Invading Iraq was Strategically Unsound

[T-Bor]

Ok...and I agree..WOW. Amazing.

 

[glockmail]

It's already a well-known fact they knew each other and met on occasion. "Connection" within the context of this argument is evidence proving Saddam supported OBL's terrorist activities. None of which do I see in your link. Only speculation.

I am well aware of WMDs are, and in the context of this argument, they represent nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Saddam already had chemical and biological weapons. so the term "quest for" would not apply.

I must've missed the part where we were discussing UN Resolutions. If it is your opinion that the UN did not enforce its own sanctions, I believe I alredy said that, and see no reason to belabor the point arguing about something we agree on. Right?


Out of context with your statement. You stated Saddam attacked Juwait as an attack on US interests. I listed the actual reasons Saddam invaded Kuwait.

Whether or not the US and/or UN recognized Kuwait as a soverign nation does not alter the reasons Saddam gave as justification for his invasion one bit.

I have no idea where you would come to such a conclusion. I used Germany's attack on Russia during WWII while already engaged in North Africa and against England as a perfect example of the unsoundness to opening a second front if one does not have to. In that context, it has absolutely nothing to do with Bush or Hitler.

1. The summary documents something like 100 meetings between Saddam’s and Bin Laden’s forces. Is it your contention that this is merely “speculation”?
2. So we agree that Saddam had WMDs. Do we also agree that he would have used them against US interests? If not, then exactly who were these weapons supposedly for?
3. So we agree that the UN is worthless. So if not the US to protect US interests, then who?
4. Saddam ignored the fact that the rest of the free world lists Kuwait as a sovereign nation. That’s like the US invading Canada claiming it was part of the US. Saddam attacked Kuwait, and it was not in our interests for Kuwait to be attacked. Do you agree with that?
5. You ignored the issue raised: “The fact is that the Afgan and Iraq conflicts are part of the same war on terror.” Agree or disagree?

 

[GeeWhiz]

Attacking Iraq was beyond unsound it was stupid.

We didn't win any hearts and minds over there for good reason. This current administration spent all it resources on getting Saddam and securing the oil. They spend zero resources on rebuilding Iraq and securing the borders.

This current adminstration also guaranteed a civil war by shoving down the throats of Iraq a Constitution that pits the Sunnis agains the Shias.

If wasn't sick enough that Bush and Cheney stood on top of the coffins of the dead 911 victims to sell a war against a nation that had nothing to do with 911 it's even sicker to gurantee a civil war and then whore that out to con the people that these bombings are all the works of terrorists when in reality the bombings are the works of political rivals that Bush and Cheney created over there.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Some people have short memories...

Why We Went to War
From the October 20, 2003 issue: The case for the war in Iraq, with testimony from Bill Clinton.
by Robert Kagan & William Kristol
10/20/2003, Volume 009, Issue 06

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON is right about what he and the whole world knew about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs. And most of what everyone knew about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction had nothing to do with this or any other government's intelligence collection and analysis. Had there never been a Central Intelligence Agency--an idea we admit sounds more attractive all the time--the case for war against Iraq would have been rock solid. Almost everything we knew about Saddam's weapons programs and stockpiles, we knew because the Iraqis themselves admitted it.

Here's a little history that seems to have been completely forgotten in the frenzy of the past few months. Shortly after the first Gulf War in 1991, U.N. inspectors discovered the existence of surprisingly advanced Iraqi nuclear weapons program. In addition, by Iraq's own admission and U.N. inspection efforts, Saddam's regime possessed thousands of chemical weapons and tons of chemical weapon agents. Were it not for the 1995 defection of senior Iraqi officials, the U.N. would never have made the further discovery that Iraq had manufactured and equipped weapons with the deadly chemical nerve agent VX and had an extensive biological warfare program.

Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions:

 That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

 That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

 That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.

 That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

 That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

 That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

 That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

 That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).

Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list, including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis.

cont.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp

 

[Gunny]

1. The summary documents something like 100 meetings between Saddam’s and Bin Laden’s forces. Is it your contention that this is merely “speculation”?

