| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Let's look at history, toopid!
First, we need to set the parameters properly:
"Essentially, the Army is turning the war over to its dissidents [i.e. 'future RIPers to you, toopid...], who have criticized the way the service has operated there the past three years, and is letting them try to wage the war their way." Now let me intersperse what I told you *last July,* you moron: "Their role is crucial if we are to reverse the effects of four years of conventional mind-set fighting an unconventional war," said a Special Forces colonel who knows some of the officers." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16979340/ Me: "To break the insurgency we need to stop them from getting as much support as possible. To stop them from getting support we cannot do their recruiting for them (i.e. killing wives and kids and blowing up some guy's building, who may not be supporting the insurgents). We must also provide a safe and secure environment for civilians (i.e. not randomly blowing up kids and uncles and aunts and parents and so on, them not getting kidnapped, etc.). We must outwit the insurgent's *strategy* and attack their *center of gravity*, not necessarily attack *the insurgents.* " (This may be too subtle for you, toopid. Let me translate into toopidspeak for you: "Killing insurgents not always good or the goal. That conventional warfare. This not conventional warfare.") Message-ID: .com ""Petraeus's 'brain trust' is an impressive bunch, but I think it's too late to salvage success in Iraq," said a professor at a military war college, who said he thinks that the general will still not have sufficient troops to implement a genuine counterinsurgency strategy and that the United States really has no solution for the sectarian violence tearing apart Iraq." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16979340/ Me: "The bottom line: we don't have enough troops there to do COIN ops as they should be done. GEN Shinseki understood this well and was severely undercut by rummy and wolfowitz. Since we don't have enough troops there to do it properly, we are therefore not doing it properly, or we are therefore doing it properly in some areas and not in others (sometimes referred to as a 'half-assed' job)." "We have not committed the resources to winning. And that is not a 'Liberal problem.' (Wasn't it you [i.e. you, toopid] that was gloating the Hillary wants to increase troop size and become the next LBJ?) Do you [i.e. you, toopid] suppose that might be one reason that the 'national will' is being sapped? But by all means 'stay the course.' rummy and bushie know best. They have such a stellar track record." "Some anti-war people like me might just be people who understand that we are feeding the insurgency and shooting ourselves in the foot in so many ways that 'victory' is either pushed out much further with an unnecessary cost in lives and dollars, or that it indeed becomes impossible." Message-ID: .com "Lt. Col. Douglas A. Ollivant caught Petraeus's eye last year by winning first prize in an Army "counterinsurgency writing" competition, sponsored by the general, with an essay that scorned the U.S. military's reliance in Iraq on big "forward operating bases." "Having a fortress mentality simply isolates the counterinsurgent from the fight," he wrote." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16979340/ Me: "In reality, there is a balance that must be weighed and decided upon. You cannot accomplsh (sic) the mission all hunkered down in a FOB. You must also protect the soldiers to the extent possible. But that does not remove all danger. Not by a long shot." "What you [i.e. you, toopid] are arguing for is a pretty restrictive posture weighed heavily to force protection. While that will limit *our* casualties, it severely impacts on mission accomplishment by increasing *civilian* casualties and *civilian* propert (sic) damage. The civilians will never trust us to protect them when we're killing them." Message-ID: .com Now can you [i.e. you, toopid], even considering your infinite stupidity, see why I claim that I have kicked your ass... again? I was arguing for what bushie is doing now *over three years ago,* toopid. Do not for one instant dare think that I don't 'get' what is going on, you moron. That strategy might've worked as much as several months after our initial occupation. I do not believe it will now. I, along with many, many others, feel that it's too little, too late. bushie's arrogance, mismanagement, poor leadership and stupidity have most likely done us in. You ignorant moron. Sincerely, RIP |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's look at history, toopid!
