You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
strike on iraq
- Thread starter ElCubano
- Start date
Originally posted by vvv
like i said: in the absence of arguments your sole tactics come down to name calling and attempting to undermine others credibility with tactics that would have made mcarthy proud.
Your premise is not only specious, it is not supported by logic. In reviewing the attempts to offset the obvious, one has to be somewhat amazed at the lengths of your efforts.
With every post the picture becomes clearer; fourteen separate messages in "defense" of a single interrogatory, which, by the way, the participant was willfully evasive.
Could it be that you are also an "outlaw?"
max, there you go again, just to quote good old ronnie raygun one more time.
let's have a little less of your rather pathetic fact twisting and dissembling, if not to call it outright lying, as indeed rs7 has divulged way more of himself and his private history than could ever have been warranted by the rude and instrumentalized charges you have been directing at him with incredible pertinacity, so let's get some facts from you for a change:
i do wonder, though, what with max's insistence on delving into others private backgrounds just to shed some doubt on the material content of their messages, if the dear boy, now that we have verified his gender, is actually planning on applying for a tour of duty himself?
or if he would prefer to be a couch potato warrior, getting his thrills from watching manipulated tv coverage of the war that makes it magically appear surgically precise and clean, with a remote control as his only weapon and a beer or two his only consolation for an opportunity missed on purpose to hmm, go kick some ass.
but, then again, how could he prove his reply to us?
oh dear.
btw, the call never came for me as i am fortunate enough to be the wrong, or, rather, right, age, but, yes indeed, i would have been thoroughly proud as a member of the thinking citizens club to have been able to evade one of the most incredibly stupid and pointless wars this country has ever been involved in, vietnam, by jumping off to canada etc.
brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110002133
let's have a little less of your rather pathetic fact twisting and dissembling, if not to call it outright lying, as indeed rs7 has divulged way more of himself and his private history than could ever have been warranted by the rude and instrumentalized charges you have been directing at him with incredible pertinacity, so let's get some facts from you for a change:
i do wonder, though, what with max's insistence on delving into others private backgrounds just to shed some doubt on the material content of their messages, if the dear boy, now that we have verified his gender, is actually planning on applying for a tour of duty himself?
or if he would prefer to be a couch potato warrior, getting his thrills from watching manipulated tv coverage of the war that makes it magically appear surgically precise and clean, with a remote control as his only weapon and a beer or two his only consolation for an opportunity missed on purpose to hmm, go kick some ass.
but, then again, how could he prove his reply to us?
oh dear.
btw, the call never came for me as i am fortunate enough to be the wrong, or, rather, right, age, but, yes indeed, i would have been thoroughly proud as a member of the thinking citizens club to have been able to evade one of the most incredibly stupid and pointless wars this country has ever been involved in, vietnam, by jumping off to canada etc.
brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts
http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110002133
Originally posted by vvv
let's have a little less of your rather pathetic fact twisting and dissembling . . .
You want to change the subject from your illogically inexorable defense of your fourteen past posts attacking a simple question to another party. I understand.
However, I see you are now continuing to patronizingly state as if true that facts were "pathetically twisted" and "dissembled," when the obvious reality dictates that it is nothing more than an allegation and simply your opinion.
Rather than carrying on with the pretension that you are the supreme arbiter of statements made here, along with your presumptive air of the same, list facts that were "twisted" and/or "dissembled" and state your cause for each.
max, hehe, do you really think i am stupid enough to fall for your time honored game of getting people totally off subject by leading them on one of your spin master silly rat races thoroughly irrelevant to all being discussed here?
no no, dear boy, your tactics have been exposed, as per your thoroughly transparent, evil minded and accordingly futile attempts to undermine rs7's credibility, particularly in view of the fact that he has been much much more than generous in answering your leading rhetorical "questions". of course, that didn't satisfy you, as you were never after the answers, your agenda was attacking his credibility through your little games...
