From someone who's already fought this war...

Mott the Hoople said:
Ahhh southern contraryism ya just gotta love it.

No, SM the best way to end a war is to not start one in the first place. Particularly ones like Vietnam and Iraq in which the Government has to lie and decieve the people in order to start a war in the first place. That's not only unethical, it's immoral.
Click to expand...

this is logically incorrect. you can't end A war that hasn't been started. Thus, in discussing one that's been started, we must evaluate how one ends a war, and concurrently, what is the BEST way to end a war.

A) you lose: loss of face, lost respect, lost money, lost lives, didn't gain anything.
B) stalemate: wasted time, likely wasted money. loss of face.
c) you win! you reap the rewards, you rebuild your army, you pilage the land, you are badass. you are a winner.

Therefore, southernman is correct. Mottley, you are wrong.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Ahhh southern contraryism ya just gotta love it.

No, SM the best way to end a war is to not start one in the first place. Particularly ones like Vietnam and Iraq in which the Government has to lie and decieve the people in order to start a war in the first place. That's not only unethical, it's immoral.
Click to expand...

You can't run away from tyrants forever Mott. You can only sanction and threaten so many times before you have to get your boots dirty, or else you lose all cred. Once you go in you stay there until the jobs done, or else, again, lose cred.

I realize that cred may be a foreign concept to you being a liberal male and all but try to understand reality for a moment or two.
 
Southern Man said:
You can't run away from tyrants forever Mott. You can only sanction and threaten so many times before you have to get your boots dirty, or else you lose all cred. Once you go in you stay there until the jobs done, or else, again, lose cred.

I realize that cred may be a foreign concept to you being a liberal male and all but try to understand reality for a moment or two.
Click to expand...

Given that Saddam was not a real threat to the US, how many american lives is "cred" worth?

How many families do we have watch a flag draped casket sink into the ground in order to maintain our "cred"?

If a tyrant is a threat, then by all means deal with it. But to have american lives lost so we can prove how tough we are is a complete waste.

We lost 58,000 in Vietnam, and ruined countless more, for what purpose? If you are going to send our bravest overseas to die, you damn well need to have a better reason than "cred".
 
Empty Hollow Shell said:
this is logically incorrect. you can't end A war that hasn't been started. Thus, in discussing one that's been started, we must evaluate how one ends a war, and concurrently, what is the BEST way to end a war.

A) you lose: loss of face, lost respect, lost money, lost lives, didn't gain anything.
B) stalemate: wasted time, likely wasted money. loss of face.
c) you win! you reap the rewards, you rebuild your army, you pilage the land, you are badass. you are a winner.

Therefore, southernman is correct. Mottley, you are wrong.
Click to expand...


No one should enter into a war, that they haven't prepared themselves to win.
You can't win, if you're trying for a stalemate.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No, most of the liberals, conservatives, progressives, independents will remember that it was PROVEN that there was NO collaboration between Al Qaeda and Hussein....as their tertiary meetings between representatives resulted in such. Opposed ideologies and all.

No one is buying the Shrub lies anymore no matter who is telling them...except bitterly defeated neocon diehards.
Click to expand...

Topspin said:
wow nice neocon burn:good4u:
Click to expand...

Just basic, honest facts......like sunglight to a vampire for neocons.
 
Socrtease said:
I'll blast you you chicken hawk mother fucker. You are willing to have others fight your wars when you are too fucking scared to serve your country yourself.
Click to expand...
My my you have your little panties in a wad this morning. Or is it just that time of the month?

I never enlisted because there wasn't a war going on asshole. I never backed away from a fight in my life, so if you think your man enough to "blast me" then PM me and I'll tell you when and where. :pke:
 
Southern Man said:
My my you have your little panties in a wad this morning. Or is it just that time of the month?

I never enlisted because there wasn't a war going on asshole. I never backed away from a fight in my life, so if you think your man enough to "blast me" then PM me and I'll tell you when and where. :pke:
Click to expand...

Unless its Topper, then he will agree to bring a gun so he doesn't have to fightwith his fists.

:rofl:
 
Southern Man said:
That's not a given, and the rest of your post is irrelevant regardless. :lol:
Click to expand...

