NYTimes: It's working

You're worse than basso.

Yes, our military can kick ass (feel better?)

But as has been mentioned before, what are you going to do when the Iraqi government collapses?

 

Well, Doc Gori, old nemesis of mine, Bassmaster's selective use of the war in Indochina to invoke parallels to Iraq, as well as his angry, venom filled condemnation of anybody who has the unimitgated gall to compare Vietnam to the war in Iraq - is a different subject entirely.

As a public service, I will let the BBS know which way the wind blows today on the suitability of comparing Iraq to Vietnam in the judgment of our leading patriotic citizen, I would ask that we all take up the slack on this one to avoid confusion and post the necessary signals whenever vietnam analogies are warranted.

 

I think the fact that you have to categorize moderates with basso show how much of an extremist liberal you actually are.

 

How on earth could anyone figure out what you are, when it depends on which way the wind blows, or what persona you've gone for this week? Personally, I prefer basso. At least he's consistently basso, whatever the heck that truly is.



D&D. Impeach Dildo and His Battery.

 

And he made the same point that I've been making from the beginning. The surge relies on the Iraqis. As I stated before, the surge can be 100% operationally successful and be a total failure if the Iraqis suddenly don't become friends.

In the end, though, you purported to repeat what he said. When it turns out that you weren't even able to do that without distorting it, you began to equivocate and blame me. Keep that up. A normal human being would be able to acknowledge a mistake without attacking back. Your embarrassed bluster just highlights how empty and self-deluded your positions are. Just another case when you refuse to admit that you are wrong or made a mistake. Sort of the entire subject of the War in Iraq in microcosm.

 

Is this something like the time when you claimed that you weren't comparing Iraq to Vietnam, you were just pointing out certain similarities? Cause if so you lost me.

Lame grammatical smack sucks, btw, especially when it is wrong:

 

You know, this whole thing of civilized debate is just not in your way. You can't do that, so in order to "win" you attack the poster.

First it was that the surge wasn't working, and now that you have realized that it is, you have to find a different tact. I never was speaking about the political situation, only about the military one.

But you went on an attack like a hungry dog against a piece of meat, and you have the gall to talk about acknowledging mistakes and attacking? Look in the mirror buddy, you're one massive hypocrit. I suggest you take a few chill pills and write your posts when you can do so without all the vitriol.

 

you're a joke

 

So, you saying I'm "against the military" is civilized debate that doesn't rely on attacking the poster?

 

I second the previous post. I didn't start calling people names in this thread, and the first personal insult between us was not thrown out by me.

Again, it might help if you ever actually read my posts, before proclaiming I have changed my tune. If you did you might see that I have been consistent. Or you can just keep making things up.

When you practice what you preach, I will give it some thought.

 

Perhaps you should learn when you insult people. Your first post to me was just a diatribe personal attack. So really, I find it humorous that you are now trying to take the higher ground.

Frankly, there's no point in having any kind of discussion with you because your means is to attack and insult, and finding ways to distort and twist. Even here you post is filled with attacks and insults. And why should anyone respond to that kind of nasty attitude.

I gave an accurate description of what I heard this morning, and you can't simply accept that progress was being made, so you go on this attack. It's a common MO here.

Why does it anger you so much to see the military finally making some progress in iraq? That's all I have stated here, and the liberals are up in arms.

I can't believe it, but maybe Basso is right. Maybe the liberals just want us to lose in Iraq to hurt the Republicans in 2008 and they are just defeatists.

 

Yes. Absolutely

I love how you guys have found so many different excuses and means to discredit what is now clear, and now that it's clear, you are finding other ways to come up with a story, and clearly are bitter and taking out some of that anger huh?

Patreus strategy is having some impact, let the man continue for a while. Don't pull the plug just when things are finally starting to improve.

And no need to attack people for beginning to advocate remaining in Iraq. T

 

Think about it eh? You're the flip side of Basso - your tunes are different, but the both are consistently the same freakin note on opposite ends of the scale. Together you make an orchestra of constant and endless partisan fire exchanging that never ends or goes anywhere.

You are Basso's Ying, and He is your Yang.

Enjoy.

 

How to Post on the BBS by NewYorker

1. Pick an issue that you don't care about but one that will get lots of replies.
2. Find a contrarian postion, it does not matter what, assert it. Just make sure there are some people that are against it who won't back down.
3. Make as many inconsistent or tangential arguments as possible, gradually incorporate ad hominem attack.
4. Accuse others of doing 3, repeat, aim is inflicting maximum frustration
5. Repeat steps 3 & 4 for as many days as possible
6. Mission Accomplished! Have yourself an Orange Julius.

 

LOL. I am not trying to take the higher ground, that was you, remember? Or is six posts ago too long for you to remember and be consistent? I found it funny that you attempted to take the higher ground when you entered this thread throwing poo. I am down here in the poo with you. I'm not the one who dashed off personal attacks and complained when someone hit back. That was you.

 

I think this point is being overlooked by both basso, and New Yorker. It has been said many different ways by different posters in this thread already, and it was promptly ignored or wasn't presented in a way that New Yorker(if you take it for granted that he is debating in good faith) and basso understood.

Also New Yorker let me point out to you why in a discussion of these kinds it can be important to know where the poster is coming from. Obviously that is true using any logic in the scholarly sense of the word.

Suppose that you are for the intervention in Iraq because you seriously believe we are doing a lot of good for the majority of the civilians in Iraq. If someone else had reasons to be against the war, and was debating with you, they might want to show you how Iraqis are worse off from the invasion. But if your reason for supporting the war and even changes periodically, discussion is hindered. There is no doubt about it. On another note, if you make the claim that we should give the surge more time because we need to listen to what the commanders in the field are saying, then arguments about whether or not Iraqis are better off wouldn't carry as much weight. Arguments from other commanders who were in Iraq and don't believe the surge is successful might be better fit towards the conversation.

Since you are all over the place on this, and have conflicting views, and refuse to debate in good faith, from an honest standpoint, then nobody will take your statements seriously. It also hampers legitimate discussion on points that you might even be trying to make.

Obviously it is your (multiple)persona so you can do whatever floats your boat. Just don't expect others to take it seriously, or want to invest too much time in a serious discussion with you.

 

Yes, and if you look at my post there, I'm quoting your poo. I guess you don't see it. But in every post you have made here, you're flinging your poo. even in this one. You aren't taking a higher ground. So let's just not debate anymore, it's pointless.