Not as dishonest as trying to claim that drawing down the forces to "pre-surge" levels is a bonafide exit strategy. If we still have substanial numbers of troops there then how can you attempt any serious claim that you have an "exit strategy"?
Not as dishonest as trying to claim that drawing down the forces to "pre-surge" levels is a bonafide exit strategy. If we still have substanial numbers of troops there then how can you attempt any serious claim that you have an "exit strategy"?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
And you'd be right if that was what I actually said. Bolded the important part above for your benefit.
WTF? Logic 101 would dictate that if we DIDN'T have a substantial number of troops in Iraq there would be no need for an Exit Strategy in the first place.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Petraeus presented a chart of the planned drawdown of troops that went beyond just the drawdown of surge forces by 08. It provided a plan for MNF withdrawal based on benchmarks being met. It was, in essence, an Exit Strategy so to say we don't have one is being dishonest, at best.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I don't follow talking points, but apparently you do.
Since you know so much about the report, in your own words what changed?
Were those benchmarks things that we control? Were they new benchmarks, or things we've always said we wanted, but simply haven't been able to accomplish?
Do you see what I'm getting at? If a benchmark is "Iraq forms a stable democratic government", but we have no way to make that happen, it's not a real exit strategy. It's just a wish list. We could literally wait around forever and not see a democratically-elected unified stable Iraq. If my retirement plan included the item "find a large sum of money in a suitcase," nobody would say I had a real plan.
I would definitely like a list of those benchmarks. If Petraeus managed to list only things that are within our control, then I would consider that an exit strategy and be fully behind it. Alternatively, if he has provisions such as "If a stable central government is not formed within 12 months, we will begin a phased withdrawal to be concluded within a year", that would also qualify as an exit strategy. If it has benchmarks that the Iraqi's must accomplish, and no explanation for what we'll do if they don't accomplish them, it is not an exit strategy.
Personally I believe that these benchmarks should have been setup years ago, and we should already be implementing our withdrawal due to the inability of Iraq to do it's part. However, i'll settle for starting it from today. What I wouldn't tolerate is an open-ended strategy that could theoretically have us there for centuries waiting for somebody else to accomplish something that we have no control over. People can repeat "the surge is working" all they want. If it's not accomplishing benchmarks that will get us out of there, then it's not doing anything.
From Wikii:
So define that objective instead of accusing others of moving their goal posts and/or asking them what constitutes a "win".
It seems to me that training the Iraqis to defend themselves is the only way out, but they keep moving the goal posts on when they can do that. Even Newt Gingrich admited last May that they only have 6000 Iraqis trained that can fight on their own.
Right now they are making progress working with the local warlords, but then we will end up with a segregated Iraq that the experts say can't stand on it's own? Is that really minimizing our "blood and treasure"?
I don't think it is.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
If you want the answer to these questions I suggest you watch Petraeus. I'm not going to waste my time repeating what he is saying for those too lazy to pay attention to the general's report.Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Petraeus presented a chart of the planned drawdown of troops that went beyond just the drawdown of surge forces by 08. It provided a plan for MNF withdrawal based on benchmarks being met. It was, in essence, an Exit Strategy so to say we don't have one is being dishonest, at best.Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I don't follow talking points, but apparently you do.
Since you know so much about the report, in your own words what changed?
Were those benchmarks things that we control? Were they new benchmarks, or things we've always said we wanted, but simply haven't been able to accomplish?
Do you see what I'm getting at? If a benchmark is "Iraq forms a stable democratic government", but we have no way to make that happen, it's not a real exit strategy. It's just a wish list. We could literally wait around forever and not see a democratically-elected unified stable Iraq. If my retirement plan included the item "find a large sum of money in a suitcase," nobody would say I had a real plan.
I would definitely like a list of those benchmarks. If Petraeus managed to list only things that are within our control, then I would consider that an exit strategy and be fully behind it. Alternatively, if he has provisions such as "If a stable central government is not formed within 12 months, we will begin a phased withdrawal to be concluded within a year", that would also qualify as an exit strategy. If it has benchmarks that the Iraqi's must accomplish, and no explanation for what we'll do if they don't accomplish them, it is not an exit strategy.
Personally I believe that these benchmarks should have been setup years ago, and we should already be implementing our withdrawal due to the inability of Iraq to do it's part. However, i'll settle for starting it from today. What I wouldn't tolerate is an open-ended strategy that could theoretically have us there for centuries waiting for somebody else to accomplish something that we have no control over. People can repeat "the surge is working" all they want. If it's not accomplishing benchmarks that will get us out of there, then it's not doing anything.