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... First, we need to set the parameters properly: "Essentially, the Army is turning the war over to its dissidents [i.e. 'future RIPers to you, toopid...], who have criticized the way the service has operated there the past three years, and is letting them try to wage the war their way." Now let me intersperse what I told you *last July,* you moron: "Their role is crucial if we are to reverse the effects of four years of conventional mind-set fighting an unconventional war," said a Special Forces colonel who knows some of the officers." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16979340/ Me: "To break the insurgency we need to stop them from getting as much support as possible. To stop them from getting support we cannot do their recruiting for them (i.e. killing wives and kids and blowing up some guy's building, who may not be supporting the insurgents). We must also provide a safe and secure environment for civilians (i.e. not randomly blowing up kids and uncles and aunts and parents and so on, them not getting kidnapped, etc.). We must outwit the insurgent's *strategy* and attack their *center of gravity*, not necessarily attack *the insurgents.* " (This may be too subtle for you, toopid. Let me translate into toopidspeak for you: "Killing insurgents not always good or the goal. That conventional warfare. This not conventional warfare.") Message-ID: .com ""Petraeus's 'brain trust' is an impressive bunch, but I think it's too late to salvage success in Iraq," said a professor at a military war college, who said he thinks that the general will still not have sufficient troops to implement a genuine counterinsurgency strategy and that the United States really has no solution for the sectarian violence tearing apart Iraq." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16979340/ Me: "The bottom line: we don't have enough troops there to do COIN ops as they should be done. GEN Shinseki understood this well and was severely undercut by rummy and wolfowitz. Since we don't have enough troops there to do it properly, we are therefore not doing it properly, or we are therefore doing it properly in some areas and not in others (sometimes referred to as a 'half-assed' job)." "We have not committed the resources to winning. And that is not a 'Liberal problem.' (Wasn't it you [i.e. you, toopid] that was gloating the Hillary wants to increase troop size and become the next LBJ?) Do you [i.e. you, toopid] suppose that might be one reason that the 'national will' is being sapped? But by all means 'stay the course.' rummy and bushie know best. They have such a stellar track record." "Some anti-war people like me might just be people who understand that we are feeding the insurgency and shooting ourselves in the foot in so many ways that 'victory' is either pushed out much further with an unnecessary cost in lives and dollars, or that it indeed becomes impossible." Message-ID: .com "Lt. Col. Douglas A. Ollivant caught Petraeus's eye last year by winning first prize in an Army "counterinsurgency writing" competition, sponsored by the general, with an essay that scorned the U.S. military's reliance in Iraq on big "forward operating bases." "Having a fortress mentality simply isolates the counterinsurgent from the fight," he wrote." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16979340/ Me: "In reality, there is a balance that must be weighed and decided upon. You cannot accomplsh (sic) the mission all hunkered down in a FOB. You must also protect the soldiers to the extent possible. But that does not remove all danger. Not by a long shot." "What you [i.e. you, toopid] are arguing for is a pretty restrictive posture weighed heavily to force protection. While that will limit *our* casualties, it severely impacts on mission accomplishment by increasing *civilian* casualties and *civilian* propert (sic) damage. The civilians will never trust us to protect them when we're killing them." Message-ID: .com Now can you [i.e. you, toopid], even considering your infinite stupidity, see why I claim that I have kicked your ass... again? Nope...because if you go back to those threads, you consistently claim we had only one option, redeploy. I never argued against your tactics etc. I simply said withdrawal was not an option I support. You selectively thrashed the entire campaign and claimed it just proved your points. But where was your discussion and praise of McMasters success? Not a peep from you. Nothing buy naysay and negativity. I was arguing for what bushie is doing now *over three years ago,* toopid. Gee...I missed that. First big move I recall was you jumping on the Murtha redeployment bandwagon...all the way to Okinawa. Do not for one instant dare think that I don't 'get' what is going on, you moron. oooh...oooh... I won't dare.... I see this has become more about your own fragile ego than supporting the troops and the generals and the CiC. They can't win now because if they did, you'd be wrong and your EGO can't handle that. You're SICK. GET A GRIP and SUPPORT YOUR COUNTRY IN WAR. That strategy might've worked as much as several months after our initial occupation. I do not believe it will now. Maybe not, so we might have to try something different when this idea fails and it may take a new CiC to lead that effort. I don't care as long as the goal remains unchanged. Remember a key factor in a COIN op according to Petraus, commitment. You got ANY left? I, along with many, many others, feel that it's too little, too late. You can't even express a slight hope for success? bushie's arrogance, mismanagement, poor leadership and stupidity have most likely done us in. I'm sure you're doing everything you can to assure that comes to pass. Do you support the troops as long as they lose? ScottW |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's look at history, toopid!