It is my contention that Ryan Mauro's assessment of the Middle East is just fine and dany, and his opinion based more on speculative conclusion and hearsay that factual evidence.

2. So we agree that Saddam had WMDs. Do we also agree that he would have used them against US interests? If not, then exactly who were these weapons supposedly for?

I never stated Saddam did not possess biological and chemical weapons, or that he did not use chemical weapons on at least two occasions.

That STILL does not support your statement concerning Saddam's alleged pursuit of, and the UN's inability to stop him.

Again, why would he need to pursue what he already has? Again the implication in your statement is that he was pursuing the one WMD he did not possess, nuclear weapons.

And again, if you could support that with factual evidence, your specualtion as to Saddam's ambitions would become fact. If you cannot, it is speculation.

The historical evidence supports that Saddam Hussein would use whatever weapons he had at his disposal to pursue Saddam Hussein's interests, irrespective of the US's interests.

3. So we agree that the UN is worthless. So if not the US to protect US interests, then who?

Which US interests is it you speak of specifically? The US is half a world away from the Middle East and owns as a possession of the US in the Middle East, nothing I am aware of.

4. Saddam ignored the fact that the rest of the free world lists Kuwait as a sovereign nation. That’s like the US invading Canada claiming it was part of the US. Saddam attacked Kuwait, and it was not in our interests for Kuwait to be attacked. Do you agree with that?

Your analogy is deflective and irrelevant. My point is not to justify Saddam's reasoning, only to state what it was.

What business is it of ours if Saddam Hussein attacks Kuwait? Kuwait is a backwards-assed, fundamentalist nation where women have no rights and only the shieks who own the oil have any money. Why support one piece of shit over another?

5. You ignored the issue raised: “The fact is that the Afgan and Iraq conflicts are part of the same war on terror.” Agree or disagree?

Tsk tsk. Already starting with the bullshit accusations? I've ignored nothing.

At the time the US and its allies invaded Iraq, they were not part of the same war on terror. Afghanistan was a war against the Taliban and al Qaeda while Iraq was a war against Saddam Hussein and his regime.

The war on terror is a war against militant religious fundamentalists while the war in Iraq was to depose a dictator who was not a militant religious fundamentalist.

 

[Gunny]

Some people have short memories...

Why We Went to War
From the October 20, 2003 issue: The case for the war in Iraq, with testimony from Bill Clinton.
by Robert Kagan & William Kristol
10/20/2003, Volume 009, Issue 06

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON is right about what he and the whole world knew about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs. And most of what everyone knew about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction had nothing to do with this or any other government's intelligence collection and analysis. Had there never been a Central Intelligence Agency--an idea we admit sounds more attractive all the time--the case for war against Iraq would have been rock solid. Almost everything we knew about Saddam's weapons programs and stockpiles, we knew because the Iraqis themselves admitted it.

Here's a little history that seems to have been completely forgotten in the frenzy of the past few months. Shortly after the first Gulf War in 1991, U.N. inspectors discovered the existence of surprisingly advanced Iraqi nuclear weapons program. In addition, by Iraq's own admission and U.N. inspection efforts, Saddam's regime possessed thousands of chemical weapons and tons of chemical weapon agents. Were it not for the 1995 defection of senior Iraqi officials, the U.N. would never have made the further discovery that Iraq had manufactured and equipped weapons with the deadly chemical nerve agent VX and had an extensive biological warfare program.

Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions:

 That in the years immediately prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq produced at least 3.9 tons of VX, a deadly nerve gas, and acquired 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

 That Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

 That Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.

 That Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

 That Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

 That Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

 That Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

 That Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).

Again, this list of weapons of mass destruction is not what the Iraqi government was suspected of producing. (That would be a longer list, including an Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years.) It was what the Iraqis admitted producing. And it is this list of weapons--not any CIA analysis under either the Clinton or Bush administrations--that has been at the heart of the Iraq crisis.

cont.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/236jmcbd.asp

I have not questioned whether or not Saddam Hussein produced, posessed and/or used WMDs. A poster wants to try and play a smoke-n-mirrors shell game on the topic of WMDs -- a topic each and every member and former member of the US military of any recent times is pretty well up to speed on since our asses depended on said education.