When you can come in here and say, "OK, the General claims so and so. Do you think they are achievable benchmarks?" then we can talk. Right now it seems as if you don't even know what his benchmarks are, which gives the impression that you are arguing from a position of ignorance. That is not a good position to argue from.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
From Wikii:
I know what an exit strategy is, tyvm. My comment was regarding the fact that you were putting the cart before the horse.
I'll give you the same advice I gave the previous guy, since you obviously don't have the least clue what Petraeus has been saying. Get informed before you attempt to debate Petraeus's statements. If you don't what he said you will only end up looking ignorant because it will be very apparent you don't have a clue in the matter. I am not here to be your Petraeus news ticker. Do your own homework.
So all you got are you little word games huh? LMAO, I knew that was coming in but I wanted to watch you squirm like a little worm, but here's a
for your efforts.Your just another drugstore cowboy. All hat, no cattle.
Actually I wasn't arguing. I'm unsure why you would interpret it as that. I was asking. None of the news articles I read mentioned this exit strategy that you speak of. All the articles say his plan ended for removing troops only brought us down to pre-surge levels. Apparently you saw something that hasn't been getting any coverage.
Edit: The quote I read was:
"Force reductions will continue beyond the pre-surge levels of brigade combat teams that we will reach by mid July 2008," General Petraeus said.
"However, in my professional judgment, it would be premature to make recommendations on the pace of such reductions at this time."
You asserted that he had some sort of strategy beyond this. It's not too much to ask what information you have, and where you got your information from.
I also invited your thoughts on if something could be open-ended and still called an "exit strategy".
Cooking the books
http://news.independent.co.uk/...ast/article2950298.ece
The view from Baghdad: Mounting death toll which makes a mockery of US optimism
By Kim Sengupta
Published: 11 September 2007
By the time General Petraeus had finished speaking yesterday the slaughter in Iraq for the previous 24 hours could be tallied. It was not an exceptionally violent day by the standards of Iraq: seven US soldiers lay dead and 11 injured in the capital; other instances of sectarian violence included a suicide bomb which had killed 10 and wounded scores near Mosul while 10 bodies were found in Baghdad. Three policemen were killed in clashes in Mosul, and a car bomb outside a hospital in the capital had exploded, killing two and wounding six.
In Baghdad, on the surface the overt violence appears to have diminished. There are fewer loud explosions. But, the city is now being partitioned by sectarian hatred and fear; by concrete walls and barbed wire. Claims that the US military strategy is paving the way for a stable society bear little resemblance to the reality on the ground.
The US is accused of manipulating figures relating to violence to fit their case, ignoring evidence which shows that the influx of 30,000 troops has done little to end the continuing bloodshed.
The death of Omar al-Husseini in the Huriya district of Baghdad is one of many which does not even figure in the American reckoning. His killers, masked and carrying guns, dragged him away as his mother wept and his father pleaded for mercy. That was the last time they saw their son alive. Three weeks later they heard that he had been killed.
Omar was 20. His killers were Shia, he was a Sunni, the victim of a spree of murders which has ethnically cleansed neighbourhoods through the city. But both the US military and the Iraqi police have told his parents that as far as they are concerned the abduction and killings were purely criminal acts. This means, statistically, that his death is not included by the US in the calculations for sectarian killings produced yesterday.
The causes behind the daily death toll, if addressed at all, draw conflicting accounts. Mourners carried the coffin of a young mother along the streets of Sadr City yesterday. She had been killed, said the locals, along with her two daughters when US and Iraqi government forces had stormed four homes. The US military confirmed they had exchanged small-arms fire during the operation, but insisted they had no reports of civilian casualties. Also yesterday, attendants at the Baghdad morgue did their round of collecting bodies, nameless victims of faceless killers.
Omar's father, 48-year-old Barzan, said the attack on his son came after the Mehdi Army, a Shia militia, declared that they must leave their home. " We were going to leave, we did not want any trouble. We had very excellent relations with our Shia neighbours, but they could not do anything to help us ", he said. "They [the Mehdi Army] were also saying that my two sons were involved with the insurgents. That was not true, they had nothing to do with politics. Mohammed was away when they came, but Omar was there and they took him away and shot him. The police and the Americans say he was an Ali Baba [thief] and this killing was something to do with that. But everyone knows why he died, it is because we are Sunnis."