On Feb 5, 10:12 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in Now can you [i.e. you, toopid], even considering your infinite stupidity, see why I claim that I have kicked your ass... again? Nope...because if you go back to those threads, you consistently claim we had only one option, redeploy. That you missed the point is not surprising, now or then. You're projecting something that I never said, toopid. Now why would you feel the need to do that, you highly-moral lying sack of ****? LOL! I never argued against your tactics etc. I simply said withdrawal was not an option I support. You selectively thrashed the entire campaign and claimed it just proved your points. What it shows, toopid, is that I understand how to fight COIN ops. That you missed the point is not surprising, now or then. But where was your discussion and praise of McMasters success? Not a peep from you. Actually, I wasn't aware that COL (it's polite to use their rank, toopid. You call privates by their last name. I *know* someone with your vast breadth of military experience would know something as basic as that...) McMaster was in Iraq. I note that you did not bring it up, either. Nothing buy naysay and negativity. I forgot: we give candy to kids. As I said, toopid, my training is reality-based. I don't do the types of hallucinogens that you apparently do. I was arguing for what bushie is doing now *over three years ago,* toopid. Gee...I missed that. First big move I recall was you jumping on the Murtha redeployment bandwagon...all the way to Okinawa. Duh. What we were talking about was whether it was a reasonable COA to study. You did not think so. I saw no reason not to. Why do you need to lie to prove your 'points'? Do not for one instant dare think that I don't 'get' what is going on, you moron. oooh...oooh... I won't dare.... I see this has become more about your own fragile ego than supporting the troops and the generals and the CiC. They can't win now because if they did, you'd be wrong and your EGO can't handle that. You're SICK. GET A GRIP and SUPPORT YOUR COUNTRY IN WAR. LOL! No, toopid, my ego is fine. This is more about having fun exposing your ignorance and stupidity. So why don't you GET A GRIP and just admit that you're a KNOW-NOTHING LYING **** WITH NO CHOPS WHATSOEVER? LOL That strategy might've worked as much as several months after our initial occupation. I do not believe it will now. Maybe not, so we might have to try something different when this idea fails and it may take a new CiC to lead that effort. I don't care as long as the goal remains unchanged. Of course you do not care. You sit on your fat ass and spout platitudes and jingoisms. No skin off your fat lazy ass how many new strategies we employ, is it? Meanwhile, we spend $250 billion/year, lose soldiers, etc. Remember a key factor in a COIN op according to Petraus, commitment. You got ANY left? As I said six months ago, I 'got' two years left. That's down to about 18 months now, toopid. I think I understand you now, toopid. You're the pudgy little **** who used to continuously get the snot beaten out of you. You were never bright enough to choose a different route to school, were you. I, along with many, many others, feel that it's too little, too late. You can't even express a slight hope for success? As I said, I hope, I hope, I hope. My fingers are crossed, even. bushie's arrogance, mismanagement, poor leadership and stupidity have most likely done us in. I'm sure you're doing everything you can to assure that comes to pass. Do you support the troops as long as they lose? Can you separate 'support for the troops' from 'not supporting poor leadership and strategy'? I didn't think so, you thoughtless, jingoistic moron. LOL! |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's look at history, toopid!
