V-Twin Forum banner

1 - 20 of 60 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
He was explaining the reasons for his answer to the question he was asked, what's so hard about that? He didn't change the subject or dodge the question, he answered it, and then gave reasons for the answer he gave.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,064 Posts
This the first time that I even agreed partially with what he had to say. He sure changed when he figured out how his cronies could profit from a war.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,069 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
sthorp said:
He was explaining the reasons for his answer to the question he was asked, what's so hard about that? He didn't change the subject or dodge the question, he answered it, and then gave reasons for the answer he gave.
That's pretty obvious, but what was he saying?
 

·
<><
Joined
·
3,971 Posts
I don't get what you don't get. He's crystal clear. And he didn't change his mind later. That was 1994 under completely different circumstances.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,245 Posts
different circumstances...

PR3VS56 said:
I don't get what you don't get. He's crystal clear. And he didn't change his mind later. That was 1994 under completely different circumstances.
yes, we had a prez who knew the difference between sh!t and shinola.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,460 Posts
Fred1369 said:
yes, we had a prez who knew the difference between sh!t and shinola.
Would that be the one who needed to define "is"?
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
Well I'll say it's pretty lame to use a set of facts from 13 years ago and try to apply them to a current argument-- I could care less what you're arguing. The problem set and solution set from 13 years ago and today are drastically different. That said, if there was a point that Smokey was trying to make, it's lost on me. Because I ask, what would the relevancy of that clip had been if the conditions in Iraq were different? I know it's convenient to use right now, but that doesn't make it an absolute.

Some of you folks need to take the blinders off. I could care less if you like the President or not, but let's get beyond applying third grade logic to make a point.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,710 Posts
"how many more dead americans is sadam worth" is the last question cheney ask.
My answer is,enough have died now, sadam is dead too.

If we are unwilling to use all our millitary strength and not defeat those that shoot at us.

Time to pack up. Islam is our enemy, you either defeat them or get a leader who will.

I remind you, if not a muslim, you ain't s _ it. They will never accept a non muslim.
When is the west going to wake up.

Do you still think is funny?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
HiAngle said:
Well I'll say it's pretty lame to use a set of facts from 13 years ago and try to apply them to a current argument-- I could care less what you're arguing. The problem set and solution set from 13 years ago and today are drastically different. That said, if there was a point that Smokey was trying to make, it's lost on me. Because I ask, what would the relevancy of that clip had been if the conditions in Iraq were different? I know it's convenient to use right now, but that doesn't make it an absolute.

Some of you folks need to take the blinders off. I could care less if you like the President or not, but let's get beyond applying third grade logic to make a point.
You mean X years later an invasion to topple Saddam wouldn't fracture Iraq politically? And that it wouldn't be a quagmire? Exactly what were the circumstances that made it so different? If you go with the lame securing WMD response please explain where they are. Harboring terrorists? Don't go there. . . .it's bull$hit. Just what was different in 2003 from 1994, nine years later? Who has the blinders on?

Lefty
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
Lefty said:
You mean X years later an invasion to topple Saddam wouldn't fracture Iraq politically? And that it wouldn't be a quagmire? Exactly what were the circumstances that made it so different? If you go with the lame securing WMD response please explain where they are. Harboring terrorists? Don't go there. . . .it's bull$hit. Just what was different in 2003 from 1994, nine years later? Who has the blinders on?

Lefty

Big swing and a miss with the point I was making. But thanks for proving my second point. Perhaps it was too difficult to pick up on the fact that I was referring to any argument, not just an Iraq problem set? So based off of your babble, you suggest that whatever your argument is, it's an absolute argument? It no longer matters what the circumstances are in the future or what they were in the past? I guess that makes it easy then, huh? Make a decision one day and never look back and see if it needs further evaluation. Good plan I guess, especially if you're into complete mayhem in your life.