Barzan had fled with his family to the Khadrah district where he found refuge with his cousin. They could not watch much of General Pertraeus's address on satellite TV because of a power cut. Four years after the war, electricity supply in the city has dwindled to one hour a day.
Not far away from Barzan's new home are other houses, some with singe marks on doors and windows, properties of Shia who had been terrorised and driven out the other way. The walls being put up by US contractors at a record speed are formalising this break-up of Baghdad along sectarian lines. Militias rule the roost in the newly created ghettos; armed young men with sunglasses manning checkpoints, collecting levies from passing traffic, and meting out their own justice to victims who would never make the calculations on the effects of the surge.
The Americans at first welcomed the forming of the vigilante groups, calling them "guardians"; in some areas this was described as part of the " Sunni awakening", away from the insurgency. But this began to be tempered after tales of extortion began to surface, and now some have been arrested for "suspected al-Qa'ida ties".
The purge of the neighbourhoods, however, has helped to bring down the number of violent deaths, providing fewer sectarian targets. Residents seeing their neighbours being driven out are too afraid to do anything. Ali Mohammed, a Shia in Huriya, spread his hands in a gesture of hopelessness. " If we say anything we will be attacked," he said. "So what can we say? We know of people being driven out, being killed, but there is no one we can go to."
Others say the surge itself had led to the rise in intimidation by the militias. Rashid Kamal, in Amariya, said: "The Americans drove out the militias, but they only went into other areas. It is this which led to the places where Sunnis and Shia were living together being split up. People who have been neighbours for generations were forced to leave in a few hours."
Since the start of the surge, the deaths of US soldiers have fallen from a peak of 120 in May to 56 in August. But there are significant discrepancies between the figures for civilian deaths presented by the US military and independent estimates. According to American authorities, 165 civilians were murdered in Baghdad in August, a slight increase on the previous two months, but a sizeable decrease since the beginning of the surge. However, figures released by Iraq's Interior Ministry suggest that at least 428 people were murdered in Baghdad last month, and 612 in July. The Associated Press's tally of civilian deaths throughout Iraq in August was 1,809, the highest this year.
Under the US military's rules, a corpse shot in the back of the head is a " sectarian" killing, while one shot through the front is deemed to be a criminal one. Even under this arbitrary criterion it would be difficult on many occasions to distinguish which particular group a death may fall under. Attendants at the Baghdad morgue point out that victims often bear multiple gunshot wounds.
Hours before General Petraeus appeared in Washington, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, gave his own assessment of the surge. "The key to reconstruction, economic development and improving peoples' standards of living is security," he said. Violence in Baghdad, he declared, had " dropped by 75 per cent". He failed, however, to provide any figures.
http://news.independent.co.uk/...ast/article2950298.ece
The view from Baghdad: Mounting death toll which makes a mockery of US optimism
By Kim Sengupta
Published: 11 September 2007
By the time General Petraeus had finished speaking yesterday the slaughter in Iraq for the previous 24 hours could be tallied. It was not an exceptionally violent day by the standards of Iraq: seven US soldiers lay dead and 11 injured in the capital; other instances of sectarian violence included a suicide bomb which had killed 10 and wounded scores near Mosul while 10 bodies were found in Baghdad. Three policemen were killed in clashes in Mosul, and a car bomb outside a hospital in the capital had exploded, killing two and wounding six.
In Baghdad, on the surface the overt violence appears to have diminished. There are fewer loud explosions. But, the city is now being partitioned by sectarian hatred and fear; by concrete walls and barbed wire. Claims that the US military strategy is paving the way for a stable society bear little resemblance to the reality on the ground.
The US is accused of manipulating figures relating to violence to fit their case, ignoring evidence which shows that the influx of 30,000 troops has done little to end the continuing bloodshed.
The death of Omar al-Husseini in the Huriya district of Baghdad is one of many which does not even figure in the American reckoning. His killers, masked and carrying guns, dragged him away as his mother wept and his father pleaded for mercy. That was the last time they saw their son alive. Three weeks later they heard that he had been killed.
Omar was 20. His killers were Shia, he was a Sunni, the victim of a spree of murders which has ethnically cleansed neighbourhoods through the city. But both the US military and the Iraqi police have told his parents that as far as they are concerned the abduction and killings were purely criminal acts. This means, statistically, that his death is not included by the US in the calculations for sectarian killings produced yesterday.