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

My posts was quite relevant. But, as I have pointed out, when you have no argument you simply pretend it doesn't matter.
 
WinterBorn said:
Unless its Topper, then he will agree to bring a gun so he doesn't have to fightwith his fists.

:rofl:
Click to expand...

From the guy that scolds and tries to hold himself up as the man who is more mature and has higher standards when it's your battle with the Southernman.

I can't tell you how many times I have seen you claim you take the higher road when fighting with the Southernman.

When it's someone else's battle, you scurry out from under the bed to add this display of maturity?

Guess that higher ground and maturty is subjective, eh Solitary?
 
usaloyal2theend said:
From the guy that scolds and tries to hold himself up as the man who is more mature and has higher standards when it's your battle with the Southernman.

I can't tell you how many times I have seen you claim you take the higher road when fighting with the Southernman.

When it's someone else's battle, you scurry out from under the bed to add this display of maturity?

Guess that higher ground and maturty is subjective, eh Solitary?
Click to expand...

When someone is a bigot and a bully, I enjoy harrassing them. I have not taken the high road with SM. I have stuck with the topic and berated SM for going off on personal tangents. There is a difference.
 
usaloyal2theend said:
From the guy that scolds and tries to hold himself up as the man who is more mature and has higher standards when it's your battle with the Southernman.

I can't tell you how many times I have seen you claim you take the higher road when fighting with the Southernman.

When it's someone else's battle, you scurry out from under the bed to add this display of maturity?

Guess that higher ground and maturty is subjective, eh Solitary?
Click to expand...
Solitary's just pissed because he got addicted to this board trying to defend his bum-buddy maineman and got fired from his job becasue of it. Now he maintains a personal vendetta because, after all, it couldn't have been his fault.

Liberals always blame others for their weaknesses.

:lol:
 
Southern Man said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

Again with the proving a negative?

There has been no evidence of a serious threat to the US. The WMDs that were found were minimal. There was no delivery system available. And the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda are flimsy at best. Most of the connects were fiction.
 
Southern Man said:
Solitary's just pissed because he got addicted to this board trying to defend his bum-buddy maineman and got fired from his job becasue of it. Now he maintains a personal vendetta because, after all, it couldn't have been his fault.

Liberals always blame others for their weaknesses.

:lol:
Click to expand...

Pissed? lol Not even close.

Now, if you would like to try again to show any evidence of anyone losing their job........well, I guess that would be too much for you, wouldn't it?
 
WinterBorn said:
Again with the proving a negative?

There has been no evidence of a serious threat to the US. The WMDs that were found were minimal. There was no delivery system available. And the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda are flimsy at best. Most of the connects were fiction.
Click to expand...

Its not a negative, douchebag, since your statement can easily be re-worded as in :Saddam remained neutral". But that is obviously untrue.

As I recall, the thing that set your bum-buddy off against me was this very subject. I detailed hundreds of reports of Saddam's connections with Al Queda from dozens of agencies.
 
Southern Man said:
Its not a negative, douchebag, since your statement can easily be re-worded as in :Saddam remained neutral". But that is obviously untrue.

As I recall, the thing that set your bum-buddy off against me was this very subject. I detailed hundreds of reports of Saddam's connections with Al Queda from dozens of agencies.
Click to expand...

That is not reworded. That is a totally different statement. I said that Saddam was not a threat to the US. I never claimed he was neutral.

You are the one willing to send americans to their death over "cred".
 
WinterBorn said:
Pissed? lol Not even close.

Now, if you would like to try again to show any evidence of anyone losing their job........well, I guess that would be too much for you, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
The evidence is that you are Solitary and no longer work there, having suffered a breakdown of sorts and asking Damo to remove your thousands of earlier posts from this board. These posts are now attributed to Cancel3. :lol:
 
WinterBorn said:
That is not reworded. That is a totally different statement. I said that Saddam was not a threat to the US. I never claimed he was neutral.

You are the one willing to send americans to their death over "cred".
Click to expand...

If not neutral and therefore supportive of Al Queada then he was a threat.

You're the one willing to risk our national security by reducing our cred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top