wants us to or not.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

parados wrote:
In reality you can't find a single person hoping for a military loss in Iraq.

Surely there must be at least one person on this forum who wants the US to lose the war in Iraq.

It might be more accurate to phrase it that surely there is at least one person on this forum honest enough to admit they don't want Bush to get any credit if we win the war in Iraq and secretly hope that doesn't happen.

As an analogy on a much smaller scale with little or no significant consequences involved--not the case in Iraq--the New Mexico Lobo Men's basketball team generally enjoys great fan support, but has been struggling more than usual this year. Most fans blame the coach. With a conference championship now out of reach, at least some fans are willing to admit they don't even hope the team wins as they see each loss as one more reason to fire the coach. Not one, however, would openly root against the team, at least in public.

People who root for the team don't trash the coach in public during the game, don't point out each mistake or setback during the game as evidence that the team has already lost, don't accuse their own players of committing fouls that aren't called, don't express sympathy when the other team experiences a set back, etc. etc. etc. If they did, wouldn't most people say they want their team to lose?

0 Replies

people in New Mexico can also get up and leave early if they can't stand the way the game is going, take a break and get a hot dog and a beer.... and if they foul out they still get to wake up the next day.

**** analogy.

0 Replies

There probably are some dems who really would like to see us lose in Iraq. Just like there are probably some republicans who are happy that 9-11 happened so we could have an excuse to kill some brown people.

0 Replies

What bothers me about the Dems right now....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know