The causes behind the daily death toll, if addressed at all, draw conflicting accounts. Mourners carried the coffin of a young mother along the streets of Sadr City yesterday. She had been killed, said the locals, along with her two daughters when US and Iraqi government forces had stormed four homes. The US military confirmed they had exchanged small-arms fire during the operation, but insisted they had no reports of civilian casualties. Also yesterday, attendants at the Baghdad morgue did their round of collecting bodies, nameless victims of faceless killers.
Omar's father, 48-year-old Barzan, said the attack on his son came after the Mehdi Army, a Shia militia, declared that they must leave their home. " We were going to leave, we did not want any trouble. We had very excellent relations with our Shia neighbours, but they could not do anything to help us ", he said. "They [the Mehdi Army] were also saying that my two sons were involved with the insurgents. That was not true, they had nothing to do with politics. Mohammed was away when they came, but Omar was there and they took him away and shot him. The police and the Americans say he was an Ali Baba [thief] and this killing was something to do with that. But everyone knows why he died, it is because we are Sunnis."
Barzan had fled with his family to the Khadrah district where he found refuge with his cousin. They could not watch much of General Pertraeus's address on satellite TV because of a power cut. Four years after the war, electricity supply in the city has dwindled to one hour a day.
Not far away from Barzan's new home are other houses, some with singe marks on doors and windows, properties of Shia who had been terrorised and driven out the other way. The walls being put up by US contractors at a record speed are formalising this break-up of Baghdad along sectarian lines. Militias rule the roost in the newly created ghettos; armed young men with sunglasses manning checkpoints, collecting levies from passing traffic, and meting out their own justice to victims who would never make the calculations on the effects of the surge.
The Americans at first welcomed the forming of the vigilante groups, calling them "guardians"; in some areas this was described as part of the " Sunni awakening", away from the insurgency. But this began to be tempered after tales of extortion began to surface, and now some have been arrested for "suspected al-Qa'ida ties".
The purge of the neighbourhoods, however, has helped to bring down the number of violent deaths, providing fewer sectarian targets. Residents seeing their neighbours being driven out are too afraid to do anything. Ali Mohammed, a Shia in Huriya, spread his hands in a gesture of hopelessness. " If we say anything we will be attacked," he said. "So what can we say? We know of people being driven out, being killed, but there is no one we can go to."
Others say the surge itself had led to the rise in intimidation by the militias. Rashid Kamal, in Amariya, said: "The Americans drove out the militias, but they only went into other areas. It is this which led to the places where Sunnis and Shia were living together being split up. People who have been neighbours for generations were forced to leave in a few hours."
Since the start of the surge, the deaths of US soldiers have fallen from a peak of 120 in May to 56 in August. But there are significant discrepancies between the figures for civilian deaths presented by the US military and independent estimates. According to American authorities, 165 civilians were murdered in Baghdad in August, a slight increase on the previous two months, but a sizeable decrease since the beginning of the surge. However, figures released by Iraq's Interior Ministry suggest that at least 428 people were murdered in Baghdad last month, and 612 in July. The Associated Press's tally of civilian deaths throughout Iraq in August was 1,809, the highest this year.
Under the US military's rules, a corpse shot in the back of the head is a " sectarian" killing, while one shot through the front is deemed to be a criminal one. Even under this arbitrary criterion it would be difficult on many occasions to distinguish which particular group a death may fall under. Attendants at the Baghdad morgue point out that victims often bear multiple gunshot wounds.
Hours before General Petraeus appeared in Washington, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, gave his own assessment of the surge. "The key to reconstruction, economic development and improving peoples' standards of living is security," he said. Violence in Baghdad, he declared, had " dropped by 75 per cent". He failed, however, to provide any figures.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Word games? Seems it you who want to play word games as well as argue from a position of ignorance about Petraeus. Why should I discuss the issue with you when your questions glaringly demonstrate that you don't have the slightest clue what Petraeus has said?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So all you got are you little word games huh? LMAO, I knew that was coming in but I wanted to watch you squirm like a little worm, but here's a
Your just another drugstore cowboy. All hat, no cattle.
btw. Stop being such a ditz with your weakly crafted efforts at insults. You really suck at them. If you're going to insult me at least try to do it with some pizzaz and without using such boring cliches, otherwise you merely serve to insult yourself.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Word games? Seems it you who want to play word games as well as argue from a position of ignorance about Petraeus. Why should I discuss the issue with you when your questions glaringly demonstrate that you don't have the slightest clue what Petraeus has said?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So all you got are you little word games huh? LMAO, I knew that was coming in but I wanted to watch you squirm like a little worm, but here's a
Your just another drugstore cowboy. All hat, no cattle.
btw. Stop being such a ditz with your weakly crafted efforts at insults. You really suck at them. If you're going to insult me at least try to do it with some pizzaz and without using such boring cliches, otherwise you merely serve to insult yourself.