 

[glockmail]

[1]It is my contention that Ryan Mauro's assessment of the Middle East is just fine and dany, and his opinion based more on speculative conclusion and hearsay that factual evidence.

[2]I never stated Saddam did not possess biological and chemical weapons, or that he did not use chemical weapons on at least two occasions.

That STILL does not support your statement concerning Saddam's alleged pursuit of, and the UN's inability to stop him.

Again, why would he need to pursue what he already has? Again the implication in your statement is that he was pursuing the one WMD he did not possess, nuclear weapons.

And again, if you could support that with factual evidence, your specualtion as to Saddam's ambitions would become fact. If you cannot, it is speculation.

The historical evidence supports that Saddam Hussein would use whatever weapons he had at his disposal to pursue Saddam Hussein's interests, irrespective of the US's interests.

[3]Which US interests is it you speak of specifically? The US is half a world away from the Middle East and owns as a possession of the US in the Middle East, nothing I am aware of.

[4]Your analogy is deflective and irrelevant. My point is not to justify Saddam's reasoning, only to state what it was.

What business is it of ours if Saddam Hussein attacks Kuwait? Kuwait is a backwards-assed, fundamentalist nation where women have no rights and only the shieks who own the oil have any money. Why support one piece of shit over another?

[5]Tsk tsk. Already starting with the bullshit accusations? I've ignored nothing.

[6]At the time the US and its allies invaded Iraq, they were not part of the same war on terror. Afghanistan was a war against the Taliban and al Qaeda while Iraq was a war against Saddam Hussein and his regime.

The war on terror is a war against militant religious fundamentalists while the war in Iraq was to depose a dictator who was not a militant religious fundamentalist.

1. Ryan Mauro documents a timeline of known contacts between bin Laden and Saddam, from 126 references from 54 separate sources. To call that mere speculation of a connection is to ignore the obvious.
2. Obviously the reason why Saddam pursued chemical and biological weapons was to renew his stockpiles. It has been pointed out by others here that he was within 3 years of obtaining nukes.
3. Israel, and a steady supply of oil.
4. Saddam’s reasoning is irrelevant.
5. Tsk tsk. Belligerence already? Or feigned victimization? That didn’t take long.
6. See item 1.

 

[Gunny]

1. Ryan Mauro documents a timeline of known contacts between bin Laden and Saddam, from 126 references from 54 separate sources. To call that mere speculation of a connection is to ignore the obvious.

Let's not try to confuse the words. I never have contended a connection was speculative. I am quite sure the hoistory of the two individuals woudl support them trying to use each other their own respective advantages, just as each managed to use us to their own repsective advantages.

My contention is that this "connection" does not present fact nor evidence to support Saddam support in terrorism anymore than my talking to Democrats every day establishes that I voted for Kerry.

2. Obviously the reason why Saddam pursued chemical and biological weapons was to renew his stockpiles. It has been pointed out by others here that he was within 3 years of obtaining nukes.

You're making vague statements. Be specific. Saddam already had bio and chem weapons processing processing capabilities -- labs, chemists, conventional means of delivery. So WHAT specifically was he trying to obtain from who, and what evidence exists to support the allegation?

3. Israel, and a steady supply of oil.

Israel has shown in the past quite the ability to do far better without our interference.

What play exactly does the US have in ensuring we have a steady supply of oil since we don't own any of it? Are you advocating taking it by force?

4. Saddam’s reasoning is irrelevant.

Except to show motive.

5. Tsk tsk. Belligerence already? Or feigned victimization? That didn’t take long.

I suggest when you use a word, you look it up prior to doing so. Not to mention the statement is just a deflection from your initial personal attack.
6. See item 1.

Item I has been sent to the showers already, and in no way refutes my statement in regard to the War on Terror in Afghanistan and the Iraq War initially being two separate wars for two separate reasons.