On Feb 5, 8:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Feb 5, 10:12 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in Now can you [i.e. you, toopid], even considering your infinite stupidity, see why I claim that I have kicked your ass... again? Nope...because if you go back to those threads, you consistently claim we had only one option, redeploy. That you missed the point is not surprising, now or then. You're projecting something that I never said, toopid. Now why would you feel the need to do that, you highly-moral lying sack of ****? LOL! I never argued against your tactics etc. I simply said withdrawal was not an option I support. You selectively thrashed the entire campaign and claimed it just proved your points. What it shows, toopid, is that I understand how to fight COIN ops. That you missed the point is not surprising, now or then. But where was your discussion and praise of McMasters success? Not a peep from you. Actually, I wasn't aware that COL (it's polite to use their rank, toopid. You call privates by their last name. I *know* someone with your vast breadth of military experience would know something as basic as that...) McMaster was in Iraq. I note that you did not bring it up, either. Nothing buy naysay and negativity. I forgot: we give candy to kids. Rest my case. As I said, toopid, my training is reality-based. I don't do the types of hallucinogens that you apparently do. I was arguing for what bushie is doing now *over three years ago,* toopid. Gee...I missed that. First big move I recall was you jumping on the Murtha redeployment bandwagon...all the way to Okinawa. Duh. What we were talking about was whether it was a reasonable COA to study. You did not think so. I saw no reason not to. Why do you need to lie to prove your 'points'? My only point is that there is no doubt you're a naysaying whiny rip'er. Do not for one instant dare think that I don't 'get' what is going on, you moron. oooh...oooh... I won't dare.... I see this has become more about your own fragile ego than supporting the troops and the generals and the CiC. They can't win now because if they did, you'd be wrong and your EGO can't handle that. You're SICK. GET A GRIP and SUPPORT YOUR COUNTRY IN WAR. LOL! No, toopid, my ego is fine. This is more about having fun exposing your ignorance and stupidity. Then get a life....looser. You stand for nothing. You retired and gave up your career for nothing. You offer no solutions, you support no course of action. This says far more about you than me. ScottW |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's look at history, toopid!
On Feb 6, 12:20 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Feb 5, 10:12 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in Now can you [i.e. you, toopid], even considering your infinite stupidity, see why I claim that I have kicked your ass... again? Nope...because if you go back to those threads, you consistently claim we had only one option, redeploy. That you missed the point is not surprising, now or then. You're projecting something that I never said, toopid. Now why would you feel the need to do that, you highly-moral lying sack of ****? LOL! I never argued against your tactics etc. I simply said withdrawal was not an option I support. You selectively thrashed the entire campaign and claimed it just proved your points. What it shows, toopid, is that I understand how to fight COIN ops. That you missed the point is not surprising, now or then. But where was your discussion and praise of McMasters success? Not a peep from you. Actually, I wasn't aware that COL (it's polite to use their rank, toopid. You call privates by their last name. I *know* someone with your vast breadth of military experience would know something as basic as that...) McMaster was in Iraq. I note that you did not bring it up, either. Nothing buy naysay and negativity. I forgot: we give candy to kids. Rest my case. toopid, we, and the Iraqi government, have failed miserably for four years to provide the most basic element necessary to succeed the a safe and secure environment. You can talk all you want about power generation, water supplies, and anything else that you want to. You can quote prewar and postwar statistics if that gives you a woody. They do not really matter all that much without that safe and secure environment. You prove, once again, that COIN ops are well over your head. As I said, toopid, my training is reality-based. I don't do the types of hallucinogens that you apparently do. I was arguing for what bushie is doing now *over three years ago,* toopid. Gee...I missed that. First big move I recall was you jumping on the Murtha redeployment bandwagon...all the way to Okinawa. Duh. What we were talking about was whether it was a reasonable COA to study. You did not think so. I saw no reason not to. Why do you need to lie to prove your 'points'? My only point is that there is no doubt you're a naysaying whiny rip'er. And "victory is right around the corner." LOL! Have you ever considered a career in producing jingoistic posters? You are willing to flail around and throw mud at walls to see if any of it sticks. Meanwhile, you gamble with what I consider some pretty valuable national assets: our wealth and the lives of our soldiers. You care about neither. Instead of saying, as you do, "It will be really, really bad if things don't go out way in Iraq!" I hope we're looking at a "Well, that didn't go as we expected. Now what?" scenario. Sometimes things don't go as we might hope, toopid. I'm sure that your parents were hoping for a good-looking and smart child, for example. Your guys blundered us into a war they wanted so badly they could taste it. "March to war" and all of that. In 18 months or so, it is likely that we may have to say, "It looks like we made a very bad move." I would advocate some pretty intense contingency planning. You would advocate ****ing away more national wealth and throwing some more mud at the wall. So there we are. Do not for one instant dare think that I don't 