Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost

[ProfJohn]

On opinion polls:
According to those in the know there is about a six month lag time between events on the ground and when they start to show up in opinion polls.

This is easily trackable. As the death toll in Iraq started to go up support for the war started to go down. And now that the death toll is going down support has again started to raise.
AP Poll on Bush and Iraq
Jan 2007 approve 29 disapprove 68
July 2008 approve 34 disapprove 62

It is not much of a movement, but it is a movement and you can expect it to continue to raise.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte
I'd also like to point out that the numbers of the "surge" werent as important as the fundamental military change in approach brought about by Patraeus. No longer were military men sitting in HMVees pointing guns at Iraqi's....our military started to interact and engage the community. Efforts were made to relate to the people in Iraq. And suddenly the American military men and women didnt seem so scary and fearsome to Iraqis.

Props to Patreaus....dispite the bungling of Iraq from the Administration.

Thanks to Patraeus for being such a renegade and patently ignoring admin mandates too.

😕

I believe the Admin gives Patreaus credit too for the change in strategy.

what exactly are the voices in your head trying to say?

 

[sportage]

Its sooooo sad how sooooo many can be led like cattle.
Winning something that was wrong is not winning anything.
I'll repeat that...
WINNING SOMETHING THAT WAS WRONG IS "NOT" WINNING ANYTHING!!!

If we invaded Mexico for the cheap labor, land and expansion. And after years of high costs both in money and lives, we began to see less death, one could hardly call invading mexico in the first place a success.
If you break into a bank and take the money then get caught, but you later get off on a plea deal, that doesnt make the crime of breaking into that bank a non crime.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees? :roll:

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
According to those in the know there is about a six month lag time between events on the ground and when they start to show up in opinion polls.

This is easily trackable. As the death toll in Iraq started to go up support for the war started to go down. And now that the death toll is going down support has again started to raise.
AP Poll on Bush and Iraq
Jan 2007 approve 29 disapprove 68
July 2008 approve 34 disapprove 62

It is not much of a movement, but it is a movement and you can expect it to continue to raise.

Persuasion 101. Part of a template?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Again, I cannot help that you are poorly educated, did not read the thread or my posts carefully, and continue to backpeddle when proven utterly wrong. All you had to do was a 1 minute search, but failed to do even that much. You'd be funny if you weren't so sad and transparent. The numbers speak loud and clearly, so to equate who is winning the war in Iraq with my original statement of "the success with which the war has been waged" is merely a grade-school version of jumping to a false conclusion. But again, no one here expects otherwise from you.

How pathetic you are. Can't even back up your own words. Must suck that my poor education can so thoroughly own the awesome education you had?

:roll:

Yet you wouldn't be able to explain, if your life depended on it, why you jumped to the conclusion that my statement "success in Iraq" automatically means I was speaking about the specific poll question you referred to about "winning" the war in Iraq. Nor can you explain away the undeniable reality that Americans are opposed to the war and disapprove of the administration's handling of Iraq in the same numbers as they did a year ago, before the surge went into full swing. You can't do any of these things because you aren't intellectually capable. Again, sad and transparent.

Stop wasting my time with your bs. You got spanked. Deal with it and move on.

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Yet you wouldn't be able to explain, if your life depended on it, why you jumped to the conclusion that my statement "success in Iraq" automatically means I was speaking about the specific poll question you referred to about "winning" the war in Iraq.

Bump. rofl.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: shira
Sheesh. And I get accused of arrogance in this place. :roll:

I guess my comparison to a punch-drunk boxer wasn't merely an analogy. I ---- will ----- write ----- very ------ slowly ------ this ----- time, ----- and ----- will ----- use ----- short ----- words.

No, what you need to do is speak louder because your sudden backpedaling from your previous post has nearly put you out of earshot.

Please show me where I've "suddenly backpedaled." Before. After. You know. Put your quotes where your mouth is.

Let's see. You jump from America has given up to somehow speaking as the voice of America that they allegedly understand "is not now and never was tied to America's security, vis-a-vis international terrorism."

Quite a change of direction.

Bzzzt! You lose. No before and after quotes, as expected. You lie about what your opponents say just as you lie about the reality of Iraq. It's hardly surprising. I can't help it that my intellect so intimidates you.