BTW-- been there and done that with the GWOT and still serving so spare me the lecture there tough guy. I have a much better understanding on the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan than you ever will. You get to read about it, I had the luxury of an all expenses paid trip to help solve it- and I probably have another trip. I guess I should take the "fukk it" approach the next time because the rest of you have it figured out. Thankfully there are really smart folks like you out there to make up for dumb $hits like me.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
HiAngle said:
Big swing and a miss with the point I was making. But thanks for proving my second point. Perhaps it was too difficult to pick up on the fact that I was referring to any argument, not just an Iraq problem set? So based off of your babble, you suggest that whatever your argument is, it's an absolute argument? It no longer matters what the circumstances are in the future or what they were in the past? I guess that makes it easy then, huh? Make a decision one day and never look back and see if it needs further evaluation. Good plan I guess, especially if you're into complete mayhem in your life.

BTW-- been there and done that with the GWOT and still serving so spare me the lecture there tough guy. I have a much better understanding on the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan than you ever will. You get to read about it, I had the luxury of an all expenses paid trip to help solve it- and I probably have another trip. I guess I should take the "fukk it" approach the next time because the rest of you have it figured out. Thankfully there are really smart folks like you out there to make up for dumb $hits like me.
I never suggested an absolute argument. You did. Probably as a result of your inability to answer the "What was different in 2003?" question I posed.

Thank you for your service, but I'm not buying your "My boots were on the ground so my knowledge is superior" argument.

Lefty
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
Lefty said:
I never suggested an absolute argument. You did. Probably as a result of your inability to answer the "What was different in 2003?" question I posed.

Thank you for your service, but I'm not buying your "My boots were on the ground so my knowledge is superior" argument.

Lefty

Ahhhh, that was my point-- I wouldn't get into the business of going back in time and scraping up a video clip and use comments based off of one question/scenario and then try to apply them to a diffrerent set of circumstances. If you think that the problem sets between Desert Storm and OIF/OEF are the same, well you're sadly mistaken. I was in the Army during Desert Storm and I am still in. So don't think you can educate me on how they are the same. OIF/OEF aside, my original comment didn't highlight the war.

Well all I can say to your second point is you read about it I, and many others lived it.

You read about IEDs, I dealt with them
You read about attacks, I lived through them.
You read about US military deaths, I personally knew a lot of those people and went to their funerals or saluted their flag-draped coffin as they were loaded onto a C-17 to be transported back to the states.
You read about militias, Taliban, foreign fighters, etc, I had to deal with them.
You read about political struggles at the local and provincial level, I dealt with them.
You read about Lines of Operation, I worked to achieve them.

But hey, if your Boots on the ground time" equates to office cooler discussion, sitting on the can reading the paper, or sitting in front of a TV, then so be it. But don't be so foolish to believe that you can teach those of us who have been there something. That said, yes, my knowledge of this conflict is much superior to yours. #[email protected]
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
{salute( I see, still no response as to what was different. . . . just more chest beating.

Lefty
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
And obviously we now all know you can't stand the fact that your hearing about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't trump what we, who have been there, know about Iraq and Afghanistan. Not chest beating, just a fact and it obviously hurts your feelings as evidenced by your comments. Anytime you want to take me to task on it, be my guest. I lived in the middle east (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia) as a kid and I have served in combat over there. Give it your best shot. But I notice that you didn't address my experience over there compared to your reading about it. I guess you concede the point-- hollow cheat beating perhaps?

But to break it down to its basic form as you obviously have some trouble understanding my original point-

1) Regardless of what you're arguing- to go back and apply an argument from years past over a problem that is very different from today's problem is lacking merit. Even if it supports your position today.

For example-- Germany has made some recent political decisions that many in this country don't agree with. If I were to go back and drag up some clip from the 30s or 40s where we attacked Germany and its policies, it doesn't mean that's a valid point today. Even if the clip condemns German politics.

If you have to go back to the 90s to defend your views, for or against, the Iraq/Afghanistan war, then you're reaching. That was the premise of my argument.

Is it still difficult to understand? :hmmm:

But what was different in 1990 vs 2003?