which is why, left to your own simplistic devices, you'd just go on and on and on, pestering rs7 with your materially totally irrelevant inquisition about his military background. or anybody else, for that matter, who hasn't just switched off their little grey cells and isn't taking everything for gospel that comes out of W's mouth.
as i wrote earlier about your rude and pathetic attempts to undermine rs7's credibility:
his military background has zero, nada, to do with the material content of his message, because, genius, you do not need to have been a soldier let alone have been involved in warfare to be able to imagine death or mutilation on the one hand, or come to an educated assessment of strategic diplomatic, geopolitical and economic consequences of war on the other.
that is why r7's combat background is absolutely immaterial to the content of his posts, and you are just trying to get off some cheap shots at those who disagree with your and W's position, said position being characterized, inter alia, by splendid isolation, on there being a need to start a war against iraq, by trying to undermine their credibility and integrity through dissembling and spin spinning merrily away.
now, as you dislike the content, you're doing everything you can to divert attention away from that, as it's uncomfortable and it doesn't fit into your very narrow view of the world that seems to be based exclusively on rehashing W's stance on the matter.
as is your standard modus operandi, btw.
when there were decorated soldiers and officers who'd been involved in numerous military conflicts that were quoted here saying why they were against an attack on saddam you just put and shut up for awhile until the post is no longer on the current page, and you then go back to your simplistic W hero following.
when there are high ranking republicans against the war, you twist facts until you find a tiny nugget, and then proceed to quote that on it's own and out of context.
you're just a fact twister, dissembler, in short, a queen of spin.
ps, try keeping on topic, and stop evading the salient question here, what's it to be for you: couch potato or tour of duty?
brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts
no no, dear boy, your tactics have been exposed, as per your thoroughly transparent, evil minded and accordingly futile attempts to undermine rs7's credibility, particularly in view of the fact that he has been much much more than generous in answering your leading rhetorical "questions". of course, that didn't satisfy you, as you were never after the answers, your agenda was attacking his credibility through your little games...
which is why, left to your own simplistic devices, you'd just go on and on and on, pestering rs7 with your materially totally irrelevant inquisition about his military background. or anybody else, for that matter, who hasn't just switched off their little grey cells and isn't taking everything for gospel that comes out of W's mouth.
as i wrote earlier about your rude and pathetic attempts to undermine rs7's credibility:
his military background has zero, nada, to do with the material content of his message, because, genius, you do not need to have been a soldier let alone have been involved in warfare to be able to imagine death or mutilation on the one hand, or come to an educated assessment of strategic diplomatic, geopolitical and economic consequences of war on the other.
that is why r7's combat background is absolutely immaterial to the content of his posts, and you are just trying to get off some cheap shots at those who disagree with your and W's position, said position being characterized, inter alia, by splendid isolation, on there being a need to start a war against iraq, by trying to undermine their credibility and integrity through dissembling and spin spinning merrily away.
now, as you dislike the content, you're doing everything you can to divert attention away from that, as it's uncomfortable and it doesn't fit into your very narrow view of the world that seems to be based exclusively on rehashing W's stance on the matter.
as is your standard modus operandi, btw.
when there were decorated soldiers and officers who'd been involved in numerous military conflicts that were quoted here saying why they were against an attack on saddam you just put and shut up for awhile until the post is no longer on the current page, and you then go back to your simplistic W hero following.
when there are high ranking republicans against the war, you twist facts until you find a tiny nugget, and then proceed to quote that on it's own and out of context.
you're just a fact twister, dissembler, in short, a queen of spin.
ps, try keeping on topic, and stop evading the salient question here, what's it to be for you: couch potato or tour of duty?
brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
Don't Attack Saddam
It would undermine our antiterror efforts
Oh, I don't know, vvv . . . what would give you that idea?Originally posted by vvv:
now you're disingenuously trying to imply that r7 and i are one and the same?