America has lost interest because they understand - CORRECTLY - that Iraq is not now and never was tied to America's security, vis-a-vis international terrorism. Your irrelevant little "victories" can't change that impression. All Iraq is now is a 4000+ life, $2 trillion albatross that most of us just want to bury once and for all. And the faster, the better. Even Republicans are now mentioning timetables.

That's what America understands? So when did America appoint you as the voice of the majority to make this announcement? Or is this another one of those highly speculative pronouncements that the anti-war crowd just loves to spew about, as if they ever had their finger on the pulse of America to begin with?

I've got news for you, senior, the anti-war crowd IS the (big) majority. You're out there on the fringe.

Well, duh. We all know what the polls say. But you didn't just say that the anti-war crowd is the big majority. Besides that, those supporting the war are not any sort of fringe, as much as the unhinged fringe that are a small minority of the anti-war crowd would like people to believe it. You see, you assume, incorrectly, that the people against the war are all red-faced, screaming, fist-pounding BDS goggle wearing anti-war types like yourself. They're not. So look in the mirror and consider who the real fringer here is.

[/quote]
Thanks for telling me what "I assume." Another classic TLC strategy: When one's own arguments are vapid, put really stupid words in your opponent's mouth; then argue against them. Only your willful mis-comprehension of (yet another of my) well written arguments could possibly conclude that when someone writes, "The anti-war crowd is the [big] majority," they "assume" that "anti-war" means "red-faced, screaming, fist-pounding BDS goggle wearing anti-war type." Nice try. You really should should have stopped at "duh" - it was the most intelligent thing you've written in this thread thus far.

If that's truly what America understands, and I don't believe that bs for one second, then America is as ignorant and partisan as you are about Iraq. AQ came into Iraq after we invaded looking for a fight, which instantly tied Iraq to international terrorism. They got a fight too. They've been routed and along the way lost boatloads of respect and support among the Muslim world. If people can't comprehend how that affects the overall WoT, then they either haven't considered the implications or, like you, flat out deny them because of their partisan blinders.

As another post above points out, Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Only in your wet dreams has Iraq accomplished anything.

I knew this would be trotted out. It's a standard talking point response for you guys.

I can't help trotting out stale counter-arguments when you keep trotting out even staler initial arguments. There are only so many ways to respond to stupid. But at least I keep injecting my irrepressible fresh wit into the proceedings.

Couldn't you at least TRY to sound intelligent? I give you permission to plagiarize some of my past posts.

I guess using that reasoning we should have prevented the migration of blacks after WW1 and closed down our country to legal immigrants too, because that caused the membership of the Ku Klux Klan to increase greatly. Besides that, how many Iraqis have joined AQ? You'd think if we were making Iraqis mad that they wouldn't have eventually helped us to remove AQI from their country. So your claim about AQ getting "stronger" really falls apart in regard to this particular topic.

The weakness of your analogies is surpassed only by my ability to keep a straight face when responding:

Giving blacks more freedom of movement and allowing more immigration was NOT a strategy to fight the KKK. So using the strength of the KKK as a metric for post-WWI progress in the U.S. is nonsensical.

Our stated reason for invading Iraq WAS to fight global terrorism. Using the current strength of Al Qaeda as a metric is therefore entirely appropriate. And by that metric, we've utterly failed.

To summarize: we SUCCEEDED post-WWI, yet we've failed miserably in Iraq: We aimed to defeat Al Qaeda, yet Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Naturally, you want to limit the scope of the discussion to Al Qaeda's current strength Iraq, where AQ didn't exist in the first place.

What it comes down to is that, having wasted so many lives and so much money, we don't suck in Iraq as badly as we did before. This is your big victory?

Even you can understand how ridiculous your argument is, right?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: shira
**cut**

Dude, there is no point with this guy. All you're really giving him is what he wants, something to yell about. He is so personally caught up in the defense of the war at this point that it's not really possible for him to think rationally on the issue.

You're right. No more posts in this thread from me. Why beat up on a corpse?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: OrByte
I'd also like to point out that the numbers of the "surge" werent as important as the fundamental military change in approach brought about by Patraeus. No longer were military men sitting in HMVees pointing guns at Iraqi's....our military started to interact and engage the community. Efforts were made to relate to the people in Iraq. And suddenly the American military men and women didnt seem so scary and fearsome to Iraqis.

Props to Patreaus....dispite the bungling of Iraq from the Administration.

Thanks to Patraeus for being such a renegade and patently ignoring admin mandates too.