1) We went to the ME in 1990 because Saddam invaded Kuwait. In the proccess, he murdered folks. This country's mission was to get him out of Kuwait. It was not to overthrow the regime. But funny, President Bush was beaten up for not going into Iraq and "finishing business". Therefore, you had Dick Cheney defending his boss' policy. Though I don't know if he disagreed with him. Maybe he did, based off of recent events.

2) We went to Iraq in 2003 after we had been wounded as a nation. The entire world, to include his own Army thought he had WMDs-- I have heard it come from an Iraqi Army Officer's mouth and say, "we were told we had them". I guess the Kurds can attest to their existence as well. Where are they today, I don't know. Saddam also shot at our aircraft-- was that ok for him to do? Obviously some Iraqi's made the government believe some things that certainly didn't pan out to be true. We also had some politicians who made some pretty bad assumptions and it has gotten us to where we are today. We grew our roots in very deep in Iraq and there is no longer an easy solution. But just because it's hard doesn't mean you walk away from it, which is what a lot of people advocate.


So obviously quite a bit is different between then and now. Just because it's convenient to use a clip of the Vice President discussing two different missions, doesn't mean it's a valid point for the current argument. The context and frame work of the problem was extremely different.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
HiAngle said:
And obviously we now all know you can't stand the fact that your hearing about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't trump what we, who have been there, know about Iraq and Afghanistan. Not chest beating, just a fact and it obviously hurts your feelings as evidenced by your comments. Anytime you want to take me to task on it, be my guest. I lived in the middle east (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia) as a kid and I have served in combat over there. Give it your best shot. But I notice that you didn't address my experience over there compared to your reading about it. I guess you concede the point-- hollow cheat beating perhaps?

But to break it down to its basic form as you obviously have some trouble understanding my original point-

1) Regardless of what you're arguing- to go back and apply an argument from years past over a problem that is very different from today's problem is lacking merit. Even if it supports your position today.

For example-- Germany has made some recent political decisions that many in this country don't agree with. If I were to go back and drag up some clip from the 30s or 40s where we attacked Germany and its policies, it doesn't mean that's a valid point today. Even if the clip condemns German politics.

If you have to go back to the 90s to defend your views, for or against, the Iraq/Afghanistan war, then you're reaching. That was the premise of my argument.

Is it still difficult to understand? :hmmm:

But what was different in 1990 vs 2003?

1) We went to the ME in 1990 because Saddam invaded Kuwait. In the proccess, he murdered folks. This country's mission was to get him out of Kuwait. It was not to overthrow the regime. But funny, President Bush was beaten up for not going into Iraq and "finishing business". Therefore, you had Dick Cheney defending his boss' policy. Though I don't know if he disagreed with him. Maybe he did, based off of recent events.

2) We went to Iraq in 2003 after we had been wounded as a nation. The entire world, to include his own Army thought he had WMDs-- I have heard it come from an Iraqi Army Officer's mouth and say, "we were told we had them". I guess the Kurds can attest to their existence as well. Where are they today, I don't know. Saddam also shot at our aircraft-- was that ok for him to do? Obviously some Iraqi's made the government believe some things that certainly didn't pan out to be true. We also had some politicians who made some pretty bad assumptions and it has gotten us to where we are today. We grew our roots in very deep in Iraq and there is no longer an easy solution. But just because it's hard doesn't mean you walk away from it, which is what a lot of people advocate.


So obviously quite a bit is different between then and now. Just because it's convenient to use a clip of the Vice President discussing two different missions, doesn't mean it's a valid point for the current argument. The context and frame work of the problem was extremely different.

Having had my boots on the ground in war in a foreign land, no I don't agree with you that because you were/are there has any relevance whatsoever. My experience tells me that those in the conflict have the least knowledge of the big picture. We beg to differ in this area.

Your differences between 1991 and 2003 don't wash with me. We disagree.

The simple facts are this:

1) Cheney indicated that an incursion into Iraq to topple Saddam would further destabilize the ME.
2) He felt we would be bogged down in a quagmire.

No amount of twisted logic or wishful thinking will change the fact that those assumptions were true then and true now.

Keep on dreaming.

Lefty
 
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
Top