[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 24, 3:01*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 24, 12:18*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 24, 1:37*pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Jun 24, 10:33*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
One might expect 2pid to say, "Ooops! Sorry, Shhhh!! You were right
all along!"

But that assumes two things: One, that 2pid has integrity. Two, that
he's arguing the same side that he has since 2006. LoL.

*or the most obvious but ignored 3rd option.
That you simply can't accurately represent my (nor anyone's) position
which isn't "shhtard is right no matter what". *I've never argued that
civilian lives and the struggle for hearts and minds is not
important. *I have argued that your arm chair critique of US
operations is BS

Well. "BS" as far as the SECDEF and CG of the operation agreeing with
me...

Speaking of "armchair", where were you stationed when you were
serving? LoL.

*I have assumed command of all the Starship Troopers.
Bend over and give me 20.

Oh, I was just wondering what your definition of "armchair" was.

You have this 'differing POV' about definitions. LoL.

and soldiers in trouble deserve all the support they
need. *Obviously Smith agrees as he said, "But if there is a compound
they're taking fire from, and they can remove themselves from the area
safely, without any undue danger to the forces, then that's the option
they should take,"

Clearly if they cannot remove themselves safely without undue danger,
that compound may be bombed.

Duh.

You probably don't recall that I proposed this three years ago and you
scoffed. LoL.

* I scoff at almost eveything you claim as little of it ever turns out
correct.

Except for like now for example. LoL.

*So now we've told the Taliban every Afghan village is safe haven.
Interesting tactic.

You obviously and clearly do not understand what was said, 2pid.
There's no surprise there.

Chirp chirp. LoL.

I'm not sure how that will guarantee civilian security nor advance the
war effort.
But it is good to know that we aren't fighting " to make sure that
fewer Americans die".

I've known that all along, 2pid.

You probably don't recall that I proposed this three years ago and you
scoffed. LoL.

*Looks like the simple cut and paste skill has failed you again.

The fact remains, you have argued the wrong side of an argument and
now you cannot admit it. LoL.

So I'll ask again, what are you fighting for? *Obama's war grows ever
more questionable.

It's the exact same goal as we have in Iraq, 2pid. Remove bad guys
from power and give democracy a chance to flourish.

*Here I thought Obama said this was to focus on Al Qaeda and bin
Laden. Aren't we
after them for killing Americans?

Nope. You confuse vengeance with reality.

We're after them so they don't kill again, dum-dum.

*Since the objective has clearly morphed into something else, this war
in Afghanistan is as you admit, no different than Bush's war in Iraq.

Since he started them both, that makes all kinds of sense. bushie was
a moron.

I think your integrity demands that you RIP again.

Integrity making demands? LOL!

Your thumb demands that you extricate it from your ass.

*The difference, of
course, is that there *was* an actual tie between the Taliban and
9/11.

* And you're off to build them a new country for it. *Good luck.

What is it we're doing in Iraq...again?

LMAO!

When you end up fighting, try to remember what you're fighting for.
Obama apparently has already forgotten.

Why would you say that?

Part of the reason we want to make Iraq and Afghanistan democracies is
to keep the possibility of terrorists having bases there low.

So bushie had the same goals in both places, but on one hand it's OK
and on the other it's no good.

What changed (besides the administration)? LoL.

What an imbecile.