😕

I believe the Admin gives Patreaus credit too for the change in strategy.

what exactly are the voices in your head trying to say?

The voices were screaming, in a rather loud and shrill manner, "BETRAYUS, BETRAYUS, BETRAYUS."

I quickly discovered they didn't originate from my own head though, but came from the asses of others.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: shira
Even you can understand how ridiculous your argument is, right?

I can understand how ridiulously embarrased you must be that all the fist-pounding of the anti-war crew in here has ultimately done nothing more than bruised and batterred their own hands. Wave those bloodied stumps around some more. Show 'em to everyone.

It's ever so entertaining watching you guys attempt to avoid every point I make and cackling like a bunch of hens together assuming you have when you ultimately fail at every turn. Your diversions, backpedaling, ommissions, bobbleheaded rhetoric, and continual attempts to muddy the waters are a hoot.

Keep insisting that we've failed in Iraq, just like you guys yelled Betrayus. Eventually your "failure" chant will die off too and you can all limp back under your respective bridges from whence you came.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Dari
I thought we already won back in 2003?

We won a war to destroy a country. That part was very successful. Clean up is different.

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
On opinion polls:
According to those in the know there is about a six month lag time between events on the ground and when they start to show up in opinion polls.

This is easily trackable. As the death toll in Iraq started to go up support for the war started to go down. And now that the death toll is going down support has again started to raise.
AP Poll on Bush and Iraq
Jan 2007 approve 29 disapprove 68
July 2008 approve 34 disapprove 62

It is not much of a movement, but it is a movement and you can expect it to continue to raise.

And all he needs is another 31% and he will get a C!

 

[Lemon law]

Petraeus betrayus is a natural word association and its on the level of kindergarten childish reasoning. In a more adult reasoning scenario, this betrayus stuff should not distract us at all. Instead the pro war crowd has somehow transformed it into God's gift to their position which is equally absurd.

But in terms of Non Prof John's contention that polls lag results by six months, tell us in Mid- October of 08. Because there is a real and finite chance that things can go very wrong in Iraq by then, if nothing else because groups in Iraq may want to influence our elections. And in the same time, the pro war crowd are trying to divorce the Afghan occupation that is going very wrong while pointing to only Iraq. A significant set back in either place will continue to remind an American public already soured on these occupations, that McCain has the wrong stance.

In my mind, both the current threads on this same subject are an effort to declare victory in Iraq well before the fact.

But truth be told, lots of things are going right and coming together in Iraq, while at the same time, lots of things are still going wrong in Iraq and new complications have been recently added. And the other truth be told is that almost none of needed political progress has occurred in Iraq.

In terms of the Iraqi and Afghan occupations influencing the US elections of 11/4/08, what Iraq looks like now matters far less than what Iraq will look like in Mid-October. And what happens in Afghanistan will matter as much if not more.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, well, TLC, 50% increase of doodly-squat is still doodly-squat... and it's highly convenient for you to pick the lowest point of approval, ever, as your reference point. Approval has hovered around 1/3 for some time now, with occasional dips downward...

Yes, how convenient. The old lies, damned lies... The anti-war crowd is completely familiar with those tactics as they employ them frequently.

Gay marriage? Please, your desperation is showing. Stick to the subject at hand- explain how the admin isn't caught in a bind by their own success and how your support of their version of winning (not the public's, not the Iraqis') isn't support for Bush and the neocon vision.

Seems that you need to be reminded that the immediate subject at hand in this particular case was "public opinion." I was demonstrating how public opinion isn't really all that important to people, depending on which opinion you want to focus on. Surely even you can figure that one out?

If "freeing the Iraqi people" means they're only free to do what we want, then they're not free, at all... If what the admin describes as a stable, democratic and legitimate govt of a sovereign Iraq can't get us to tell them when we'll leave, then they're not sovereign, at all...

Again, can't have it both ways...

I guess that when the Iraqi government actually tells us to leave, which they haven't, you might have a point. At this time though that's nothing more than fearmongering disguised as speculative babbling.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You should learn to read, I'm not conflating anything. I merely suggested that instead of invading Iraq, we should have invaded Northern Pakistan immediately following Afghanistan. I realize there's a cost involved in doing so, however if taking on AQ was really priority number one, it would have been worth it. Instead, we've made a tactical blunder by getting tied down in Iraq for 5 years and allowing Pakistan's autonomous zone to replace Afghanistan in terms of being a safe haven for AQ.