Enlighten me then. You claim to not have the time to do so, but you seem to have all the time in the world to play your little word games with everyone here.
Your all talk and when someone trys to pin you down, you go troll. I'd take the time to spell out my position and your lcorresponding lack of one, but I've seen too many others waste their time doing so only for you to troll them, so as far as I'm concerned the burden is on you to put up or shut up.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Sorry. I didn't mean to be rude. Sometimes it's difficult to divine between the little rhetorical ninjas in here that I constantly have to thwack with my knowledge nunchucks and then bloody with my staff of eloquent prose, and those who are honestly seeking debate. Those seeking honest debate are a seemingly rare breed in this forum.
Unfortunately, until someone posts the charts online that Petraeus used I really can't provide the information you request. It was a bar chart that he used yesterday that showed a planned troop withdrawal process that extended beyond the surge troop withdrawls. It was basd on certain contingencies being met (such as Iraqi military readiness) and implemented progress reviews along the way. Since he only presented it briefly and only spoke about it for a few minutes it was not possible to gather all the details involved, but it basically described a complete security turnover to Iraqi troops so we could bring ours home. If I happen to run across that chart, and surely someone will post it evenually, I'll be more than happy to provide a link and discuss it then.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Well you've finally hit the nail on the head. You and others in here don't try to debate. You try to pin me down and back me into a corner by throwing any and every kind of crap at me. When I throw those tactics back at you, and do it much better than you can, you all cry FOUL!Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Word games? Seems it you who want to play word games as well as argue from a position of ignorance about Petraeus. Why should I discuss the issue with you when your questions glaringly demonstrate that you don't have the slightest clue what Petraeus has said?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So all you got are you little word games huh? LMAO, I knew that was coming in but I wanted to watch you squirm like a little worm, but here's a
Your just another drugstore cowboy. All hat, no cattle.
btw. Stop being such a ditz with your weakly crafted efforts at insults. You really suck at them. If you're going to insult me at least try to do it with some pizzaz and without using such boring cliches, otherwise you merely serve to insult yourself.
Enlighten me then. You claim to not have the time to do so, but you seem to have all the time in the world to play your little word games with everyone here.
Your all talk and when someone trys to pin you down, you go troll. I'd take the time to spell out my position and your lcorresponding lack of one, but I've seen too many others waste their time doing so only for you to troll them, so as far as I'm concerned the burden is on you to put up or shut up.
Maybe it's passed you by, but I'm not exactly stupid. I see that shit coming from a mile away. So instead of using those tactics, why not try honest debate instead that doesn't make every effort at assasinating someone's character as a means of claiming victory in a discussion. Who knows? You may actually find out that you LIKE being honest.
eits
Lifer
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well you've finally hit the nail on the head. You and others in here don't try to debate. You try to pin me down and back me into a corner by throwing any and every kind of crap at me. When I throw those tactics back at you, and do it much better than you can, you all cry FOUL!Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Word games? Seems it you who want to play word games as well as argue from a position of ignorance about Petraeus. Why should I discuss the issue with you when your questions glaringly demonstrate that you don't have the slightest clue what Petraeus has said?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So all you got are you little word games huh? LMAO, I knew that was coming in but I wanted to watch you squirm like a little worm, but here's a
Your just another drugstore cowboy. All hat, no cattle.
btw. Stop being such a ditz with your weakly crafted efforts at insults. You really suck at them. If you're going to insult me at least try to do it with some pizzaz and without using such boring cliches, otherwise you merely serve to insult yourself.
Enlighten me then. You claim to not have the time to do so, but you seem to have all the time in the world to play your little word games with everyone here.
Your all talk and when someone trys to pin you down, you go troll. I'd take the time to spell out my position and your lcorresponding lack of one, but I've seen too many others waste their time doing so only for you to troll them, so as far as I'm concerned the burden is on you to put up or shut up.