'get' what is going on, you moron. oooh...oooh... I won't dare.... I see this has become more about your own fragile ego than supporting the troops and the generals and the CiC. They can't win now because if they did, you'd be wrong and your EGO can't handle that. You're SICK. GET A GRIP and SUPPORT YOUR COUNTRY IN WAR. LOL! No, toopid, my ego is fine. This is more about having fun exposing your ignorance and stupidity. Then get a life....looser. You stand for nothing. I'm pretty loose now, toopid. Life is good. I may not stand for anything, toopid, like you do, but I do not have to resort to lying like you do. That, plus I'm not as dumb as a board. LOL! You retired and gave up your career for nothing. I just love it when you criticize my military career choices, especially since you were too fat, dumb and lazy to ever serve... No, I retired and opened my own business. I get a military pension, toopid. Health care. Space A travel. Tax-free shopping. Cheap hotels all over the world. I get saluted every time I go onto a military base. And I can still wear my uniform if I want to! All of this for the rest of my life. And all paid for by you! I hardly call that 'nothing.' Had I quit at 18 years, that would have been for nothing. As I've told you time and again, I chose to retire rather than leading my soldiers into battle with a strategy that I did not support and leading in areas that I was not expert in (go look at what the artillery is doing in Iraq, toopid). At my level, I felt that I should have a pretty good grasp of the TTP in whatever area I was leading. You choose to call me names for that decision. I call that integrity. I would, after all, be the one writing those "Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith: I regret to inform you that...." letters. I would probably have to look them in the eye at some point. But not you, toopid! You sit on your fat, lazy ass and criticize decisions that you or your family will never have to make. You are a sad, defective POS, toopid. A really substandard being. LOL! You offer no solutions, you support no course of action. I fully support this COA, toopid. I have all along. I just think it's too late. So do many, many others with far more knowledge and experience than you have (which is not too hard to see). And that would be due 100% to the decisions your guys made. But I'm sure we all hope, hope, hope that we're wrong. I hope, hope, hope this COA can still work. My fingers are crossed. The only other COA (other than leaving) I can see is to flood about 500k soldiers into Iraq and totally reoccupy it. The military cannot do this without breaking. As I said to you several months ago, BTW. And if you look at what the Army has said (Go Big, Go Long, Go Home) it would appear that the Army's senior leadership agrees with me. You know what sucks, toopid? Trying a last-ditch military strategy change on a national level and 'hoping' that it works. bushie may be the only person on Earth dumber than you are. This says far more about you than me. No, what you say about yourself every time you post is "I, toopid, loudly affirm my right to be a moron!" You see, I do not suffer from ideologically-driven hallucinations. LOL! Moron. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's look at history, toopid!
On Feb 6, 11:57 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Feb 6, 12:20 pm, "ScottW" wrote: You offer no solutions, you support no course of action. I fully support this COA, toopid. I have all along. I just think it's too late. That's a brilliant piece of logic. You fully support a COA that you don't think can work. Is the same logic that creates non-binding resolutions? You supported it if it works but if it fails you can toss up an "I told you so". Tell me....why did you join the military when you really wanted to be a politician? ScottW |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's look at history, toopid!
On Feb 6, 5:58 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:57 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Feb 6, 12:20 pm, "ScottW" wrote: You offer no solutions, you support no course of action. I fully support this COA, toopid. I have all along. I just think it's too late. That's a brilliant piece of logic. You fully support a COA that you don't think can work. Is the same logic that creates non-binding resolutions? You supported it if it works but if it fails you can toss up an "I told you so". Tell me....why did you join the military when you really wanted to be a politician? What part of "I hope that it works, if I was religious I would pray that it works, and there are no other reasonable COAs to try, but I think that it's too late" do you not understand? I fully support the attempt. The status quo was obviously a dismal failure. God, but you're dumb. LOL! What a moron. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's look at history, toopid!
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com... On Feb 6, 5:58 pm, "ScottW" wrote: On Feb 6, 11:57 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Feb 6, 12:20 pm, "ScottW" wrote: You offer no solutions, you support no course of action. I fully support this COA, toopid. I have all along. I just think it's too late. That's a brilliant piece of logic. You fully support a COA that you don't think can work. Is the same logic that creates non-binding resolutions? You supported it if it works but if it fails you can toss up an "I told you so". Tell me....why did you join the military when you really wanted to be a politician? What part of "I hope that it works, The part where your value of soldiers lives and your fortune is too great to pin on hopes. if I was religious I would pray that it works, and there are no other reasonable COAs to try, but I think that it's too late" do you not understand? I fully support the attempt. The status quo was obviously a dismal failure. God, but you're dumb. Lord, spare this hypocrite...he cannot see. ScottW |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's look at history, toopid!