Here's exactly what you said:

"I've said it before, it seems disingenuous at best to fuck up the occupation of Iraq for 5 long years, allow AQ and the Taliban to regroup in Pakistan and Aghanistan while you're dealing with the insurgency in Iraq, allow Iran to gain power by removing its one and only enemy in the region, and then sit around crowing about our supposed "success" ... in fact it's beyond disingenuous, it's downright dangerous. "

Prove that not going into Iraq would have prevented AQ from hiding and "regrouping" in Pakistan.

Of course I can't prove a hypothetical, however common sense dictates that when you have a military setup to fight in two theaters and a third theater exists, that third theater will be ignored. The U.S. military is designed for precisely that, and tying them down in Afghanistan and Iraq meant that Pakistan's tribal zones are for the most part ignored. It's a simple resource allocation problem.

So of course, post-Afghanistan, AQ would have still migrated to Pakistan's northern autonomous areas, however had we NOT invaded Iraq, we'd have the military resources to deal with it. If your goal is to wipe out AQ and you're willing to invade a sovereign nation to do so, why wouldn't you pick the country where AQ actually exists and is regrouping?

Because you're an idiot, that's why. That's the only explanation.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You should learn to read, I'm not conflating anything. I merely suggested that instead of invading Iraq, we should have invaded Northern Pakistan immediately following Afghanistan. I realize there's a cost involved in doing so, however if taking on AQ was really priority number one, it would have been worth it. Instead, we've made a tactical blunder by getting tied down in Iraq for 5 years and allowing Pakistan's autonomous zone to replace Afghanistan in terms of being a safe haven for AQ.

Here's exactly what you said:

"I've said it before, it seems disingenuous at best to fuck up the occupation of Iraq for 5 long years, allow AQ and the Taliban to regroup in Pakistan and Aghanistan while you're dealing with the insurgency in Iraq, allow Iran to gain power by removing its one and only enemy in the region, and then sit around crowing about our supposed "success" ... in fact it's beyond disingenuous, it's downright dangerous. "

Prove that not going into Iraq would have prevented AQ from hiding and "regrouping" in Pakistan.

Of course I can't prove a hypothetical, however common sense dictates that when you have a military setup to fight in two theaters and a third theater exists, that third theater will be ignored. The U.S. military is designed for precisely that, and tying them down in Afghanistan and Iraq meant that Pakistan's tribal zones are for the most part ignored. It's a simple resource allocation problem.

So of course, post-Afghanistan, AQ would have still migrated to Pakistan's northern autonomous areas, however had we NOT invaded Iraq, we'd have the military resources to deal with it. If your goal is to wipe out AQ and you're willing to invade a sovereign nation to do so, why wouldn't you pick the country where AQ actually exists and is regrouping?

Because you're an idiot, that's why. That's the only explanation.

Only an idiot would believe, as you seem to do, that we'd go barreling into Pakistan trying to hunt down AQ. Where's the common sense in that? Wait, I know, it's another of your hypotheticals that tosses any and all common sense right out the window in order to make some screwed up, Stretch Armstrong sort of point. That's an amazing reach you have.

:roll:

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
** stupid stuff cut **

Bzzzt! You lose. No before and after quotes, as expected. You lie about what your opponents say just as you lie about the reality of Iraq. It's hardly surprising. I can't help it that my intellect so intimidates you.

Thanks for telling me what "I assume." Another classic TLC strategy: When one's own arguments are vapid, put really stupid words in your opponent's mouth; then argue against them. Only your willful mis-comprehension of (yet another of my) well written arguments could possibly conclude that when someone writes, "The anti-war crowd is the [big] majority," they "assume" that "anti-war" means "red-faced, screaming, fist-pounding BDS goggle wearing anti-war type." Nice try. You really should should have stopped at "duh" - it was the most intelligent thing you've written in this thread thus far.

I can't help trotting out stale counter-arguments when you keep trotting out even staler initial arguments. There are only so many ways to respond to stupid. But at least I keep injecting my irrepressible fresh wit into the proceedings.

Couldn't you at least TRY to sound intelligent? I give you permission to plagiarize some of my past posts.

The weakness of your analogies is surpassed only by my ability to keep a straight face when responding:

Giving blacks more freedom of movement and allowing more immigration was NOT a strategy to fight the KKK. So using the strength of the KKK as a metric for post-WWI progress in the U.S. is nonsensical.