1. who appointed you inquisitor in chief doubting others?
2. so who did appoint you a modern day mcarthy or inquisitor in chief??
3. why don't you just apply for the position of national chief inquisitor for hiomeland defense,
4. your instrumentalized attack on r7's credibility
5. how, pray, should r7 be able to, hmm, verify his claims on a public board? what difference does it make to the material content of his message?
6. his military background has zero, nada, to do with the material content of his message.
7. all you're doing here is a cheap attempt to undermine the credibility of others
8. you do not need to have been a soldier let alone have been involved in warfare to be able to imagine death or mutilation
9. that is why r7's background of having or having not been a combat veteran is absolutely immaterial to the content of his posts
10. not going all out and making the accusation, no, just subtly implying that r7 lied about being a vet, when you know and i know that there is not a chance in a million to prove or disprove that point
11. as for r7, oh dear, we are moving in a circle here.
12. challenging the integrity of people here by pretending to desire knowledge of issues that cannot be proven in a board like this, and that have no relevance to the contents of r7's posts.
13. yes, and thoroughly right those allegations are too.
14. we ascertained earlier that there most certainly is no material justification to his attempts, as you do not need to have been a soldier let alone have been involved in warfare
15. as per your thoroughly transparent, evil minded and accordingly futile attempts to undermine rs7's credibility . . . which is why you'd go on and on and on, pestering rs7 with your materially totally irrelevant inquisition about his military background.
Originally posted by vvv
max, hehe, do you really think i am stupid enough to fall for your time honored game of getting people totally off subject by leading them on one of your spin master silly rat races thoroughly irrelevant to all being discussed here?
no no, dear boy, your tactics have been exposed, as per your thoroughly transparent, evil minded and accordingly futile attempts to undermine rs7's credibility,
your materially totally irrelevant inquisition about his military background.
as i wrote earlier about your rude and pathetic attempts to undermine rs7's credibility:
his military background has zero, nada, to do with the material content of his message, because, genius, you do not need to have been a soldier let alone have been involved in warfare to be able to imagine death or mutilation on the one hand, or come to an educated assessment of strategic diplomatic, geopolitical and economic consequences of war on the other.
So your premise seems to be and please correct me if this is wrong, if a person lies about his military service, that has no effect on that persons credibility because, in your view, whether he was in the military or not is immaterial to a particular discussion. Is this your statement?
OK Max...what is an "outlaw"?...you got me here. You have used the expression a few times, and I have no idea what it is supposed to mean.Originally posted by max401
Could it be that you are also an "outlaw?"
Now you have elicited responses from me about my very private experiences. Things I never even talked about with my family.
But you and Dotslash are attacking me and my "opinions". While I have only expessed my differences and tried to explain why I feel differently than you guys.
So how about a little reciprocation? Explain to me and the rest what it is that motivates you to believe a "pre-emptive" strike and a very risky one is worth the effort at this point? And on a personal note, what is your experience with these things?
Why have you tried to question my credibility? Where did I ever "boast" "gloat" or in any way express any self justification for what I did? I thought I made it quite clear that I was ashamed of my behaviour that led to my involvement, and I was concerned only with survival after that point. I don't know of anyone who was not. The heros you read about that throw themselves on a granade to save their platoon members are very touching. But the reality is always that they had a chance to die with thier friends or to save them and die anyway. No one ever sacrificed their life to save others in real life....at least not that I am aware of. Other than the firefighters and rescue workers of last 9/11. There were more real heros in that one day than there were in all the years of conflict in Vietnam combined.
So Max...where were you in 1964-1973? Were you born? I can guess with great certainty that Dotslash was not.
Peace,
rs7
Originally posted by rs7
But you and Dotslash are attacking me and my "opinions". While I have only expessed my differences and tried to explain why I feel differently than you guys.
Excuse me, first where on this earth does one's opinion enjoy immunity from "attack?" Secondly, please point out where I have attacked you personally.