On Feb 6, 10:07 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On Feb 6, 5:58 pm, "ScottW" wrote: On Feb 6, 11:57 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Feb 6, 12:20 pm, "ScottW" wrote: You offer no solutions, you support no course of action. I fully support this COA, toopid. I have all along. I just think it's too late. That's a brilliant piece of logic. You fully support a COA that you don't think can work. Is the same logic that creates non-binding resolutions? You supported it if it works but if it fails you can toss up an "I told you so". Tell me....why did you join the military when you really wanted to be a politician? What part of "I hope that it works, The part where your value of soldiers lives and your fortune is too great to pin on hopes. Then you're right: we should pull out now. We blew it in Iraq. More accurately, bushie, rummy, et al, blew it. I'd be willing to give 18 months to see if there's any shift first, but if you want to quit, be my guest. If after 18 months, there's no sign of any shift, we cut our losses and bail. No 12-year-plan (as that is no plan) based on one successful COIN op. if I was religious I would pray that it works, and there are no other reasonable COAs to try, but I think that it's too late" do you not understand? I fully support the attempt. The status quo was obviously a dismal failure. God, but you're dumb. Lord, spare this hypocrite...he cannot see. Duh. So, stay the course, or bail now? That's what you seem to be arguing for, toopid. But I know that you really mean "Stay there no matter what! We simply cannot have our objectives thwarted!" I, OTOH, am giving another 18 months. I agree with you that failure in Iraq is not good for the US. Unfortunately, four years of bumbling by your guys may have made that inevitable. I am willing to give GEN Petreus and crew a chance at salvaging it. You want me to blindly say, "This will no doubt work!" when the CG is not saying that. That's why you are a moron. Are you on drugs, toopid? Moron. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's look at history, toopid!
On Feb 6, 10:07 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On Feb 6, 5:58 pm, "ScottW" wrote: On Feb 6, 11:57 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Feb 6, 12:20 pm, "ScottW" wrote: You offer no solutions, you support no course of action. I fully support this COA, toopid. I have all along. I just think it's too late. That's a brilliant piece of logic. You fully support a COA that you don't think can work. Is the same logic that creates non-binding resolutions? You supported it if it works but if it fails you can toss up an "I told you so". Tell me....why did you join the military when you really wanted to be a politician? What part of "I hope that it works, The part where your value of soldiers lives and your fortune is too great to pin on hopes. if I was religious I would pray that it works, and there are no other reasonable COAs to try, but I think that it's too late" do you not understand? I fully support the attempt. The status quo was obviously a dismal failure. God, but you're dumb. Lord, spare this hypocrite...he cannot see. BTW, toopid: you have not addressed the main points... again. So will you use the 'boredom' gambit, or the 'rodent-in-the-hole' gambit? Just curious. And yes, Paul, toopid is still a moron. |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's look at history, toopid!
On Feb 7, 1:22 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Feb 6, 10:07 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On Feb 6, 5:58 pm, "ScottW" wrote: On Feb 6, 11:57 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Feb 6, 12:20 pm, "ScottW" wrote: You offer no solutions, you support no course of action. I fully support this COA, toopid. I have all along. I just think it's too late. That's a brilliant piece of logic. You fully support a COA that you don't think can work. Is the same logic that creates non-binding resolutions? You supported it if it works but if it fails you can toss up an "I told you so". Tell me....why did you join the military when you really wanted to be a politician? What part of "I hope that it works, The part where your value of soldiers lives and your fortune is too great to pin on hopes. if I was religious I would pray that it works, and there are no other reasonable COAs to try, but I think that it's too late" do you not understand? I fully support the attempt. The status quo was obviously a dismal failure. God, but you're dumb. Lord, spare this hypocrite...he cannot see. BTW, toopid: you have not addressed the main points... again. Thats cuz your main points are really insignificant and not worth ****ing over. But I'm sure that won't stop you from 10 paragraphs telling us why you can't **** anyway so my point is irrelevant. ScottW |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's look at history, toopid!