Our stated reason for invading Iraq WAS to fight global terrorism. Using the current strength of Al Qaeda as a metric is therefore entirely appropriate. And by that metric, we've utterly failed.

To summarize: we SUCCEEDED post-WWI, yet we've failed miserably in Iraq: We aimed to defeat Al Qaeda, yet Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Naturally, you want to limit the scope of the discussion to Al Qaeda's current strength Iraq, where AQ didn't exist in the first place.

What it comes down to is that, having wasted so many lives and so much money, we don't suck in Iraq as badly as we did before. This is your big victory?

Even you can understand how ridiculous your argument is, right?

Nice smack down! How many beatings can this tool take before he gets it? What was the comedy where the knight got his arms and legs cut off but still thought he was winning? Tasteslikechicken is just as ridiculous. He is wrong about everything but his ego is too big to quit. He lays in the corner spitting at the world as it passes him by.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Only an idiot would believe, as you seem to do, that we'd go barreling into Pakistan trying to hunt down AQ. Where's the common sense in that? Wait, I know, it's another of your hypotheticals that tosses any and all common sense right out the window in order to make some screwed up, Stretch Armstrong sort of point. That's an amazing reach you have.

:roll:

So you're just a different brand of idiot willing to go barreling into Iraq to track down some two-bit dictator? Gotcha.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
On opinion polls:
According to those in the know there is about a six month lag time between events on the ground and when they start to show up in opinion polls.

This is easily trackable. As the death toll in Iraq started to go up support for the war started to go down. And now that the death toll is going down support has again started to raise.
AP Poll on Bush and Iraq
Jan 2007 approve 29 disapprove 68
July 2008 approve 34 disapprove 62

It is not much of a movement, but it is a movement and you can expect it to continue to raise.

I have no idea how accurate those statistics are, but I would be very interested in seeing a poll which only consisted of people who are fully aware of all the current pros and cons as well as the potential projected pros and cons that come with the package when supporting the war.

I have a feeling that hardly anyone who responds to these polls even has a clue what it is costing us and I am not just talking about money here as projected by the media. I am also talking about international relations worldwide and how that can potentially effect us in the long run. I also believe that hardly any of these people have taken what else we could be doing with all of that money to help our own country into heavy consideration. Lastly, I doubt that hardly any of them have a solid educated theory about how long it will take to bring the country to a point where it is in control and can maintain itself without us beyond just spitting out what some other politician or wannabe celebrity politician is telling them. I think that if a poll like that were taken then the amount of supporters would be at an all time low.

 

[thraashman]

We've won and are winning nothing. The "war" was over a long time ago. However here's a list of what we've lost as a result of this war and occupation.

We've lost credibility
We've lost the moral high ground
We've lost allies
We've lost thousands of American Soldiers
We've lost many constitutionally given rights
We've lost hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians
We've lost billions of dollars
We've lost our sense of right and wrong
We've lost our adherence to justice
We've lost our trust in our elected leaders
We've lost faith in our fellow man
We've lost our position of superiority in the world
We've lost the ability to track down and stop the actual perpetraitors of 9/11
We've lost the ability to effectively fight terrorism by strengthening their recruitment
We've lost the trust of peoples around the world
We've lost .... I really think we've lost the honor that used to come with calling ourselves American.

I could probably go on. I don't feel like it. Because I think I've made my point. The ends do not justify the means or the atrocities it took to get us back to the status quo.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Ldir
Nice smack down! How many beatings can this tool take before he gets it? What was the comedy where the knight got his arms and legs cut off but still thought he was winning? Tasteslikechicken is just as ridiculous. He is wrong about everything but his ego is too big to quit. He lays in the corner spitting at the world as it passes him by.

I love it when the rump patters come in here to try to salvage one of their buddy's lame arguments by exclaiming a victory that never was. Hee-larious.

Face it. You can't tolerate the fact that I was right about Iraq. Clearly it absolutely galls you right to the bone. The anti-war crew will deny and refute it until it's clear that they just can't deny it any longer, just like they did with Patraeus. We've seen it all before. All the foot stomping and huffing was/is gold though; pure gold. Shows what you guys are really made of...nothing but hard, empty heads.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: thraashman
We've won and are winning nothing. The "war" was over a long time ago. However here's a list of what we've lost as a result of this war and occupation.

