WombRaider: I don't know what you predicted in 2004
I predicted, on the "Brazzil Forums," precisely what ended up happening in Iraq from then through 2011. I also predicted that the Iraqi military and security force were going to gain enough competency to take over security from the United States. This, in conjunction with the Iraqis backing their military against the terrorists. Everything that I predicted ended up happening.
WombRaider: and don't much give a fuck.
You can't have it both ways. The moment you dismissed a fact based on a logical, reasoned, argument, as well as a prediction based on such, whether you gave a fuck or not does not matter. It becomes relevant when it comes to destroying your argument.
You're just saying that because that very fact destroyed your assumption. One where you try to dismiss something I said that destroyed your argument. You basically don't give a crap about anything that harms or destroys your argument.
WombRaider: As for off the books spending, I'm referring to the black budget. These are not things people will request forms for.
Again, having been involved with finance, in a military capacity, there is no "black budget" that gives us money to do things. In every single military pay/finance office, the procedures are pretty much the same.
All branches of the military have to follow The Department of Defense Financial Management Regulations (DOD FMR) when conducting pay/finance operations.
Meaning, any incoming income was documented via cash collection voucher, or other similar voucher. Any expenditure, on the account of the disbursing/finance office, was documented on an expenditure voucher.
The forms that I was talking about are a snapshot of assets and liabilities in the hands of the disbursing officer, deputy disbursing officer, disbursing agent, cash agent, etc. Anything, involving money, those in the hands of these agents are listed in these forms (balance sheets/financial statements).
When it comes to public funds, money coming from the government, or money due to the government, we accounted for every single penny. There is no instance of money coming in that did not have to be accounted for.
WombRaider: How did it go training the Iraqi army? Make them face their mortality?
I'm glad you asked. 
Last year, as I was reading about ISIS's advance, I smiled and glowed with pride, when I read that the Iraqis that my unit worked with repelled ISIS. They hammered the ISIS "fighters", and sent them on their way. ISIS has since attempted to come back, but to no avail.
You read that right. The area, where my unit's combat outpost was, is still under Iraqi government hands. That's thanks to the Iraqi military unit that my unit worked with when we were combat deployed there.
WombRaider: They want to fucking die. Dying for their religion is the highest way for them to go.
It's blatantly obvious that you've never stepped foot in the Middle East in a combat/operational capacity. The Iraqis that we worked with hated Al Qaeda and the other terrorists. They didn't buy into the "killing the infidel to get into heaven" mentality.
As with the western countries, the population in the Arab countries have varying levels of commitment to their religion. You have Muslims that are devout, and you have others that are average, and you have others that are "in name only."
The radicals, on the other hand, are brainwashed and radicalized. Even then, they realize, in the end, that what they're doing would end their lives. If they wanted to "fucking die," they would not have resorted to mortar and IED attacks as their main form of attacks. Both allows the "trigger man" a chance to survive and escape.
Why would they do that if they wanted to die, simply because that's the highest way to go?
There are those that take that up, dying for their religious cause; however, this does not describe all of them.
WombRaider: You're simply making a lot of bullshit predictions and knitting together half a story with what little information you have.
Wrong, as usual. These are not "bullshit" predictions, quotation marks used strongly. These are projections based on my extensive study of current events running area, to include reading their own statements, and watching their videos, that makes a blatantly obvious what direction they are headed in.
All I am doing is connecting the facts as they occur throughout the big picture, and making a projection based on that. This "big picture" includes a study of their history, as well as current events. Here is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying something that's echoed repeatedly among radicals:
"The message of the [Islamic] Revolution is global, and is not restricted to a specific place or time. Have no doubt... Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountaintops of the world." -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuslxJFpBuU
Mountains have historically been a place for people to escape to. He's saying that people will not even be able to escape to the mountains. Here's another one:
"We don't need terrorists, we don't need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims [in Europe] will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades." -- Muammar al-Gaddafi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBE3P4dBh78
There are many more where these came from. No matter what their differences are, throughout that area, there is a sense that Islam will rule the world. They're doing it via unrestricted warfare/asymmetrical warfare.
Second, the predictions that I talked about earlier are not "BS." Like the prediction I'm making now, they were based on historic trends as well as current events. It's a simple matter of connecting the dots based on a trend. This is also based on having as many facts as possible gained via extensive study.
Describing the facts and predictions that I present, via extensive study and experience, as "what little information you have" is like describing the entire Chinese population as "only a handful of people." It makes it blatantly obvious that you're just a buffoon speaking out of your ass.
What I know, regarding the topic that we are arguing, is extensive. I could generate a book and a dissertation with just a fraction of the knowledge that I'm basing my argument on.
The cold hard reality is that I've consistently made accurate predictions on what is going to happen based on extensive knowledge on history and current events. That's a fact. Nothing will change that, no matter how your arrogance tries to protect your fragile ego from humiliation in a debate.
WombRaider: If you were an expert, you wouldn't be on a hooker board.
[INDUCTIVE FALLACY]
Once again, you colossally failed to understand what it was you were reading. This is a strong indicator that you are reading my replies with a lot of arrogance and emotion raging through you. With all that going on, you're seeing what you want to see, and not what I'm actually saying.