Maybe it's passed you by, but I'm not exactly stupid. I see that shit coming from a mile away. So instead of using those tactics, why not try honest debate instead that doesn't make every effort at assasinating someone's character as a means of claiming victory in a discussion. Who knows? You may actually find out that you LIKE being honest.
haha what a load of bullshit... you did that in like 3 threads already.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well you've finally hit the nail on the head. You and others in here don't try to debate. You try to pin me down and back me into a corner by throwing any and every kind of crap at me. When I throw those tactics back at you, and do it much better than you can, you all cry FOUL!Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Word games? Seems it you who want to play word games as well as argue from a position of ignorance about Petraeus. Why should I discuss the issue with you when your questions glaringly demonstrate that you don't have the slightest clue what Petraeus has said?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So all you got are you little word games huh? LMAO, I knew that was coming in but I wanted to watch you squirm like a little worm, but here's a
Your just another drugstore cowboy. All hat, no cattle.
btw. Stop being such a ditz with your weakly crafted efforts at insults. You really suck at them. If you're going to insult me at least try to do it with some pizzaz and without using such boring cliches, otherwise you merely serve to insult yourself.
Enlighten me then. You claim to not have the time to do so, but you seem to have all the time in the world to play your little word games with everyone here.
Your all talk and when someone trys to pin you down, you go troll. I'd take the time to spell out my position and your lcorresponding lack of one, but I've seen too many others waste their time doing so only for you to troll them, so as far as I'm concerned the burden is on you to put up or shut up.
Maybe it's passed you by, but I'm not exactly stupid. I see that shit coming from a mile away. So instead of using those tactics, why not try honest debate instead that doesn't make every effort at assasinating someone's character as a means of claiming victory in a discussion. Who knows? You may actually find out that you LIKE being honest.
I'm just trying to pin down your postition. I assume you have one that you can back up with more then innuendo? I can only conclude that your not as smart as you think you are. I'll ask again, put up or shut up.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Yep. And so long as you continue with your bullshit I'll continue to use those tactics until I've owned you so thoroughly you'll either reply with your tail between your legs or simply back away in digrace.Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well you've finally hit the nail on the head. You and others in here don't try to debate. You try to pin me down and back me into a corner by throwing any and every kind of crap at me. When I throw those tactics back at you, and do it much better than you can, you all cry FOUL!Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Word games? Seems it you who want to play word games as well as argue from a position of ignorance about Petraeus. Why should I discuss the issue with you when your questions glaringly demonstrate that you don't have the slightest clue what Petraeus has said?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So all you got are you little word games huh? LMAO, I knew that was coming in but I wanted to watch you squirm like a little worm, but here's a
Your just another drugstore cowboy. All hat, no cattle.
btw. Stop being such a ditz with your weakly crafted efforts at insults. You really suck at them. If you're going to insult me at least try to do it with some pizzaz and without using such boring cliches, otherwise you merely serve to insult yourself.
Enlighten me then. You claim to not have the time to do so, but you seem to have all the time in the world to play your little word games with everyone here.
Your all talk and when someone trys to pin you down, you go troll. I'd take the time to spell out my position and your lcorresponding lack of one, but I've seen too many others waste their time doing so only for you to troll them, so as far as I'm concerned the burden is on you to put up or shut up.
Maybe it's passed you by, but I'm not exactly stupid. I see that shit coming from a mile away. So instead of using those tactics, why not try honest debate instead that doesn't make every effort at assasinating someone's character as a means of claiming victory in a discussion. Who knows? You may actually find out that you LIKE being honest.
haha what a load of bullshit... you did that in like 3 threads already.
The choice is up to you. Keep making your weak and continually failing attempts at knocking heads with me, and continue getting beaten to a bloody pulp, or try actually having a decent discussion sans all the rhetoric and hyperbole. It's up to you to extend the olive branch. If not, expect more debating scars, many more.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well you've finally hit the nail on the head. You and others in here don't try to debate. You try to pin me down and back me into a corner by throwing any and every kind of crap at me. When I throw those tactics back at you, and do it much better than you can, you all cry FOUL!Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Word games? Seems it you who want to play word games as well as argue from a position of ignorance about Petraeus. Why should I discuss the issue with you when your questions glaringly demonstrate that you don't have the slightest clue what Petraeus has said?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So all you got are you little word games huh? LMAO, I knew that was coming in but I wanted to watch you squirm like a little worm, but here's a
Your just another drugstore cowboy. All hat, no cattle.
btw. Stop being such a ditz with your weakly crafted efforts at insults. You really suck at them. If you're going to insult me at least try to do it with some pizzaz and without using such boring cliches, otherwise you merely serve to insult yourself.