 

[glockmail]

[1]Let's not try to confuse the words. I never have contended a connection was speculative. I am quite sure the hoistory of the two individuals woudl support them trying to use each other their own respective advantages, just as each managed to use us to their own repsective advantages.

My contention is that this "connection" does not present fact nor evidence to support Saddam support in terrorism anymore than my talking to Democrats every day establishes that I voted for Kerry.

[2]You're making vague statements. Be specific. Saddam already had bio and chem weapons processing processing capabilities -- labs, chemists, conventional means of delivery. So WHAT specifically was he trying to obtain from who, and what evidence exists to support the allegation?

[3]Israel has shown in the past quite the ability to do far better without our interference.

[4]What play exactly does the US have in ensuring we have a steady supply of oil since we don't own any of it? Are you advocating taking it by force?

[5]Except to show motive.

[6]I suggest when you use a word, you look it up prior to doing so. [7]Not to mention the statement is just a deflection from your initial personal attack.

[8]Item I has been sent to the showers already, and in no way refutes my statement in regard to the War on Terror in Afghanistan and the Iraq War initially being two separate wars for two separate reasons.

1. Please provide basis for your contention that all 126 references/ 54 separate sources do not provide facts or evidence.
2. Nothing vague at all. The UN was a thorn in his side, had some sanctions that was making it difficult, not impossible, to replenish his chem./ bio, and further his nuke program.
3. Provide basis for your contention that Israel would do better without US as an ally.
4. Why the attempt to put words in my mouth? The US desires a free market approach, not force.
5. Saddam’s motive is irrelevant.
6. If we are going to discuss my use of words should we also discuss your inability to spell? Or should we stick to the subject? Choice be yours.
7. Provide basis for your assertion of said personal attack.
8. It appears you are pulling an “Algore”: declaring an argument over when it clearly is not. They are clearly two fronts of the same war.

 

[Gunny]

1. Please provide basis for your contention that all 126 references/ 54 separate sources do not provide facts or evidence.

Again you misrepresent what I posted, AND you're trying to play the game backwards. You alleged Saddam and OBL were in cahoots terrorism-wise. Evidence of meetings does not prove that. It proves meetings.

So the basis is the evidence isn't there.[/COLOR

]2. Nothing vague at all. The UN was a thorn in his side, had some sanctions that was making it difficult, not impossible, to replenish his chem./ bio, and further his nuke program.

Dude, your statement is about as vague as it gets. You're being purposefully obtuse because you incorrectly assume it will not lead to the same outcome:

Where is the evidence that supports your allegations?

3. Provide basis for your contention that Israel would do better without US as an ally.

They kicked the entire Arab World's collective asses without our help? Three times. About as solid as evidence gets.

4. Why the attempt to put words in my mouth? The US desires a free market approach, not force.

I did not put words in your mouth. I asked a question. And I will repeat it, since you choice to defelct from it with a baseless allegation.

The US preferes a free market approach implies that you believe the US is willing to use force to obtain oil if we do not get it through the free market.

Is that what your version of the US is all about? It isn't mine.

5. Saddam’s motive is irrelevant.

You keep posting the same statement and I have already showed you what the relevancy of Saddam's motives is.

6. If we are going to discuss my use of words should we also discuss your inability to spell? Or should we stick to the subject? Choice be yours.

Get it straight if you are going to accuse .... I type too fast. I spell just fine.

7. Provide basis for your assertion of said personal attack.

5. You ignored the issue raised: “The fact is that the Afgan and Iraq conflicts are part of the same war on terror.” Agree or disagree?

A personal accusation questioning my integrity when in fact the question in question was not part of the debate until introduced in your accusation.

8. It appears you are pulling an “Algore”: declaring an argument over when it clearly is not. They are clearly two fronts of the same war.

I have declared nothing over yet; although, it is obvious you're over your head and sinking fast.

Iraq had degenerated due to destabilization caused by our invasion into a second front in the same war. Initially, they were two completely different wars for two completely different reasons.

I'm declaring it over now. You're doing nothing more than regurgitating your posts, and attempting to play semantics, deflect, and with each post, the number of insults has increased. Youhave supported absolutely none of your statements with facts, and provided only a right wing child prodigy pundit as your sole source of information which you consider unimpeachable gospel.

If you're going to claim to be conservative, try learning what it means, not just how to parrot the rhetoric. You're an embarrassment to conservatives, and it's why I quit attempting to support your arguments.

 

[glockmail]

….

…[1] Again you misrepresent what I posted, AND you're trying to play the game backwards. You alleged Saddam and OBL were in cahoots terrorism-wise. Evidence of meetings does not prove that. It proves meetings.

So the basis is the evidence isn't there. …

[2] Dude, your statement is about as vague as it gets. You're being purposefully obtuse because you incorrectly assume it will not lead to the same outcome:

Where is the evidence that supports your allegations?

[3] They kicked the entire Arab World's collective asses without our help? Three times. About as solid as evidence gets.

[4]I did not put words in your mouth. I asked a question. And I will repeat it, since you choice to defelct from it with a baseless allegation.

The US preferes a free market approach implies that you believe the US is willing to use force to obtain oil if we do not get it through the free market.

Is that what your version of the US is all about? It isn't mine.

[5] You keep posting the same statement and I have already showed you what the relevancy of Saddam's motives is.

[6] Get it straight if you are going to accuse .... I type too fast. I spell just fine.

[7] A personal accusation questioning my integrity when in fact the question in question was not part of the debate until introduced in your accusation.

[8] I have declared nothing over yet; although, it is obvious you're over your head and sinking fast.

[9] Iraq had degenerated due to destabilization caused by our invasion into a second front in the same war. Initially, they were two completely different wars for two completely different reasons.

[8] I'm declaring it over now. [10] You're doing nothing more than regurgitating your posts, and attempting to play semantics, deflect, and with each post, the number of insults has increased. [11] Youhave supported absolutely none of your statements with facts, and provided only a right wing child prodigy pundit as your sole source of information which you consider unimpeachable gospel.

[12] If you're going to claim to be conservative, try learning what it means, not just how to parrot the rhetoric. You're an embarrassment to conservatives, and it's why I quit attempting to support your arguments.

1. The linked article indeed provides evidence; the issue is it sufficient proof for the action taken. Perhaps you could state what your burden of proof is then. If 126 references by 54 separate sources is not sufficient evidence, then what, exactly, would you accept? If you think that the CIA is supposed to act like the FBI, and the US Military supposed to act like your local police, and the POTUS and Congress supposed to act like an impartial trial judge, then you should state that.
2. Saddam had WMDs in direct violation of the GW1 treaty. Agree or disagree?
3. They “kicked ass” with American weaponry, support and training, only available to our allies. Agree or disagree?
4. Kuwait is our ally, and when Saddam attacked that Ally, we defended them. That is how sound foreign policy works. Agree or disagree?
5. I’ll be more clear: you have not shown where the relevancy of Saddam’s motives lay with respect to the treaty that he agreed to after GW1, then promptly ignored.
6. “defelct”, “preferes”, “Youhave”. No comment.
7. Show where I questioned your integrity. Is something a “fact” if it is in “question”?
8. “I have declared nothing over yet… I'm declaring it over now.” Which is it? ‘Algore’ or no? I think it is becoming rather “obvious” that it is not I who is “over [my] head and sinking fast.”
9. Goes back to issue 1.
10. I am repeating questions left unanswered by you. What you call “semantics” is actually succinct, clear English: “Semantics (Greek semantikos, “significant”), the study of the meaning of linguistic signs— that is, words, expressions, and sentences…”. What you call ‘deflection’ is in fact me holding you accountable for your words. Please provide evidence of said “insults”.
11. Again goes back to issue 1. Is the author a child prodigy? If so is that not a good thing? You appear to be bolstering my position.
12. It is not important to me to learn what conservative means, as I am not ‘parroting the rhetoric’, but have my own original thoughts and ideas. If you happen to define me thus as a conservative, so be it.

 

[Gunny]

1. The linked article indeed provides evidence; the issue is it sufficient proof for the action taken. Perhaps you could state what your burden of proof is then. If 126 references by 54 separate sources is not sufficient evidence, then what, exactly, would you accept? If you think that the CIA is supposed to act like the FBI, and the US Military supposed to act like your local police, and the POTUS and Congress supposed to act like an impartial trial judge, then you should state that.
2. Saddam had WMDs in direct violation of the GW1 treaty. Agree or disagree?
3. They “kicked ass” with American weaponry, support and training, only available to our allies. Agree or disagree?
4. Kuwait is our ally, and when Saddam attacked that Ally, we defended them. That is how sound foreign policy works. Agree or disagree?
5. I’ll be more clear: you have not shown where the relevancy of Saddam’s motives lay with respect to the treaty that he agreed to after GW1, then promptly ignored.
6. “defelct”, “preferes”, “Youhave”. No comment.
7. Show where I questioned your integrity. Is something a “fact” if it is in “question”?
8. “I have declared nothing over yet… I'm declaring it over now.” Which is it? ‘Algore’ or no? I think it is becoming rather “obvious” that it is not I who is “over [my] head and sinking fast.”
9. Goes back to issue 1.
10. I am repeating questions left unanswered by you. What you call “semantics” is actually succinct, clear English: “Semantics (Greek semantikos, “significant”), the study of the meaning of linguistic signs— that is, words, expressions, and sentences…”. What you call ‘deflection’ is in fact me holding you accountable for your words. Please provide evidence of said “insults”.
11. Again goes back to issue 1. Is the author a child prodigy? If so is that not a good thing? You appear to be bolstering my position.
12. It is not important to me to learn what conservative means, as I am not ‘parroting the rhetoric’, but have my own original thoughts and ideas. If you happen to define me thus as a conservative, so be it.

I guess you missed the part where it's over? You can't hang. This is a simple off-the-top-of-my-head argument and you clearly struggled to keep up. I look at this response and see nothing but regurgitation from your previous responses. None supported by actual fact/hard evidence, nor even good old common sense and logical conclusion.

And what really hampers you the most here is your delusional belief that you are somehow speaking from a position of intellectual superiority and knowledge of the topic.

Your grasp of history and geopolitics is at best pathetic because you are gullible and lazy. You buy off on extremist bullshit distortions and lies, and present opinion as fact.

I would add that you are a conservative getting thrashed in an argument by a conservative presenting a liberal point of view; which, in and of itself is pathetic.

But even that is not correct. It does not do justice to true conservatives who actually understand the ideology underlying their beliefs to include you in their ranks.

The likes of you make us look bad, and provide fuel for the left-wing extremist's stereotyping and rhetoric, because you pretty-much are everything they accuse ALL conservatives of being.

And you are pretty-much everything you accuse liberals of being.

 

[glockmail]

I guess you missed the part where it's over? You can't hang. This is a simple off-the-top-of-my-head argument and you clearly struggled to keep up. I look at this response and see nothing but regurgitation from your previous responses. None supported by actual fact/hard evidence, nor even good old common sense and logical conclusion.

And what really hampers you the most here is your delusional belief that you are somehow speaking from a position of intellectual superiority and knowledge of the topic.

Your grasp of history and geopolitics is at best pathetic because you are gullible and lazy. You buy off on extremist bullshit distortions and lies, and present opinion as fact.

I would add that you are a conservative getting thrashed in an argument by a conservative presenting a liberal point of view; which, in and of itself is pathetic.

But even that is not correct. It does not do justice to true conservatives who actually understand the ideology underlying their beliefs to include you in their ranks.

The likes of you make us look bad, and provide fuel for the left-wing extremist's stereotyping and rhetoric, because you pretty-much are everything they accuse ALL conservatives of being.

And you are pretty-much everything you accuse liberals of being.

Gee Gunny, I didn't realize you would lose so easily, or be such a sore loser. Maybe you can PM CT and some of your new lib buddies and have them post about how they "feel" you have a right to claim victory. Perhaps that will help you save face with them, but not with me or others that actully think for themselves.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Gee Gunny, I didn't realize you would lose so easily, or be such a sore loser. Maybe you can PM CT and some of your new lib buddies and have them post about how they "feel" you have a right to claim victory. Perhaps that will help you save face with them, but not with me or others that actully think for themselves.

Leave me out of this.

 

[maineman]

Leave me out of this.

I, for one, look forward to reading the testimonials from all those glockshemale supporters who "actully think for themselves".

 

[glockmail]

I, for one, look forward to reading the testimonials from all those glockshemale supporters who "actully think for themselves".

Too bad you're too much of a pussy to read from the source.

 

[Gunny]

Gee Gunny, I didn't realize you would lose so easily, or be such a sore loser. Maybe you can PM CT and some of your new lib buddies and have them post about how they "feel" you have a right to claim victory. Perhaps that will help you save face with them, but not with me or others that actully think for themselves.

You still belaboring this? Look, George Foreman, you got your ass knocked out. Fight's over. You're doing nothing but soiling the ring at this point.

Please try and note the difference between claiming victory, and calling an end to a debate due to the fact that you are intellectually incapable of holding up your side.

Victory means accomplishment. Out-arguing the likes of you invokes no such feeling of accomplishment. It's more akin to having to clean dog puke up off the floor because it has to be done.

The same goes for trying to drag other posters in to bail your ass out. You think because you claim to be a conservative that all conservatives will rally around your flagpole and bail you out right or wrong? Maybe a few of the more "intelligent" ones, such as yourself might. The ones that actually think for themselves have left your ass hung out to dry in case you've missed that rather obvious point.

And just to clarify for you something REAL simple .... my assessment of the situation in Iraq is based on fact, and is a military assessment of the situation, not a partisan political one, so I don't care really whether liberals or conservatives agree with me or not.

Your every post inthis thread however, are perfect examples of what blind partisan politics can do to reality. And they are the very reason we're still in the damned place 4 years later.

 

[glockmail]

You still belaboring this? Look, George Foreman, you got your ass knocked out. Fight's over. You're doing nothing but soiling the ring at this point.

Please try and note the difference between claiming victory, and calling an end to a debate due to the fact that you are intellectually incapable of holding up your side.

Victory means accomplishment. Out-arguing the likes of you invokes no such feeling of accomplishment. It's more akin to having to clean dog puke up off the floor because it has to be done.

The same goes for trying to drag other posters in to bail your ass out. You think because you claim to be a conservative that all conservatives will rally around your flagpole and bail you out right or wrong? Maybe a few of the more "intelligent" ones, such as yourself might. The ones that actually think for themselves have left your ass hung out to dry in case you've missed that rather obvious point.

And just to clarify for you something REAL simple .... my assessment of the situation in Iraq is based on fact, and is a military assessment of the situation, not a partisan political one, so I don't care really whether liberals or conservatives agree with me or not.

Your every post inthis thread however, are perfect examples of what blind partisan politics can do to reality. And they are the very reason we're still in the damned place 4 years later.

As you have been unable to argue point for point, instead resorting to flaming and disrespect, the only logical conclusion that can be made is that you lost the argument.

 

[Gunny]

As you have been unable to argue point for point, instead resorting to flaming and disrespect, the only logical conclusion that can be made is that you lost the argument.

That could be true except for the fact that I destroyed each and every point of your argument. Each time I did, you just restated the same shit in different words.

You lost long before it was over, and it isn't not over because you're too delusional to recognize that, or because you refuse to quit typing.

I got you pegged watching you struggle against Missileman, who pwned you like a bitch. You weren't always necessarily wrong, IMO, but without fail you'd get your ass kicked by simply not being able to handle the debate.

 

[glockmail]

That could be true except for the fact that I destroyed each and every point of your argument. Each time I did, you just restated the same shit in different words.

......

It is true for any sane person to see plainly that you failed to simply address the points; to claim that you destroyed them is delusional.