Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default So what matters more, 2pid?

What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political
elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself?

BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some
type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the
deal the two countries are negotiating.

It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has
explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea
opposed by President Bush.

He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-
Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a
timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide
security.

In Washington, the State Department declined to comment on the ongoing
negotiations and said officials in Washington were not yet entirely
sure what al-Maliki had said.

"This falls in the category of ongoing negotiations, and I'm not going
to talk about every single development, every single development in
the negotiations," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

Al-Maliki said in a meeting with Arab diplomats in Abu Dhabi that his
country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement
rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides
have been negotiating.

The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the
withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

So do we accept what Iraq wants for itself, or do the republicans know
what's "best" for them?

Will the republicans accept this "policy of defeat"? Lol
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,243
Default So what matters more, 2pid?


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
...
What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political
elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself?

BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some
type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the
deal the two countries are negotiating.

It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has
explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea
opposed by President Bush.

He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-
Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a
timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide
security.

In Washington, the State Department declined to comment on the ongoing
negotiations and said officials in Washington were not yet entirely
sure what al-Maliki had said.

"This falls in the category of ongoing negotiations, and I'm not going
to talk about every single development, every single development in
the negotiations," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

Al-Maliki said in a meeting with Arab diplomats in Abu Dhabi that his
country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement
rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides
have been negotiating.

The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the
withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

So do we accept what Iraq wants for itself, or do the republicans know
what's "best" for them?

Will the republicans accept this "policy of defeat"? Lol

***************************************

Yeah, isn't that the most priceless thing?

The Iraqi's want us out on a logical schedule.......

The American populace wants us out on a logical schedule......

George Bush and John McCain think that is DEFEAT and not to be
tolerated....we must stay until we have VICTORY (which I'm beginning to feel
is synonymous on their part with (psst.) DOMINION over the oil fields.


  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default So what matters more, 2pid?

On Jul 7, 11:30*pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ...
What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political
elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself?

BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some
type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the
deal the two countries are negotiating.

It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has
explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea
opposed by President Bush.

He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-
Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a
timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide
security.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds like the Bush plan. *Withdrawal conditioned on the ability
of Iraqi forces to provide security.


bushie agrees with the need for a timetable?

I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a
timetable.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default So what matters more, 2pid?

On 7 Iul, 19:21, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ...
What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political
elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself?

BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some
type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the
deal the two countries are negotiating.

It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has
explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable � an idea
opposed by President Bush.

He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-
Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a
timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide
security.

In Washington, the State Department declined to comment on the ongoing
negotiations and said officials in Washington were not yet entirely
sure what al-Maliki had said.

"This falls in the category of ongoing negotiations, and I'm not going
to talk about every single development, every single development in
the negotiations," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.

Al-Maliki said in a meeting with Arab diplomats in Abu Dhabi that his
country also has proposed a short-term interim memorandum of agreement
rather than the more formal status of forces agreement the two sides
have been negotiating.

The memorandum "now on the table" includes a formula for the
withdrawal of U.S. troops, he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

So do we accept what Iraq wants for itself, or do the republicans know
what's "best" for them?

Will the republicans accept this "policy of defeat"? Lol

***************************************

Yeah, isn't that the most priceless thing?

The Iraqi's want us out on a logical schedule.......

The American populace wants us out on a logical schedule......

George Bush and John McCain think that is DEFEAT and not to be
tolerated....we must stay until we have VICTORY (which I'm beginning to feel
is synonymous on their part with (psst.) DOMINION over the oil fields.


But first we need to ask the insurgents to provide their input
as to a logical schedule.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
RapidRonnie RapidRonnie is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 159
Default So what matters more, 2pid?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability
of Iraqi forces to provide security.


Sounds like Vietnamization. In both cases, biocentrically irrational
in the extreme.



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
George M. Middius[_4_] George M. Middius[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,817
Default Scottie tries to have a 'discussion' ;-)



San Diego's Schizoid Simpleton slobbered:


Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability
of Iraqi forces to provide security.


bushie agrees with the need for a timetable?
I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a
timetable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military?
I didn't realize you admired his capability that much.


Stephen, what's this game called again?



  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default So what matters more, 2pid?

On Jul 9, 7:14*pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ...
On Jul 7, 11:30 pm, "ScottW" wrote:





"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
...
What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political
elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself?


BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some
type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the
deal the two countries are negotiating.


It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has
explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea
opposed by President Bush.


He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-
Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a
timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide
security.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability
of Iraqi forces to provide security.


bushie agrees with the need for a timetable?

I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a
timetable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military?


Um, 2pid, you just said "Sounds like the Bush plan". It's right up
there, one whole post ago.

What an imbecile.

I didn't realize you admired his capability that much.


You don't realiize most things, 2pid. That's been obvious since day
one.

I prefer Bush defining the mission and guys like Petraeus
and Dubik formulating the plan and timetables.http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...39400920080709


That's not how it works, 2pid. Try to decipher what "Commander in
Chief" means and get back to me. bushie liked being CinC when the
mission was "accomplished". He's been trying to delegate CinC duties
ever since.

The commanding generals take the mission from bushie and formulate
potential courses of action. They may recommend COA one over the
others, but the final call is bushie's. As Harry Truman once said,
"The buck stops here".

We once went all throught the military planning cycle. I even gave you
official planning doctrine. I'm not surprised that you still don't get
it.
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
MiNe 109 MiNe 109 is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,597
Default Scottie tries to have a 'discussion' ;-)

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

San Diego's Schizoid Simpleton slobbered:


Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability
of Iraqi forces to provide security.


bushie agrees with the need for a timetable?
I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a
timetable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military?
I didn't realize you admired his capability that much.


Stephen, what's this game called again?


It's not "Guess what Scotty's thinking". Is it the one where he does
both sides of the argument? We could call it "Clouds" in honor of Joni
Mitchell.

Stephen
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default Scottie tries to have a 'discussion' ;-)

On Jul 9, 9:25*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

San Diego's Schizoid Simpleton slobbered:


Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability
of Iraqi forces to provide security.


bushie agrees with the need for a timetable?
I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a
timetable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military?
I didn't realize you admired his capability that much.


Stephen, what's this game called again?


It's not "Guess what Scotty's thinking". Is it the one where he does
both sides of the argument? We could call it "Clouds" in honor of Joni
Mitchell.


Or we could just call it what it is: pure stupidity.
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default So what matters more, 2pid?

On Jul 9, 7:08*pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"RapidRonnie" wrote in message

...



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds like the Bush plan. *Withdrawal conditioned on the ability
of Iraqi forces to provide security.


Sounds like Vietnamization. In both cases, biocentrically irrational
in the extreme.


Vietnamization was working until we pulled the plug on
military aid.


No, it wasn't. Read some history, 2pid. You'll perhaps seem less
stupid maybe.


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
George M. Middius[_4_] George M. Middius[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,817
Default Scottie tries to have a 'discussion' ;-)



Shhhh! said:

San Diego's Schizoid Simpleton slobbered:


Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability
of Iraqi forces to provide security.


bushie agrees with the need for a timetable?
I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a
timetable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military?
I didn't realize you admired his capability that much.


Stephen, what's this game called again?


It's not "Guess what Scotty's thinking". Is it the one where he does
both sides of the argument? We could call it "Clouds" in honor of Joni
Mitchell.


Or we could just call it what it is: pure stupidity.


Sacky says all engineers are prone to random subject changes,
self-contradictory doubletalk, and lapses in human-style logic you could fly a
747 through.



  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default Scottie tries to have a 'discussion' ;-)

On Jul 9, 9:41*pm, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:





San Diego's Schizoid Simpleton slobbered:


Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability
of Iraqi forces to provide security.


bushie agrees with the need for a timetable?
I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a
timetable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military?
I didn't realize you admired his capability that much.


Stephen, what's this game called again?


It's not "Guess what Scotty's thinking". Is it the one where he does
both sides of the argument? We could call it "Clouds" in honor of Joni
Mitchell.


Or we could just call it what it is: pure stupidity.


Sacky says all engineers are prone to random subject changes,
self-contradictory doubletalk, and lapses in human-style logic you could fly a
747 through.


Do you think Clyde is right?
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
George M. Middius[_4_] George M. Middius[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,817
Default Scottie tries to have a 'discussion' ;-)



Shhhh! said:

Stephen, what's this game called again?


It's not "Guess what Scotty's thinking". Is it the one where he does
both sides of the argument? We could call it "Clouds" in honor of Joni
Mitchell.


Or we could just call it what it is: pure stupidity.


Sacky says all engineers are prone to random subject changes,
self-contradictory doubletalk, and lapses in human-style logic you could fly a
747 through.


Do you think Clyde is right?


Hardly.™ (I already gave my response to his apologia for Witless.)


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default So what matters more, 2pid?

On Jul 10, 10:42 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
On Jul 9, 7:14 pm, "ScottW" wrote:


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in


On Jul 7, 11:30 pm, "ScottW" wrote:


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in


What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political
elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself?


BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some
type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the
deal the two countries are negotiating.


It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has
explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea
opposed by President Bush.


He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-
Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a
timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide
security.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability
of Iraqi forces to provide security.


bushie agrees with the need for a timetable?


I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a
timetable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military?


Um, 2pid, you just said "Sounds like the Bush plan". It's right up
there, one whole post ago.

What an imbecile.

I didn't realize you admired his capability that much.


:You don't realiize most things, 2pid. That's been obvious since day
ne.

I prefer Bush defining the mission and guys like Petraeus
and Dubik formulating the plan and
timetables.http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...39400920080709


That's not how it works, 2pid. Try to decipher what "Commander in
Chief" means and get back to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
As president, I set the mission," says Barack Obama.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2...nd_the_definit...


OK, 2pid, I already know that you 'think' you know more about how the
military works than I do, but I'll give it another go. Lol

Obama is indeed correct: the President sets the mission. But that's
where you break down, 2pid. The commander also approves the plan. So,
for example, the President might say, "Your mission is to get the
troops out of Iraq within 180 days". The generals may come back with
"plans" (usually in the form of several different COAs for the
commander to choose from). The commander then accepts or alters the
plan, discards it and tells them why or how it must be changed, or
integrates elements from several COAs.

Once the President (actually the National Command Authority, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority) sets the
mission, control does not shift over to the generals. If that was the
case civilian control of the military would cease at that point. That
is not the case.

Apparently you have a problem with that.


I think civilian control over the military is generally a very good
thing. I think bushie and crew misused that power.

Anyway, the Iraqis want a timetable and bushie doesn't. I think the
Iraqis are treasonous.
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default So what matters more, 2pid?

On Jul 15, 1:56*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 14, 11:12*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:42 pm, "ScottW" wrote:


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
On Jul 9, 7:14 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
On Jul 7, 11:30 pm, "ScottW" wrote:


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political
elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself?


BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some
type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the
deal the two countries are negotiating.


It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has
explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea
opposed by President Bush.


He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-
Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a
timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide
security.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability
of Iraqi forces to provide security.


bushie agrees with the need for a timetable?


I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a
timetable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military?


Um, 2pid, you just said "Sounds like the Bush plan". It's right up
there, one whole post ago.


What an imbecile.


I didn't realize you admired his capability that much.


:You don't realiize most things, 2pid. That's been obvious since day
ne.


I prefer Bush defining the mission and guys like Petraeus
and Dubik formulating the plan and
timetables.http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...39400920080709


That's not how it works, 2pid. Try to decipher what "Commander in
Chief" means and get back to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
As president, I set the mission," says Barack Obama.


http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2...nd_the_definit....


OK, 2pid, I already know that you 'think' you know more about how the
military works than I do, but I'll give it another go. Lol


*No. I think you don't know what I know.


Perhaps, but you always make it pretty obvious.

You also don't know what you don't know.


You forgot that I know what I know. That's a fatal exclusion on your
part.

If you can come to grips with this, I'll let you have another go.


Another go at your stupidity? You don't have to "let" me do that. That
comes naturally.

So since you indicate that you know how it works, why don't you
enlighten me? Lol

And BTW, using quotes from Rumsfeld makes you look even dumber:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always
interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there
are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns;
that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there
are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

So do you agree that there is civilian control over the military, dum-
dum? And that it's a good thing?


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default So what matters more, 2pid?

On 15 Iul, 14:56, ScottW wrote:

*No. I think you don't know what I know.
You also don't know what you don't know.
If you can come to grips with this, I'll let you have another go.

ScottW-


I think you think you know what you don't know
I know you think you think what you know
I know what I don't think you know
I know what I know I think you know
I don;t know what I think you know I know.
I don't know what I think I don't know I know
I don't think you know what I think you know
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default So what matters more, 2pid?

On Jul 15, 4:17*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Jul 15, 1:40*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jul 15, 1:56*pm, ScottW wrote:


On Jul 14, 11:12*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:42 pm, "ScottW" wrote:


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
On Jul 9, 7:14 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
On Jul 7, 11:30 pm, "ScottW" wrote:


"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in
What we (or more specifically, what our conservative political
elements) want for Iraq, or what a soveriegn nation wants for itself?


BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister said Monday his country wants some
type of timetable for a withdrawal of American troops included in the
deal the two countries are negotiating.


It was the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has
explicitly and publicly called for a withdrawal timetable — an idea
opposed by President Bush.


He offered no details. But his national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-
Rubaie, told The Associated Press that the government is proposing a
timetable conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide
security.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds like the Bush plan. Withdrawal conditioned on the ability
of Iraqi forces to provide security.


bushie agrees with the need for a timetable?


I wasn't aware that he even had a plan, let alone a plan including a
timetable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You really want Bush dictating the plan to the military?


Um, 2pid, you just said "Sounds like the Bush plan". It's right up
there, one whole post ago.


What an imbecile.


I didn't realize you admired his capability that much.


:You don't realiize most things, 2pid. That's been obvious since day
ne.


I prefer Bush defining the mission and guys like Petraeus
and Dubik formulating the plan and
timetables.http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...39400920080709


That's not how it works, 2pid. Try to decipher what "Commander in
Chief" means and get back to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
As president, I set the mission," says Barack Obama.


http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2...nd_the_definit...


OK, 2pid, I already know that you 'think' you know more about how the
military works than I do, but I'll give it another go. Lol


*No. I think you don't know what I know.


Perhaps, but you always make it pretty obvious.


You also don't know what you don't know.


You forgot that I know what I know. That's a fatal exclusion on your
part.


*No proof of that. *Some of the things you think you know
are actually things you don't know.


So tell me: how does it work, 2pid? The President sets the mission.
Now what?

If you can come to grips with this, I'll let you have another go.


*No go for you.


Do tell. As Ross Perot said, "I'm all ears".
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default So what matters more, 2pid?

On Jul 15, 4:19*pm, ScottW wrote:

*Confusion will be your epitaph.....


Irony will be yours.
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default So what matters more, 2pid?

On 15 Iul, 17:56, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:19*pm, ScottW wrote:

*Confusion will be your epitaph.....


Irony will be yours.


no, hypocricy will be his
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,415
Default So what matters more, 2pid?

On Jul 15, 5:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 15 Iul, 17:56, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:19*pm, ScottW wrote:


*Confusion will be your epitaph.....


Irony will be yours.


no, hypocricy will be his


Let's compromise on "hypocritical irony".


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default So what matters more, 2pid?

On 15 Iul, 18:53, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jul 15, 5:21*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 15 Iul, 17:56, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"


wrote:
On Jul 15, 4:19*pm, ScottW wrote:


*Confusion will be your epitaph.....


Irony will be yours.


no, hypocricy will be his


Let's compromise on "hypocritical irony".


No way!!!!

"ironical hypocricy"

RIP
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GOIA's "Expertise" in Miltary Matters 'Rivals' 2pid's! Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! Audio Opinions 4 June 18th 08 01:05 AM
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 4. PINKERTON LIES ON PROFESSIONAL MATTERS FOR PERSONAL REASONS Andre Jute Audio Opinions 1 March 6th 06 02:14 AM
WHY STEWART PINKERTON IS UNRELIABLE: 4. PINKERTON LIES ON PROFESSIONAL MATTERS FOR PERSONAL REASONS Andre Jute Vacuum Tubes 5 March 6th 06 02:14 AM
hearing, frequency, BBE process, and all related matters transmogrifa Pro Audio 13 May 8th 05 08:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:03 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"