On Feb 7, 2:30 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:22 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Feb 6, 10:07 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ooglegroups.com... On Feb 6, 5:58 pm, "ScottW" wrote: On Feb 6, 11:57 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Feb 6, 12:20 pm, "ScottW" wrote: You offer no solutions, you support no course of action. I fully support this COA, toopid. I have all along. I just think it's too late. That's a brilliant piece of logic. You fully support a COA that you don't think can work. Is the same logic that creates non-binding resolutions? You supported it if it works but if it fails you can toss up an "I told you so". Tell me....why did you join the military when you really wanted to be a politician? What part of "I hope that it works, The part where your value of soldiers lives and your fortune is too great to pin on hopes. if I was religious I would pray that it works, and there are no other reasonable COAs to try, but I think that it's too late" do you not understand? I fully support the attempt. The status quo was obviously a dismal failure. God, but you're dumb. Lord, spare this hypocrite...he cannot see. BTW, toopid: you have not addressed the main points... again. Thats cuz your main points are really insignificant and not worth ****ing over. But I'm sure that won't stop you from 10 paragraphs telling us why you can't **** anyway so my point is irrelevant. toopid is true to form. The 'logic' he uses is thus: "Something makes me look stupid, so I ignore it. I will instead wrap my mandible around one minor point, try everything in my power to veer off-topic, and I will then claim 'boredom' with thqt topic, or that the points brought up in that topic are 'insignificant.' For my next act, I will spout off with OT subjects that demonstrate, once again, my inablility to think through a problem, and my racial, social, and cultural intolerance. If all else fails, I will disappear for a few days (until I believe that everybody has forgotten how stupid I am) and then return with one of the above tactics." So we're in your Phase Two now, toopid. No surprise. Moron. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's look at history, toopid!
Shhhh! said: So we're in your Phase Two now, toopid. No surprise. Moron. If Alfred E. Neuman can have his own day, so can Witlessmongrel. I nominate Sept. 31. -- Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
Let's look at history, toopid!
On Feb 7, 5:00 pm, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote: Shhhh! said: So we're in your Phase Two now, toopid. No surprise. Moron. If Alfred E. Neuman can have his own day, so can Witlessmongrel. I nominate Sept. 31. Except Alfred E. Neuman is much smarter than toopid. toopid's latest foray into bizarre 'logic' is one example. He cannot understand how somebody could support a course of action while not being convinced it will work. In toopid's 'world' if the US decides on a COA, it must work. Or, apparently, if you do not believe it will work, you cannot support it. Or some other 'logical' conclusion. AFAICT, the only place toopid's 'logic' makes any sense is in his own 'mind.' What toopid fails to see is that the Iraqis have a say in this, too. In any relationship, there is a window to establish an impression. Typically, that window is not four years long. Now that we are apparently getting serious about trying to win over the Iraqis, in toopid's 'mind' the previous four years do not count and should be forgotten. Perhaps when toopid was wooing his wife he was abusive, disrespectful and violent. Then he had an epiphany. After four years of beating her, kicking her, throwing her to the wolves in really bad neighborhoods and crashing in her door in at 0400, he began to treat her kindly, he began protecting her, and he bought her flowers for the first time. We can only imagine that toopid's wife isn't too bright (since she chose toopid as a mate), so she immediately forgot about the previous four years of maltreatment. They married almost immediately. It would seem that toopid thinks that everybody reacts this way. Maybe that guy who used to beat the snot out of toopid on his way to school every day was the best man at toopid's wedding. Maybe toopid named their first child after him. Meanwhile, some people may think that it is too late, and they may doubt that we can still successfully woo the Iraqis. But we can hope that it isn't too late, and we can fully support the attempt. As they say, better late than never. In toopid's little 'mind' that is a fatal hypocritical dilemma that cannot be solved. This is yet one more example of why he is the biggest moron on the Usenet. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The AP at work (for toopid) | Audio Opinions | |||
| Where are those Wascally Weapons of Mass Destwuction??? | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