We've lost credibility
We've lost the moral high ground
We've lost allies
We've lost thousands of American Soldiers
We've lost many constitutionally given rights
We've lost hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians
We've lost billions of dollars
We've lost our sense of right and wrong
We've lost our adherence to justice
We've lost our trust in our elected leaders
We've lost faith in our fellow man
We've lost our position of superiority in the world
We've lost the ability to track down and stop the actual perpetraitors of 9/11
We've lost the ability to effectively fight terrorism by strengthening their recruitment
We've lost the trust of peoples around the world
We've lost .... I really think we've lost the honor that used to come with calling ourselves American.

I could probably go on. I don't feel like it. Because I think I've made my point. The ends do not justify the means or the atrocities it took to get us back to the status quo.

But, but but . . . We've lost less the past six months than we lost the previous six months. VICTORY!!!

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir
Nice smack down! How many beatings can this tool take before he gets it? What was the comedy where the knight got his arms and legs cut off but still thought he was winning? Tasteslikechicken is just as ridiculous. He is wrong about everything but his ego is too big to quit. He lays in the corner spitting at the world as it passes him by.

I love it when the rump patters come in here to try to salvage one of their buddy's lame arguments by exclaiming a victory that never was. Hee-larious.

Face it. You can't tolerate the fact that I was right about Iraq. Clearly it absolutely galls you right to the bone. The anti-war crew will deny and refute it until it's clear that they just can't deny it any longer, just like they did with Patraeus. We've seen it all before. All the foot stomping and huffing was/is gold though; pure gold. Shows what you guys are really made of...nothing but hard, empty heads.

Twenty people have shown you are full of it. You do not answer their questions or refute them. You ignore everything they said and keep repeating yourself like a retarded 4 year old. You have been wrong about everything for the last five years. Every time someone proves it you run away. We see what you are made of too. It comes out the wrong end of a chicken.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir
Nice smack down! How many beatings can this tool take before he gets it? What was the comedy where the knight got his arms and legs cut off but still thought he was winning? Tasteslikechicken is just as ridiculous. He is wrong about everything but his ego is too big to quit. He lays in the corner spitting at the world as it passes him by.

I love it when the rump patters come in here to try to salvage one of their buddy's lame arguments by exclaiming a victory that never was. Hee-larious.

Face it. You can't tolerate the fact that I was right about Iraq. Clearly it absolutely galls you right to the bone. The anti-war crew will deny and refute it until it's clear that they just can't deny it any longer, just like they did with Patraeus. We've seen it all before. All the foot stomping and huffing was/is gold though; pure gold. Shows what you guys are really made of...nothing but hard, empty heads.

So, what were you right about again? The troop surge? Weren't the bazillions of individuals who suggested that troop levels needed increasing for five long years right before you were right?

Hardly seems a reason to gloat, but if it makes you feel good about yourself, by all means go ahead.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Ldir
Nice smack down! How many beatings can this tool take before he gets it? What was the comedy where the knight got his arms and legs cut off but still thought he was winning? Tasteslikechicken is just as ridiculous. He is wrong about everything but his ego is too big to quit. He lays in the corner spitting at the world as it passes him by.

I love it when the rump patters come in here to try to salvage one of their buddy's lame arguments by exclaiming a victory that never was. Hee-larious.

Face it. You can't tolerate the fact that I was right about Iraq. Clearly it absolutely galls you right to the bone. The anti-war crew will deny and refute it until it's clear that they just can't deny it any longer, just like they did with Patraeus. We've seen it all before. All the foot stomping and huffing was/is gold though; pure gold. Shows what you guys are really made of...nothing but hard, empty heads.

Twenty people have shown you are full of it. You do not answer their questions or refute them. You ignore everything they said and keep repeating yourself like a retarded 4 year old. You have been wrong about everything for the last five years. Every time someone proves it you run away. We see what you are made of too. It comes out the wrong end of a chicken.

You mean 20 unhinged, anti-war talking heads in here claim I'm wrong. Wow!

Tell you what. Go to a forum that's primarily composed of pro-war members. Make your opinion known and, surprise, you'll be gang tackled by them too. So your argument about opposing opinion, particularly in this place, has no merit whatsoever. Of course I doubt many of you have the guts to tread in a forum where you can't huddle within the majority of your own personal opinion concerning Iraq.

 

[OrByte]

which forums are those?
seriously.

I wanna learn how to be a professional troll like you!!