I'm sorry!
On Jun 25, 1:46*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 24, 1:18*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
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.
* "You don't understand" usually predicates something of substance.
* You have none.
I suppose not, since you obviously and clearly do not understand what
was said, 2pid.
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.
*I argued you were not in a position to judge any one action from your
armchair. *That remains true as these issues are admittedly above your
pay grade and forever will be.
Oh, how wrong you are, 2pid. We can judge and I have judged correctly.
Go back to the original thread *three years ago* and look what I said
about options ILO CAS. One was backing off. Instead we bombed a house
with a small handful of snipers (and took a ****load of bad press).
Now look at what was said, 2pid.
Yes, there *are* correct and incorrect usages of CAS. You cannjot
judge because you weren't trained on them, 2pid. That does not apply
to everybody. 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.
"we aren't fighting " to make sure that fewer Americans die".
*Houston, I think we have a problem.
In your muddled 'brain' perhaps.
What that means is, 2pid, that *we* get to accept more risk than the
Afghani civilians do. Again, go back to the thread from *three years
ago* to see that my position has not changed on that, either.
It's just that you're still too ****ing stupid to understand what's
being said. LoL.
*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!
*Spineless integrity demands nothing.
*I've long known what integrity you have.
Um, 2pid? "Integrity" cannot demand anything.
Your thumb demands that you extricate it from your ass.
Chirp chirp LoL.
*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?
*Winning. * But if you think you can turn Afghanistan in Iraq....good
luck.
Enjoy your long, very very long, deployment.
Six years and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Um, 2pid? The stakes in Afghanistan are far higher.
Quit your treasonous whining. Your a looser. LoL.
LMAO!
When you end up fighting, try to remember what you're fighting for.
Obama apparently has already forgotten.
Why would you say that?
*Because most Americans believe we're fighting to save American lives
from being lost to future terrorist attacks.
Now, *"we aren't fighting to make sure that fewer Americans die".
Oh, the thought that military personnel have to accept risk is a new
'thought' for you. I've known it all along, dum-dum.
In fact, go back to that thread from *three years ago* (LoL.) and see
my statements about moving US troops off fortified FOBs and into
neighborhoods. That's what Petreaus did too. That wasn't about "making
sure that fewer Americans die", 2pid. It exposed them to much the same
risk as the civilians.
Duh.
Part of the reason we want to make Iraq and Afghanistan democracies is
to keep the possibility of terrorists having bases there low.
*Why would we care if that doesn't save American lives?
Duh.
We aren't fighting *Obama's war " to make sure that fewer Americans
die" .
So what are you fighting for?
You claim to understand context, nimrod. Figure it out.
What a numbskull.
|