Enlighten me then. You claim to not have the time to do so, but you seem to have all the time in the world to play your little word games with everyone here.
Your all talk and when someone trys to pin you down, you go troll. I'd take the time to spell out my position and your lcorresponding lack of one, but I've seen too many others waste their time doing so only for you to troll them, so as far as I'm concerned the burden is on you to put up or shut up.
Maybe it's passed you by, but I'm not exactly stupid. I see that shit coming from a mile away. So instead of using those tactics, why not try honest debate instead that doesn't make every effort at assasinating someone's character as a means of claiming victory in a discussion. Who knows? You may actually find out that you LIKE being honest.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Is your motto "The shovel is mightier than the pen?" What an ego!!!!!
Where do you get off attacking everybody about Petraeus's benchmarks? You can not explain them but you saw a chart so you are right and they are wrong. I suppose you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night too.
A shovel or a pen in TLC hands are used the same, to try and bury the truth if he disagrees with it.
Shouldn't the fact that other generals did not "tote the party line" say something about the integrity of our military generals?
These guys aren't some dumbass senator who claims to have devoted their life to the US. These guys actually DID devote pretty much their ENTIRE adult lives to serving their country. They didn't get their job because they where able to raise an assload of money and threw more/better mud at their opponents. Shouldn't that be enough to give them the benefit of the doubt? Shouldn't that alone be reason enough to not call (or imply) them traitors, liars and political hacks unless there is CLEAR evidence to suggest otherwise? I haven't heard anyone claim that the military screwed up Iraq. The civilian(s) who command the military screwed it up.
I am not saying you have to agree with what him or even that you should agree with him. I am simply saying that we should not question his honor or integrity unless we have clear evidence to support it.
Disclaimer: Yes, both sides throw the word "traitor" around. Calling someone a traitor without ample evidence is deplorable and that goes 10 fold when that someone happens to be a 4 star general in the United States Army.
After what happened in that other thread I highly doubt you want to keep talking about how knowledgable you are. I think it amply showed that just because you can type things into google doesn't mean you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I certainly have an ego. No doubt about that. I bet you do too. I also have the chops to back my ego up.Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Well you've finally hit the nail on the head. You and others in here don't try to debate. You try to pin me down and back me into a corner by throwing any and every kind of crap at me. When I throw those tactics back at you, and do it much better than you can, you all cry FOUL!Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Word games? Seems it you who want to play word games as well as argue from a position of ignorance about Petraeus. Why should I discuss the issue with you when your questions glaringly demonstrate that you don't have the slightest clue what Petraeus has said?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So all you got are you little word games huh? LMAO, I knew that was coming in but I wanted to watch you squirm like a little worm, but here's a
Your just another drugstore cowboy. All hat, no cattle.
btw. Stop being such a ditz with your weakly crafted efforts at insults. You really suck at them. If you're going to insult me at least try to do it with some pizzaz and without using such boring cliches, otherwise you merely serve to insult yourself.
Enlighten me then. You claim to not have the time to do so, but you seem to have all the time in the world to play your little word games with everyone here.
Your all talk and when someone trys to pin you down, you go troll. I'd take the time to spell out my position and your lcorresponding lack of one, but I've seen too many others waste their time doing so only for you to troll them, so as far as I'm concerned the burden is on you to put up or shut up.
Maybe it's passed you by, but I'm not exactly stupid. I see that shit coming from a mile away. So instead of using those tactics, why not try honest debate instead that doesn't make every effort at assasinating someone's character as a means of claiming victory in a discussion. Who knows? You may actually find out that you LIKE being honest.
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Is your motto "The shovel is mightier than the pen?" What an ego!!!!!
Attacking? WTF are you talking about? The attack was made by the person who claimed we have "No Exit Strategy." It was yet another rhetorical attack and one made purely out of ignorance.
Yes. I saw the chart and so did anyone else who actually watched what Petraeus had to say. Unfortunately it appears that the vast majority in here pooh-poohing Petraeus haven't the slightest clue what he said because their remarks make that fact sterling crystal clear. Did you watch his report, btw? Or are you yet another rhetorical ninja trying to jump from the shadows at Bruce TLC? :laugh::laugh::laugh:
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter