1) Hang on...you're saying that the war is over? I assumed you, like the rest of the pro-war crowd, were going by the defense against the "More soldiers have died post war than in the war" shot by saying that Bush never declared the war over, only major actions. I also thought you agreed that we were still engaged in a guerilla war. If you like I will post the claim you made that the US would be in " total control' of Iraq within weeks. 2) Note the italicized portion of your post: are you claiming that " Still, the damage to civilian infrastructure should be recognizably absent this time around. " is an accurate statement, given the crisis situation going on in Iraq now, according to the UN, Red Cross, etc?!?!? 3) The numbers are over 3,000,...which was not your prediction, but your ceiling. In a subsequent post you said it would most likely be well below that, that you had just chosen that as a bet zone because you were confident the civilian casualties would not apporach those of the first Gulf War... Tree, you were wrong. I am not asking you to own up to your bet, because in your defense glynch declined, but you were wrong. 4) Being wrong with the rest of the administration hardly refuted the arguemtn against you that you parrot the administration. 5) Lol! The point of posting this wasn't the shell game, but to show your pre-war prediction on the prescence of WMDs in Iraq...not programs, WNDs...which, as we all know, have yet to be found. Same goes for the next one...if you want to now say that the fact that we haven't found them proves that they were moved, be my guest, but I think most would recognize the specious reasoning that conclusion would be founded on. 6) This one is funny...I wasn't pointing out that you were wrong about the divisions: I wouldn't expect you to be that accurate about that kind of detail at that stage...I was pointing out that your first two posts about the actions in the war, once begun, included speculation about use of WMDs, which sort of refutes your later claim that you never expected them to be used. I only kept the division stuff in for context. You have to admit that that's funny. 7) Again: you were wrong. the fact that you were wrong in conjunction with what the admin was saying only further strengthens my point, not weakens it. 8) I answered this above and below. You did say WMD would be used...later you suggested that they weren't being used as outlined in my post: mostly commanders not wanting to face US recriminations if they used them...much later, days later, you began to say that meybe they were buried...again, in conjunction with what the admin had begun to say in order to explain the rather noticable lack of WMD finds... 9) Again, you list the psyops etc. as though you think I am saying that you were wrong about them: I wasn't. I listed your entire explanation for the no WMD usage in the early days to show that it did not include the buried explanation. That didn't surface until these proved no longer arguable. 10) I think that the " Mushroom cloud" statement makes your position on the imminence of the threat pretty clear, no? 11) Again...re underground complexes...you are totally missing the point, which was, as explained in the post, context...I was giving you the credit of listing the argument which lead up to your erroneous statement so you could not claim lack of context. So, knowing that you missed the point, yes I understand your confusion as to why i would bring it up... 12) Have you read the NIE report...you know, the one which is a compilation of all our intel resources...the one which states that Sadaam would not have armed terrorists against us, oe posed any kind of threat to us at all? Possibly you missed it, but as it shows that that was the sum of our intel, what intel are you citing claiming otherwise? 13) Cool on the drones. Glad to see you can admit error, even with a qualifier... 14) You are maintaining that the vans were labs? ok...good to know. We'll file this one for later, though given the admissions of error about this in other circles, which would be inexplicable if they were labs, it might appear that you are just being stubborn about this. 15) Re: nukes...pssst...Rummy, Wolfowitz and I think Cheney have all admitted the nuke argument was wrong. Certainly there have been no revelations to the contrary. 16) You still maintain that, as you said, " Iraq had a hand in 9-11"!?!?!? Obviously that was the point of your comment that i posted, not that there was a camp. Do you hold to that claim? 17) No, the contention you dismissed was exactly as stated...I quoted the entire post that you argued...Exactly what he said would happened has happened, and as your post shows, you ridiculed it back then. Citing lack of context is a tad weak, especially given that I have gone to such pains to show everything in it's context that you assumed much of what I quoted for context's sake was something I was arguing. 18) There has been all kinds of evidence of increased Al Queda recruitment ( see BBC on Jihad in Iraq, new missions in southern Arabia, etc.) and even more on increased terrorist activity in Iraq, which you scoffed at. They were your words, tree, not mine. 19) Well, yeah, if you incude the comments I put in for context, and not debate, then there were some piss poor examples of your dead-wrongness. Unfortunately for you, all the ones I included as evidence of same show exactly what they were meant to, with the possible exception of the helium vans, which you are sticking to. Of course, the fact that you are sticking to them doesn't refute the claim you made that they were " 100% proven" to be chem labs, or that that proof " ...should be obvious to anyone with half a brain." So there's another error there, even if you still contend that they haven't been disporven as labs. 20) Nah, they were your words, you keep em. You at least showed them to be partially true, with qualifier, about the drones. Here's hoping you own up abou the others...with time...
Macbeth: The conventional war is over. That is the part I was describing when I gave the timetable, and I'm sorry if that was not clear. It was pretty accurate, was it not? As for the guerilla war, that is a different phase, and was never even remotely a certainty prewar; it was quite likely that the regime would have been totally destroyed during the conventional phase, which is why the possibility wasn't discussed here. Now, if I did say "total control", then I was wrong. I would say that we are in total control of most of the country, but that "total control" of the Sunni triangle eludes us. Our control there could be described as moderate... So I guess I was wrong on the "total" part in an absolute sense, but what I probably intended (I think the context was this) to mean was that we would replace the Baath party as the element in control of the country. We have done that. Why do you keep taking these statements out of context? If you keep doing that they will all appear to be wrong (you know, I could use the same underhanded tactic in this debate...). This was said in response to an accusation/prediction that we would bomb or otherwise destroy such infrastructure, and I said we would not; we clearly did not do so. The only infrastructure that has been destroyed has been destroyed by the Baathist remnants, not us. I was still right on that one, no matter how you try to put it out of context. We don't know what the numbers actually were. I have seen estimates ranging from wildy low levels like "less than 1,000" to wildly high levels like 10,000. Most estimates put the number right around 3,000, so I was pretty damn close no matter how you cut it. But again, you fail to see the point here: I was countering accusations/predictions by the gloomsayers that casualties would be high, and they were not. By all accounts - and you must admit this as a military historian, particularly with knowledge of 20th century conflicts - that a number around 3,000 is relatively low, by any measure. That was the point of the discussion, and If no one was exactly right, I was closer than anyone else here in my prediction. Do you mean the rest of the world's intelligence community? *Everyone* was wrong. LOL! So if my theory isn't right, then we are left only with yours (and it must be yours, because it is the only alternative): The WMD were not there to begin with. And we're supposed to believe that that theory is the correct one??? Yes, LOL indeed... Please. They were hidden. You know it. I know it. Every intelligence official on the planet knows it. But go ahead, keep it up with the "WMD arent there" defense. We'll see who's laughing when Kay's report comes to light. As far as the possible drone incident, I did use the qualifier "may", and was only going based upon reports. And might I remind you that at that point, *no one* knew that the Iraqis would not use WMD? It was always a distinct possibility, especially at that stage. But next time I'll use my psychic 20/20 hindsight correction goggles when sharing reports from the front, OK? Would you please use quotes as I do when we're having these debates? I cannot figure out exactly which of my points you are refering to with this one. Your numbering system does not work half as well as the quote-quote system does. Not trying to duck this one, I really just don't know which one you're refering to. No, no, no I did not. I did say that it was highly possible that they could be used, and everyone on the planet agreed with that (you included), but that I did not personally think it would happen. I am getting tired of repeating myself on that one, so I'm just going to have to dig and find the thread where I said it. It was actually not started by me, but by someone else who had concerns about the subject. I'll find it later. Dude, nobody - nobody at all, you included - knew that the WMD had been hidden and made inacessible. As it turned out, everyone on the planet was wrong about that one in particular, although that by no means negates the "burying theory". It is still the most likely explanation. Oh please. It was a figure of friggen speech. Are you trying to tell me that because we saw no mushroom clouds, I was wrong??? Do I need to explain how ridiculous that is? Thanks for confusing me, although I doubt that was your original intent. You're supposed to be trying to prove me wrong here, and I somehow doubt that you just threw that one in to jerk my chain. You were proven wrong on a proving-wrong issue, admit it. Have you read it? You know, it supports an awful lot of my arguments. About the only argument it makes (and it is an opinion, really) was that the threat was not imminent. But it is clear that the threat was present. Read it again. No, not labs - production facilities. And again, when the CIA admits error, so will I, but not until then. And not until I see a logical explanation for them. Actually, we have found some info on the programs. That info indicates that while it was not as extensive as thought, it did exist. And still - what was that centrifuge for? Go ahead, keep ignoring that one. I still think it is a possibility, but for the umpteenth time, that is merely a personal belief. Are you saying that my personal opinions are wrong, now? Oh, bullsh*t. "Citing lack of context is a tad weak"? Are you serious? I could take any statement of your or anyone else's and cite it out of context, and I can make it look wrong. Any comment. Context is important, you eliminated the context on that one, and you know it. Cop out on that one. Again, BS. There has been no reliable evidence of increased Al Qaeda recruitment at all (and no, the BBC is not reliable on this issue - their idiotic Jessica Lynch theory proved that), and of course terrorist activity has increased inside Iraq. We're fighting a guerilla war there, in case you haven't noticed. Point remains, those who are flocking to Iraq already worked for Al Qaeda. Sorry, but I don't see it. You're taking whatever you can out of context, nitpicking nuances and word fragments, etc, and generally trying to make whatever I say appear inaccurate in a truly intellectually dishonest fashion, but that doesn't really surprise me. Truth is not one of your strong points, never has been. You know, anyone can play the cut and paste game, Macbeth.
Two words for you: hoo hah (or is that 1?) Anyway, I've seen countless "real history" documentaries where the ultimate downfall of a president is to ask his military people if something can be done, because they will always answer yes. If you sit around and spend hours ruminating over whether you believe in your orders wholeheartedly before you carry them out, you aren't a very good soldier. It is this type of dedication to service which makes part of me wish that I had joined one of the services. Of course, your response to this makes you sound really good, but what I intended to state is that the people in the Army (and this is a quality that I admire and seek to emulate) never get caught up worrying about abstract moral problems when there is a job to be done. I see this antapathy when I look at the idiot who refused service because he didn't wan't to serve under the UN, or the punk reservist Marine sniper who suddently didn't want to go to Iraq because he didn't want to kill. Soldiers focus on the job in front of them, and do what they're ordered to do when it counts, without interjecting their own controls on the situation. This is an admirable quality. That's part of my cool hip guy mystique . No... Actually, I align myself with the Bull Moose Party. I am a 1900 liberal republican who was born 100 years too late. Teddy Roosevelt was the ultimate populist. He believed in nature conservation because it gave to the people, etc. See Teddy's bio for more Clearly he was a flawed man, but his flaws were noble in a don Quixotesque way. IMHO that makes them worthwhile. Anyway, the fact that you don't align yourself along moral lines delineated by someone else for you is probably the part of you which I can most empathize with, and as an unreformed narcissist, that makes you worthwhile in my book. BTW, did you do your basic @ Fort Hood? I drove by there about a week ago and that place is the @ss of the world. I couldn't tell which was worse, Fort Hood or the high security penitentiary at Gatesville!
LOL! I was thinking the same thing when I read his post. (Pardon me. Just catching up on this thread. Back to page 2. )
Congrats on the new son treeman! And a big WOW! to some particularly excellent posts by Macbeth, Ottomaton and others! I haven’t been around in a while and I’d forgotten how incredibly intelligent, well thought out, and wise the discussion and ideas here can be (with the notable exception of TJ of course ). It’s inspiring. I wish I had more time to participate.
Ultimately, I am convinced that "declaring an end to major hostilities" is going to turn out to be one of the stupidist things that GW will have done as president. Every death after that point was somehow counted by the press as "extra" or "unnecessary", and it gave the public the sense that they should move on to other things. Last week you could see the press practically practicing Onanism because the body count before "the end to major hostilities" had come to equal the body count "after the end of major hostilities". Declaring "the end" made the public think (even if the administration didn't think) that the war was over, when in fact the most important phase (the guerilla phase) of the war had just begun. The first major downturn in the way that the public rated the administration's handling of Iraq occured after this milestone. It is clear to me that this administration (rightly or wrongly) isn't practiced in the finer points of public policy. IMHO, if they'd continued to project a "continuing war in Iraq" they could have rode the crest of the wave of public opinion through the next election. Instead, they will be scraping and clawing for the same votes when the time comes.
1) I think it's pretty clear that the war is ongoing: Saddam's alive, we're still fighting and dying, etc. But I can see that that might have been an element of your initial intent; ironically the fact that that means you in no way envisioned the guerilla phase goes to point, but who's counting? 2) I am not intentionally taking anything out of context, and am growing tired of all the inferences that I am playing games to win arguments. I have made it pretty clear in my time here that I am sincere, and above all that I want to argue on substance. I have heard of damaged infrastructure and health crisis situations sice we started bombing, and have heard on several occassions that we destroyed a great deal. That was my point, not to try and twist your words to mean we are responsible for terrorist bombings as far as your prediction went. Obviously you still don't know much about me. 3) I disagree abou your initial report, but I agree that, whatever the prediction, the numbers were quite low. 4) No, everyone was not wrong...many of us, including myself, thought it highly probable that Iraq had WMD, but of course we were going off of US intel, as reported to us by the White House ...Many of us, including myslef, talked about the dangers of going to war on a probability, and asked for evidence...which is where the whole " anti-American" stuff began, not to mention the fabricated evidence, faulty intel, etc. Many of us were troubled by all the reports and resignations siting the White House making it clear that they were only interested in intel which supported their position. It turns out that many of us were right about the diffference between a supposition and a conclusion, and for a war you'd better be damned sure. 5) I would suggest that there are other possible interpretations. I would also suggest that, whatever we find at this point, the NIE report and those claiming that Iraq represented no immediate threat have been proven accurate, and the reports that Iraq represented an immediate threat have been disproven. 6) Read the threads from which i quoted...For one thing you were mocking people who said the drones weren't for WMD, so to now try and back off and say you were only supporting reports is untrue, and not reflective of what happened. For another several of us, including myself, said that even if Saddam had WMD there was no reason to conclude that he would use them. Remember our whole interplay about whether or not he was a deranged lunatic? I pointed out that he hadn't used them in GW1...you mocked. So, again, to try and pass off your errors as just what everyone thought is innacurate, and missing the point. The question here was initially whether or not your position afforded you a unique ability to analyze the situation in Iraq as others ( not you, I know that) claimed. I said it didn't, and pointed out that you A) Tend to follow the WH press releases pretty point by point on your positions, and B) Have been wrong very often. The fact that you were B because of A really doesn't contradict my point, it supports it. 7) I honestly apologize about the numbering system, and agree that I get off line when I encompass a few quotes with one response. I don't know how to do the in-quote response thing you do. 8) Cool, I'll wait for it. 9) Again, disagree but covered in 6. Remember that the basis for most of our assumptions about the presence of WMDs in Iraq was the very US reports we now all hold as less than reliable. 10) Re: Mushroom clouds...Clearly that was not my intent. CLearly what i was proving was that you were among those claiming that the threat was an imminent one. If a person asks you for proof that the threat is imminent, and you respond by saying " What are you waiting for, a mushroom cloud over New York?" the interpretation is crystal clear. Again, it is the same argument made by the administration pre-war to make the threat seem imminent. Look at the SOTUA. It was also only one of several examples I read when perusing the posts where you made mention of the fact that we had to support the war because of the imminent nature of the threat, ie nukes to terrorists, etc. This one suffices as evidence of your claims 11) I really hope you're just joking about this. My intent, context, seems pretty clear to me. Read it again and see if you disagree. 12) I have read it. It says that the only way Saddam becomes a threat to the US or our interests is if we attack him. It says that he is no threat directly, is no threat to the area, and is no threat to us through terrorists. It goes into great detail as to why he isn't a threat, but mostly come down to a point you will agree I made pre-war several times: Saddam is above all a political survivor interested in his own preservation, and attacking the US, directly or indirectly, would be contrary to that interest. We had this debate often, you and I, and you would site his record of making bad decisions, I would site his continued survival, his choice not to use WMD in GW1, etc. I was dissapointed you weren't around when the NIE report came out and supported my side in the argument. 13) It isn't just a personal belief, as the posts I quoted show, you often claimed that it was proven, and mocked those who "ignored the evidence" for being blind. I agree that at times tou also refered to it as a personal opinion, but often that was in the context of " It has long been my opinion that Iraq was involved in 9-11, and this proves I was right" ...Again, based on what we know, you weren't. 14) All right. WHy do you think that other experts have concluded...after the initial CIA report...that there is no way they could have been used for WMD? 15) So you were wrong about how extensive it was...as in weapons, right? Okay, I'll take that. 16) I did not eliminate context on that one...I wrote an entire paragraph on the context, quoted the entire post you responded to, quoted your entire response ( which was your first post in that thread) to that post...what else, exactly, should I have done to keep your posts in context!?!? 17) Disagree on the BBC, which is widely held as the most reputable news source in the world by many people, but that aside, the fact remains that you said this wouldn't happen. Whether that includes you saying that guerilla warfare leading to this wouldn't happen, or that this wouldn't happen period is merely semantic. He said pretty clearly that this would happen, and you point by point disagreed. The words are there. 18) " Truth is not one of your strong points, never has been." I am getting so sick of this crap. First I was a traitor, a tree-hugger a commie, a Saddam lover, etc. All complete crap thrown at me from the pro-war camp simply because of my positions and arguments to supprt them. Lately it's been accusing me of lying, or being egotistical, and never with any evidence or examples. I have never lied in here, tree, and that is complete and utter garbage. I am sick of it. And to not only infer that I lie without support, but to suggest that I routinely lie is a really juvenile means of arguing. You were caught out here, it's pretty obvious...I pointed out example of example of you being wrong, and not once did I say or infer that you were lying. You say I always do it without one single example, unless you count the times you claimed I must be lying merely because I didn't agree with your take on things. Complete crap.
Let me add another thing that Treeman was wrong on. He proclaimed immediately after 9/11, when we had the anthrax scare, that the anthrax had to have come from Iraq. Of course within days of 911, Tree of course was also urging an invasion of Iraq and I believe had been urging this probably before 9/11, like the other neocons. As usual Tree added many technical sounding details about the crystaline structure of the anthrax powder, manufacturing processes or whatever and details about biochemical weapons labs at various locations etc. The info sounded very authoritative, but of course his conclusion was just wrong. PS I had decided not to submit this. I thought it was just too picky, until I saw Tree say: "Truth is not one of your strong points, never has been" regarding Macbeth.
Yeah, it was really just taking the opportunity to reiterate that when relying on tree for analysis, those who do are relying on someone who A) Was predisposed to be biased towards favoring the government, and B) Has had that reinforced in the extreme due to being part of a war time military indoctrination, albeit with varying degrees of impact on individual soldiers. But I also wanted to point out how that was needed, and suggest that if tree is going to be going into combat it would be better he kept that slanted perspective. I actually don't remember any hostility between us; should I?
Oh, Jesus Christ... This is getting ridiculous. In an effort to discredit anything I say that you don't like, you are going to sit here and repeat flat out lies, scream, "No! I'm right! I'm always right!", twist whatever phrase you can, ignore context... This is getting ridiculous. Here we go again... Macbeth: Point for what? My estimate was meant to describe how long it would take to topple Saddam, how long the major fighting would go on with organized and formal elements of Iraq's military. No one ever said anything about the low-level resistance (and it is low-level, despite what you may think, Oh Vaunted Historian), no one ever asked about it, least of whom you. You want to score a point for something that was never an issue at the time, go ahead. You seem to be quite fond of rewriting history and changing rules after the fact, so whatever floats your boat. I mean, if your ego simply demands a point... All that you have made clear is that you will use any tactic at all to win an argument, and that you have no shame. And you are taking many of these items out of context. Bullsh*t. Now, I'm sure that in your zeal you will attempt to cast a historical framework on the conflict consisting of American smart bombs screaming into water treatment plants and railroad depots, with crying babies crawling through the rubble in an effort to escape American-bred death, and I'm sure that many on the left will take heart in such "historical" accounts, but you and I both know that that picture is false. You know damn well that we did not target Iraq's infrastructure this time around, either before, during, or after the conventional phase, or before or during the guerilla phase. But slander and lie away, as is your wont... Wow. I almost feel like we're getting somewhere. Almost. Which was presented and dismissed. There was going to be no pleasing your side, regardless of what sort of evidence was presented. And BTW, there are no certainties in the intelligence field. Very few, at least. It is virtually all based on probabilities, so it is not intelligence evidence that you required, it was a smoking gun, which was 100% impossible to provide before the fact, as you well knew. No, it actually turned out that there was nothing to most of those arguments, but I suppose that if you, Howard Dean, or the NYT repeats an accusation enough times then it must be true, right? This has been about the most extensive and dishonest slander campaign I have ever seen in my life. I mean, I know you're supposed to throw mud, but at least keep it factual? The whole "Bush lied" thing is a farce with no basis in reality, but it sure does sound nice (and explains how all those things your side was wrong about "were not really wrong"...). There you go with that word again, immediate. For the hundredth f*ing time, I have repeatedly sauid 'inevitable', not 'immediate'. The fact that you persist in ignoring that is a glaring example of your intellectual dishonesty here, Macbeth. You know damn well thast I said inevitable - we have argued about this at least twenty times, because you continue to throw that particular one my way ("he said immediate"). You know damn well what I said, so stop *lying* about it. And for the record, I have read the friggen NIE. Here's a copy of it: http://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/article_6210.shtml A few excerpts from just the first couple paragraphs: This NIE clearly states the consensus view of our intelligence agencies that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute his nuclear capacity... We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade... Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production... How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material. If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year... Why don't you read the rest of it; I would assume that since you're citing it as evidence of the correctness of your position, that you have not actually read it, just what the NYT and Washington Post had to say about it? It is not very kind to your position, and you'd be advised to stop using it to support it. It's quite shameful. Excuse me??? So now you know that I wasn't going by reports? What, I was just making it all up? OK dude, whatever. The slander rises to a new level. There's no way to even counter a "Nuh-uh!! You lied!"... It is too juvenile. And for the rest of us there was no way to be sure that he wouldn't, a point that is simple enough for a 12-year-old to understand, but oddly convoluted enough for a college professor to fail to get. You see, Macbeth, one of the problems here. You think of me as the parrot of the administration. You have that image of me, and nothing I say or do is going to change it. If you did not have such an image, you would actually listen to what I write and not just assume that I am writing exactly what the administration sayd. For example, I have always argued with their timetables on the Iraq occupation. Another example, I have never put any stock into the Niger-uranium deal (even before it was thought to be dubious). Another example - I disagree with their Israel policy, as well as their policies regarding Iran and NK. I am not a friggen parrot, Macbeth, and if you realized that you might be able to actually read what I am writing, and not just what you think that I am writing. One would think that someone with your level of education would be able to discriminate as such. Ah, schools these days... In front of the text to be quoted, type a bracket ([), 'QUOTE' (in all caps), followed by an end bracket (]). No spaces. At the end of the text to be quoted, do the same, except put a slash (/) between the beginning bracket and the 'Q'. Please, please start doing it, because this is a pain in the ass to keep track of. I'll find it later (it was months ago, and will take a while to find) when I have the time. I think Cohen may have started it? Or someone whose moniker starts with an 'R'? Maybe not, don't remember... I'll look. Uh huh. Is the NIE included in that category of "less than reliable"? Because it says he had 'em. And am I to believe that you now believe that all US intelligence on Iraq is unreliable? Just curious, yes or no answer. Oh. My. God. How many fu*king times am I going to have to call you out on this??? Inevitable is not the same thing as imminent, as your big brain damn well knows. Stop lying on this one, you know damn well what I said!!! Yes, the meaning would be that that person believed that it was likely inevitable. Were it to be imminent, then there would need to be a timetable, like "What are you waiting for, a mushroom cloud over New York within the next year?" Are you getting this, Macbeth? For the hundred and fourteenth time, inevitable, not imminent. And in the case of him giving them to terrorists, I never said that that was an inevitability (much less imminent, you have completely made that one up out of thin air, and I defy you to find a quote of mine on that), I said it was a possibility that could not be ignored in the post-911 world. You seem to have trouble with words like "inevitable", "imminent", "possibility", probability", "may have", etc. Why? Here, this may help: im·mi·nent Pronunciation: 'i-m&-n&nt Function: adjective Etymology: Latin imminent-, imminens, present participle of imminEre to project, threaten, from in- + -minEre (akin to Latin mont-, mons mountain) -- more at MOUNT Date: 1528 : ready to take place; especially : hanging threateningly over one's head in·ev·i·ta·ble Pronunciation: i-'ne-v&-t&-b&l Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Latin inevitabilis, from in- + evitabilis evitable Date: 14th century : incapable of being avoided or evaded You see, the two words have quite different definitions. I hope this has cleared things up, because I am getting very tired repeating myself due to either your disingenuity or your inability to discern these two words. I thought you were joking. No points for Macbeth. Curiously, that is not what it actually says. Why don't you actually read it this time? Really? Where? I don't see that *anywhere* in the copy I'm looking at. Now I *know* that you have not read it. Here's another copy: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html (good lord, man, did you think I wouldn't bring this up? You really must think me an idiot...) No, I claimed that it was supported by evidence, which is not the same thing as proven. And this is, BTW, another example of you simply lying about something that I said/did not say in an effort to put words in my mouth. I want you to find a quote by me stating my belief that the Iraq-911 connection was proven. I am challenging you on that one. Either find it or quit saying that I said it, because your lies are getting tiresome. And BTW, I will mock anyone who simply ignores evidence just because they don't like what it is saying. To me that makes them an idiot and entirely mockable. To make the adminstration appear the fool. People have spared no expense to accomplish that throughout this war. The propaganda war accompanying this one has been truly staggering in its scope, and the audacity of the antiwar segments has been truly amazing. Why hasn't the CIA changed its tune on that? OK. And still - what was that centrifuge for? Go ahead, keep ignoring that one. You know damn well what that centrifuge meant. It has only one possible meaning. What should you have done? Perhaps mentioned what we were actually talking about - the US, not Iraq. The meaning changes when you change the friggen country. You included just enough information to make it appear that you included the context, so that you could say "Look! I included the context.", when you did not in fact do so. You are a tricky ba*tard, I'll give you that. Yes, many people on the left, because it parrots what they want to hear. Tell me, do you actually believe that those SOF went into that hospital with blanks? Honestly, answer this question. (Please don't say yes, because that will put you in my "Wow, what a friggen idiot" category, which I try to reserve for a select few) And what can you say about an organization that drives a man to suicide by lying about what he has said? You remember that whole ordeal with the former inspector, the one that they claimed told them that Brit Intel sexed up the evidence? And the BBC later admitted that was not actually true? The BBC is just the Brit version of the NYT. About as trustworthy as that. After all, both organizxations have been caught lying/making sh*t up within the past six months, not a real great record. But I'm sure that doesn't matter to you and your friends... Integrity isn't that important... Said what wouldn't happen? Increased terrorist recruitment? It's not. Again, no reliable evidence at all that it is. Please point to the intelligence estimate stating this? I must have missed it. Ohhhh, that's right, the BBC said it... Yeah, and we were talking about terrorist strikes in the US, which curiously have not happened yet. Remember that whole "taking it out of context thing we discussed? Nice try. I'm getting sick of your crap. Do you think I appreciate having you lie about things I have supposedly said? That I appreciate having words put into my mouth? I am definitely getting sick of that. I don't know whether or not you're a tree-hugger or commie, and don't particularly care. As far as being a Saddam-lover, if you'll think back to one of our conversatuions on that very subject, you will remember me telling you that I did not believe that you were a Saddam-lover. As for being a traitor, I seriously doubt that you intentionally would co anything traitorous, and would not go so far as to label you that, because I think that intent would be necessary for that, and I think that such malicious intent is lacking. I chalk it up to stupidity and naivete, coupled with a screwed up education. I will always point out the fact that absolutely no one except for our enemies would benefit were we to do what you recommended foreign-policy-wise. That I will always point out. Nonsense. You lied at least twice in this post alone. Ah, yes. The old "That's too juvenile to dignify with a response" defense. A good one, I use it often myself... I gave you at least two (probably more, I think, not keeping track) in this post alone. I give you examples all the time, you simply ignore whatever doesn't sit well. I'm used to that by now. Oh please... You never fail to fall back on this defense: Treeman claims I'm lying/bad/evil because I don't agree with what he's saying. Please, please, please... I couldn't care less whether or not you agree with me. Many posters here disagree with me, and I get along just fine with them without hurling insults and character assassinations, so your little "If you don't agree with treeman, then he'll say bad things about you" accusations are not only petty, but stupid. But keep it up, your audience loves it. Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. Complete crap. glynch: Wow, glynch does in three paragraphs what Macbeth fails to do in three hundred - found something I turned out to be dead wrong about. Most likely, that is (investigation's still ongoing), but I already conceded that one a long time ago anyway... But good going glynch!
You b*stard! I'll kill you! How's that? Actually, one day I was feeling particularly unkind towards some of the more eccentric and unproductive elements of the liberal collective mindset and expressed them after you responded to me in what I felt was a condecending way in a thread in which I expressed my (longtime) deep loathing of all things Francophilic, which resulted in me being portrayed as a Trader_Jorge clone. Probably it's just me expressing some sort of deep guilt at biteing the hand that feeds.
Treeman, I don't know you and you don't know me, but I'll drop a few comments your way. I haven't read all the posts in the thread, but I read that you are in Colorado. I assume you are training at Fort Carson. Glad to hear about your coming fatherhood, and hope all that works out for you. Having a son is the most wonderful feeling you can imagine, and the love you will develop for this child will exceed any love you have known. That love which you will carry for him is found all over the world by fathers for their sons. This is our link to fathers in Iraq and other places. We know that most fathers want the best for their kids and will do anything to defend them. It's hard to see our opponents in battle as men like us, but it is imperative. He's fighting for what he believes, too. If you go, do your job as a soldier, and that means doing what you have to do to protect your comrades and yourself. Don't worry about the politics of it until you get back. If you go, you'll be an expert on Iraq when you get back. Good luck, soldier.
Tree... I see. So your estimate, in an argument about what the cost in lives this action would be, was designed to be a restricted prediction of innocent lives lost during a certain phase in the war...not the entire action. So, let me get this straight, you contradicted another poster's statement about the fact that in causing this war to come about we would also cause the deaths of innocents, and you feel/felt that you were somehow refuting this point by saying we would cause less lives to be lost, as you said in the entire war, in a specific phase!?!?!? So that the deaths which occur after this phase you didn't feel the need to specify somehow wouldn't go to the point of the poster claiming we were going to cause the deaths of innocents!?!? And you say I'm the one stretching a semantic point to try and win an argument?!!? Right... Spare me the sanctimony. I am not here to win arguments. My positions do that for me. If I had to resort to childish tactics to win arguments, I wouldn't bother trying. You forget, tree, that unlike...er...some, I didin't come into this war debate with a previously established agenda, or political affiliation. I was, in fact, a Bush supporter, albeit not a very enthusiastic one. The facts decided my position on this, not the reverse. As such, aside from that based on my evaluation of what has happened, I have no motive to try and skew arguments to make my point; the facts do that for me. I am not, and was not talking about targets specifically intended as soft hits on the infrastructure, I was talking about hits on the infrastructure, whatever the original motivation. I think that everyone here who watched this war unfold on television is quite aware of the humanitarian crisis that existed long before the terrorist phase ever began. To assert that the only significant damage to the water supply, electricity, etc. was caused by the terrorists post war only reveals the blindness with which you report these things. I will find a damned new report from this period about the crisis, and you will dismiss it unless it's Fox. Uh, are you serious? You are actually going to sit here and defend the 'evidence' presented to us pre-war!?!? Or chide us for dismissing it!?!? You are standing behind the same evidence that the Brits are currently holding a hearing about, the White House has admitted was largely erroneous, etc.!?!?!? Is anyone else reading this? You are actually trying to refute the position that those of us had...ie that we didn't make a good enough argument about WMD, 9-11, etc before going in...the argument that almost all know concede was accurate, only pro-war people now say was irrelevent because of the other issues, ie humanitarian, etc...by virtue of the fact that we dismissed the fabricated, misrepresented, overemphasized, or simply wrong evidence pre-war?!!?!? Wow, you've got balls, I'll give you that. Man, you really live in a fantasy land. I now know why you weren't posting here for all that period when all these errors, etc. were being proven, admitted, etc...your head was in the sand. I could go through and point out point by point how the uranium, tubing, prop planes, 9-11 connections, et al were point by point proven wrong, but what's the point? I'm sure you've seen it all before. Whatever blinkers you've got on would clearly not allow you to see this any better. Oh God. I showed at least one example of your scoffing at another poster's wondering about our evidence of a threat posed by Iraq wherein you labelled him as among those who won't be satisfied until a mushroom cloud is over NYC, with Saddam claiming responsibility. The clear and obvious implication is that the threat is immediate, or at least not distinguishable as anything other than immediate, which considering the concept of the term "threat" is the exact same thing. This is a pthetic attempt to again do what you have accused me of doing; splitting a hair to avoid a point.
Treeman, correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't you say that if we are still fighting in Iraq in one year, you would consider the whole attempt to set up a democracy (or was it the invasion itself ) a failure. I remember when you said that, or something close to that thinking in the early days of glee after Baghdad fell. I remember thinking that I should have saved it to the hard disk. I don't consider you a Bush clone. You're more militaristic than all but the most hard core of the Bush Administration. You're more a classic neocon as you don't go with the whole conservative agenda for social issues and conservative economics. You just join the Bush crowd in the desire to frequently seekout foreign enemies and then use the military to go kick foreign butt.
Oh Christ, Here we go again. Macbeth: Did you quote the wrong section? The section you quoted here doesn't mention casualties, it is discussing duration... But whatever. We can talk about that too. OK, let's -play it your way for a minute, and remove any "phases" from that particular argument. Saddam has murdered nearly a million and a half people during his tenure. We have murdered perhaps 50,000 at most with two wars total since we took an active interest in Iraq. No phases here, but time spans. Saddam had 24 years of rule. 1.5 million divided by 24 equals 62,500 people mudered per year on average. We've been iactively nvolved for about 13 years, at about 50,000 (a very generous estimate to your argument, actual figure being much less) comes to 3,846 people murdered per year. Are you really going to argue that we've been worse? Let's be even kinder to your argument and say that another 250,000 people die as a result of this war, and that it goes on another 10 years. (The probability of such numbers occurring is pretty much about a zillion to one, but we'll humor you and give you what you want for now) Then we have 300,000 people at 23 years, for a yearly average of 13,043 people murdered... Let's just say that we've got quite a ways to go to equal Saddam's barbarity. Oh, and let's also say that your argument here is totally ridiculous, and that any 6-year old could see that. I will do no such thing. You're not? Then exactly what are you here for? I have yet to see you actually contribute anything worthwhile to this debate, or even attempt to do so. As far as I can tell, you have only two purposes here: 1) to win arguments in order to stroke your ego, and 2) to silence anyone you do not agree with. Oh, nonsense. You are quite capable of being childish. You're especially adept at being childish but using big words, so as to give the appearance of maturity. More nonsense. You have been strongly against this war from the beginning, just as I have been a strong proponent. Your mind was just as made up as mine was. Before you ever posted a single post on this BBS. Nonsense. Since you have presented no facts to support your cause, I find this hard to believe. More likely that your worldview and skewed education have formed your position on this. See above. And your motive is to massage your ego. That is quite plain to see. What hits on the infrastructure? About the only possible hits on infrastructure you could be talking about would be from errant bombs, and there were very, very few of those. I'd like you to link references to this claim. Since we apparently accidentally blew the sh*t out of half the country's infrastructure, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find examples of this... Put up or shut up. Uh, what channel are you watching? Are you talking about that mass exodus that you and your ilk predicted and never happened? Or perhaps the famine that your buddies predicted and never happened? Oh yeah, that's right - there was a water shortage in the south for about a week. Holy samolians! What a catastrophe!!! You ba*tard Americans! There are only two things that have damaged Iraq's infrastructure: 12 years of neglect by Saddam's regime (and don't say it was sanctions, because the Kurds have good infrastructure, and they were under exactly the same sanctions), and terrorists within the past 4 months. Search away for evidence of your fabled bombed water treatment plants... Yes. Why do you even bother asking that? You'll know when I'm joking. Yes, why not? Quite a bit of it turned out to be accurate. Some of it was not. That's the nature of intelligence, or haven't you learned that in your Peace and Pretty Flowers Studies classes? Yes, hearings based on an untruthful BBC story, something which will come out very soon. Take a look at this: http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/story/0,13812,1034210,00.html (so much for the integrity of the BBC, huh? Oh, and so much for your allegations that the intel was hyped) We know about the uranium-Niger deal. Tell me, what is the rest of this erroneous intelligence the White House has copped up to of which you speak? Either I'm drawing a blank on this one, or you're making stuff up again... Uh, I really would like to hear exactly what you think that you were right about, and what position of yourse you feel has been proven accurate postwar. Tell me? Be specific. Please don't say "There are no WMD", Macbeth. Please, for your own sake, don't do it... Why thank you. You've got slime on your tongue. OK. Let's do that. Yes, it turned out that the intel we got from the Brits was not solid at all. Curiously, other sources of our own indicated a Niger-uranium deal, independent of anything the Brits were doing, and some analysts (still) think that such a deal actually was in the works. Personally, I don't really care if it was an accurate allegation or not. Moot point now. Yes, a dual-use material, that some have tried to explain away as innocent merely because it was dual-use. Curiously, your buddy the NIE claims that it was to be used in a nuke program... Uh, what prop-planes are you talking about? If you are talking about the drones, are you talking about the recon drones that we've found already? Or the converted L-39s that we know for a fact the Iraqis had and have yet to find? You know, the ones that are probably buried (along with the rest of their air force and, ahem, certain other objects of desire) in the sands of the desert? Oh, boy, I must have really missed this one. How could I have missed such a headline? "Saddam proven innocent of 9-11 connection" must have been a big one. Why didn't I see it? Could you please post a link on this one for me? I'd really like to see how it was proven that there was no link. It must be a fascinating story. I fail to see the wrong in this. Someone will not be convinced until a city blows up, so I mock them. Where's the fault there? Nothing short of that would have convinced you, so what's your point? Ah, I see you're still not getting that whole "difference between definitions" thing. I had thought it was pretty straightforward... You see, one has a time reference within its meaning, the other has no time reference at all. One says that something is going to happen very soon, the other just says that it is going to happen. See if you can guess which one means which? (this should be a delightful exercise. Oh what fun!) What grade are you in again, Macbeth? Really? Wow, I didn't know that the definition of "threat" included a time reference in it. Let's see... threat Pronunciation: 'thret Function: noun Etymology: Middle English thret coercion, threat, from Old English thrEat coercion; akin to Middle High German drOz annoyance, Latin trudere to push, thrust Date: before 12th century 1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage 2 : one that threatens 3 : an indication of something impending OK, let's look up impending im·pend Pronunciation: im-'pend Function: intransitive verb Etymology: Latin impendEre, from in- + pendEre to hang -- more at PENDANT Date: 1599 1 a : to hover threateningly : MENACE b : to be about to occur 2 archaic : to hang suspended Wow! You're right! If I take definition #3 from threaten and #1b from impending, then I do get something akin to 'immediate'. Curiously, I have to use exactly those two sub-definitions; any other carries no time reference. Perhaps we have been using two different definitions? I mean, I've never heard that the word 'threat' carried a time reference, and in its first two usages it does not. Still, though, I can't imagine that you're dull enough to fail to understand that I have not been refering to any time reference in my usage here, especially since it is so obvious that what I have been saying all along (and arguing with you about for what seems like an eternity) is that I put no time references on anything with regard to this issue... But whatever. I'm quite sure that with your big brain and all, you knew what I intended to say much better than I did. And I think that this is another lame attempt to split that hair even further. Shameless. Don't have a clue? But that was the most straightforward part in my entire post??? OK, let me try to be more clear here: The NIE supports my arguments, not yours, and I busted you red friggen handed in a lie - that you have not in fact read the NIE. (Of course I'm sure you have now, you rapscallion. Don't try to bluff me.) Why are you harping on about the drones? You know, that's about the only part that I have actually agreed with you that I was probably wrong about, and yet you can't stop talking about it... Talk about dancing on a dead man's grave. Shameless again... Of course, we still haven't found the L-39s, but whatever. We'll save that for later. Agreed. I am absolutely right about that. Why would we do that? They are an ally, and have not threatened us in nearly two hundred years. Iraq was not an ally, and Saddam threatened us all the time. Curiously, another ally who hasn't threatened us recently. Gee, I wonder why we don't invade allies who never threaten us? Maybe we should rethink our policy... Well, they're not allies, and they have threatened us recently, but... Oh! I know! They're one of our largest trading partners and have the ability to nuke half of our country! Am I right? Hmm. Tough one. Let me think... Maybe because they're a nonhostile democracy? A strategis ally in the war on terror? Perhaps because they are also one of our largest trading partners as well, and possess nuclear weapons too? Hmm, could be one of those... That's a good question. I'm stumped. Well, Syria, Iran, Libya, and North Korea are still not totally off the hook yet. Their future is uncertain, I'd say. I guess we could attack Russia if you'd like? Oh wait, there's that trading partner thing, the ally in war on terror yada yada yada... And the whole nuke thing, I guess. OK, so what do we have here: Iraq was not a trading partner of any significance. Iraq was not an ally in any way. Saddam continually threatened us and his neighbors both verbally and by moving his army around. They did not yet have nukes. France was their best friend... All of these things combine to put them in a totally separate category than any of the countries you mentioned. Sorry, just another dumb argument you've given here. Try again. Well, one way to be sure of that is to get the bad guy before he has them. That is, in fact, the *only* way to be sure. Now do you see the logic behind preemption? What a curious statement, considering that we have never given Saddam any chemical weapons. Please post evidence of this momentous revelation, as I've never heard of it. (another lie) See above. Even if a college professor can't process it, I'm still sure that a 12-year old could. Perhaps the logic is just too simple to comprehend for one with so many neural connections? That is precisely the problem. You mean when I argued that we should forget the inspections - which turned out to be fruitless anyway, and did nothing but give Saddam time to prepare for a guerilla war - and invade earlier? Why yes. Yes I did. Do you think that in hindsight, it was wise to give Saddam an extra six months to prepare for the guerilla war? Hmm? Why, what an astute observation. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do agree with that statement. The fact that you do not worries me. How smart is this guy, really? You are by extension arguing for us supporting Hamas if you disagree with that statement. Are you a closet Hamas supporter, Macbeth? It sure would explain alot. Oooohhh, I get it now! If you're against Hamas, then you're a parrot of the administration. Why didn't I see this earlier? I think that we should take the leash off of the Israelis and actively help them destroy Hamas, PIJ, PFLP, and Hizbollah, because only when these organizations are no more will there be peace in Palestine. That's not exactly Bush policy, is it? Yes, I know you're not sure, because I know what I did and did not say on that one. A shining example of you thinking that I said something / wanting me to have said something so that you can maintain your image of me being a parrot of the admin. Do you see where I'm getting with this? Isn't this so much easier? And prettier, I think... Hey. Hey! HEY! I said earlier that intelligence was a game of probabilities, and you just brushed it aside. Now you're saying it to me?!? Well, the cows always come home to roost... I'm sorry, what were they supposed to use? Rumors written in the bathroom stall next to Sally Suckalot's phone number? Excerpts from Beetle Bailey's comic strip? Please... And exactly what part of their position was refuted? If you say that there are no WMD (in any way, as I know you'll try to disguise that argument), I am going to scream. Since they didn't go against the intelligence, this is obviously not an issue. Although it is a curious point to raise, as it has no point. Uh, have you already forgotten the Powell UN presentation? It wasn't that long ago. Oh, and in postwar form you would be refering to the NIE. You know, your favorite sh*t tickets? As did I. Don't you just love repeating yourself? And I second that with a say what? I don't follow. No, that would be inevitability. Do I need to post the definitions again? I'll just remind you that they are two different words, with two different meanings. (damnit! I said it again. 115...) No, I'm saying that since we don't know exactly when the threat will materialize, but we are fairly certain that it will at some point, it is better to err on the side of caution and just remove the threat altogether. Again, this is not a difficult concept to grasp, and any 12 year-old could get it. Why can't you? When someone asks for proof, I will give them evidence - which is all that is possible to give (at that time, at least). When someone says they don't see a threat, then they are also saying that they don't understand what that threat is. A mushroom cloud is quite illustrative in that regard. It was that implication that the admin used to illustrate why it would be dangerous, irresponsible, and stupid to wait and test fate. Another simple concept beyond a professor's grasp... Yes. Quite a clear one, too, as you were caught red handed... You claimed that something was in the NIW, that it was discussed in great detail, when it was not in fact ever mentioned. Had you actually read the report you would have known that. Something along those lines, yes. But let's see - you are saying that there is no significant difference between something that is "supported by evidence", and something that is "proven". Now, I'd like any statistician or research scientist, anyone at all, to step in here and explain to Macbeth (a liberal arts expert, in his defense) exactly what his error is here. Please, anyone. (No need for me to ridicule you to that degree, I'll go with something softer). Here - if they are the same thing, then they will have the same definition. You already gave "proven". Here's "supported": sup·port Pronunciation: s&-'pOrt, -'port Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French supporter, from Late Latin supportare, from Latin, to carry, from sub- + portare to carry -- more at FARE Date: 14th century 1 : to endure bravely or quietly : BEAR 2 a (1) : to promote the interests or cause of (2) : to uphold or defend as valid or right : ADVOCATE (3) : to argue or vote for b (1) : ASSIST, HELP (2) : to act with (a star actor) (3) : to bid in bridge so as to show support for c : to provide with substantiation : CORROBORATE <support an alibi> 3 a : to pay the costs of : MAINTAIN b : to provide a basis for the existence or subsistence of <the island could probably support three -- A. B. C. Whipple> 4 a : to hold up or serve as a foundation or prop for b : to maintain (a price) at a desired level by purchases or loans; also : to maintain the price of by purchases or loans 5 : to keep from fainting, yielding, or losing courage : COMFORT 6 : to keep (something) going Hmm. I don't see it. You see, Macbeth, one is much stronger verbiage than the other. See if you can guess which one? No, what I did was show you that "proven" and "supported by evidence" have two different meanings, largely that one is much stronger than the other. Your original claim - that I said the link was "proven" - remains false. Especially since you have been unable to actually quote me saying it. Because I never said it, maybe? No, I continue to support with evidence claims that you have lied about things that I have said. Please post the CIA's retraction on their analysis. I must have missed it. Since you're claiming that the CIA retracted their analysis, you must have a link to such a story... Please post it. And they were used for biological weapons production, not chemical weapons production. Sure you were. Don't sell yourself short. I shouldn't, but I'll take your word on faith here and accept that it was just a mistake. What assertions? We never discussed those issues for Iraq, only for the US and the world in general. You just acknowledged that the conversation was not about Iraq, so why in the next sentence are you attributing these assertions to a discussion of Iraq again? Inside Iraq, yes. And cool. They're coming out of hiding to fight us. Easier to kill. Error??? It was a slanderous, shameless lie that was perpetrated with the sole intent of casting doubt on the integrity of the US military. Any honest editor would have thrown it into the wastebasket the second he laid eyes on it. Theirs did not, and that is emblematic of a glaring lack of journalistic integrity on the part of the BBC's editorial staff. To say nothing of their supposed impartiality. How can someone trust an organization that would so obviously try to use deceit to get its message across? Especially one whose sole job is supposed to be reporting fact? MSNBC has always struck me as balanced. And objective, something which the BBC most certainly is not. Oh, you do, do you? Well, stick this in your pipe and smoke it: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1034240,00.html And this: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9625 The BBC lied about what this "source" said. Clearly. OK, you're not stupid. Replace "stupid" with "both clever and dishonest". Well, it ain't in "Peacism", that's for sure... Actually, Psychology by BS at the UH. About 3/4 of a MS degree in Studies of the Future at UHCL. If it interests you. I like that word... Prowess. It has a real powerful ring to it. (Now we're stroking my ego!) Yes, I think so. Why, thank you. Where? Please, be specific. Oh yeah, the drones... And what else? Aha! So you admint that I am right?!? Where? Go ahead, stoop. I want to see this... glynch: You forgot to call me a warmonger. Please be more thorough next time.
Incredible post, treeman. A thing of beauty. MacBeth has been SHAMED, once again. You forgot 3) To bore people into submission with long rambling posts regarding anything but the topic at hand
treeman, MacBeth... I say this with the most goodwill I can muster, but I'm getting to where I just skim through some of these. Could you possibly do it in something approaching paragraphs? Please? (don't slam me too bad! )
I'm tired from just reading it. I can't imagine typing it. BTW, I'm old school on soldiers. I'll argue with these armchair generals, but the men and women who wear the uniform get a pass from me until they get out. Then we can talk, but in the meantime, arguing with soldiers ain't gonna be happening with me. To me, it's kind of disrespectful to be talking so harshly to anyone who is serving, but I recognize that's me, and it doesn't apply to everyone.