When I say this:
"I don't jump into a debate until a major requirement is met. I have to know for a fact that I know far more about the topic than the opposition does. This is gained via extensive research/study of the topic, as well as experience in many, or all, the aspects of the topic that I'm debating." -- herfacechair
I'm saying that I will not jump into a debate unless I know for fact that I will destroy the opposition. This has nothing to do with me claiming to be an expert just to make that claim. This is extremely relevant when the opposition claims that I "lost" simply because of a statement I made that you colossally failed to prove "wrong".
Your "if then" statement is erroneous. Why am I on this board? Well, the reasons that I'm on this board is obvious, and is similar to the reasons most other people on this board. That reason, is independent of the reason people are here on this thread arguing.
Why am I on this thread? A simple answer to that is that the opposition, including you, is wrong. I'm here debating against those who think that they are "not wrong." When mindless drones like you attempt to diminish my argument, or me, simply based on their arrogant emotions in the hands of defeat, I'm going slap them with my expertise as it relates to the debate topic.
WombRaider: Sell crazy somewhere else.
First, I'm going to keep hammering you every time you try to dazzle me with your ignorance.
Second, the only reason that you are identifying my argument as "crazy" is because you disagree with them, and you have no way of arguing against my argument. Your last two replies to me gives you the appearance of having a mental breakdown. The only crazy that I see is someone, extremely clueless about the topic that's being argued, attempting to argue with a subject matter expert who happens to have combat deployed to the region that is being argued about.
That makes you a retard. Now, if you cannot be adult enough to accept that you've been destroyed, that you have lost, and that you have been clueless compared to my having extensive knowledge/facts regarding the debate topic, go be a retard elsewhere.
WombRaider: Is a fluid situation,
That's a generalized view that doesn't take into account the factors involved with the changing situation.
WombRaider: you fucking moron.
This is an example of you projecting your own traits against the opposition. You, and those on your side of the argument, the liberals/progressives, are not only morons, but mindless drones.
WombRaider: That's why you conservative shitheels are constantly wrong because you don't take on new information.
BWAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAA! Congratulations, you surpassed that guy that posted here earlier who threatened people with his lawyer.
Speak for yourself. You're complaining and whining about the conservatives allegedly not taking information in, yet here you are extending a lot of effort rejecting new information. Hence, you constantly being wrong. You'd rather be wrong because your pride makes you think you're right.
We conservatives are not constantly "wrong." We are constantly correct. Again, a main reason that I'm on here destroying you people's arguments is because you people are wrong. Your arguments are devoid of fact, reason, and logic.
This is why destroying you guys in debate, including you, is like taking candy away from a baby.
You're also wrong in assuming that conservatives do not take in new information. We conservatives take valid information in, not BS information. You liberals, on the other hand, tend to soak up BS information, simply because that information massages you people's ego.
My side of the argument, the conservative side, argues from the facts. We reject BS. You guys need to quit thinking and assuming that your BS, and emotion-based rants, are "fact." They aren't.
WombRaider: He was merely giving you examples of countries we previously had bad relations with that we now are friendly with. Is that difficult to understand?
For you simpleminded libtards, taking these examples, outside the context of the back-and-forth relationships, is all that is needed. No, the conservatives on this thread do not have a problem understanding what WTF, and other low information voters, are attempting to say.
However, we reject the BS arguments behind what he, and you guys, advance. Vietnam before, Vietnam now, different circumstances. Iran before the revolution, and Iran now, different circumstances.
This is nothing but an inductive fallacy to use in an argument to make up for not having the facts.
The cold hard reality is that you libtards are constantly wrong. You people reject the facts as "opinion" or "BS," while at the same time mistaking you people's emotional rants as "fact." Yes is things azz backwards.
When the opposition does nothing but advance BS, destroying them in argument becomes easy.
WombRaider: I know it's hard for your old ass to follow a string of thoughts.
How he interpreted your statements is very similar to how I interpreted your statements. The problem isn't with how your statements were read, is not on our end. The problem is on your end. If what you said earlier was not what you communicated, then you need to communicate your actual thoughts better. Taking a deep breath, and calming down, will help.
WombRaider: The training question was not related to the next statement about dying being their ultimate goal.
What you said:
"How did it go training the Iraqi army? Make them face their mortality?" -- WombRaider
What part of your own statement do you not understand? The way that is structured, "them" identifies "Army" in the preceding sentence.
The way you typed that, you're clearly communicating that the people we trained were the same people as ISIS. Someone reading your statement, as written, would have come to the same conclusion that lustylad came to. The problem is not on our end, but on yours.
WombRaider: Should I make bullet points for dumbasses like you? Jesus Christ.
Until you read our statements, with the intentions of understanding what we are saying, you do not have a leg to stand on insinuating that someone read you wrong. Especially if the breakdown is on your end.
No, you don't need to make bullet points. All you need to do is to calm yourself down before you even reply. Here's something that will help you. Read our posts more than once. The first time you read our statements, you are emotionally charged. However, if you read our statements a second or even a third time, you will find yourself closer to being more levelheaded. Hopefully.
