it was calledIf you think we were in Vietnam to stop the spread of communism, you're dumber than a bag of fucking hammers.
Counter-insurgency
to stop the expansion of communism, like we did in North Korea Originally Posted by cptjohnstone
- WombRaider
- 09-15-2015, 11:06 AM
- cptjohnstone
- 09-15-2015, 02:34 PM
- Rey Lengua
- 09-15-2015, 03:43 PM
- WombRaider
- 09-15-2015, 04:09 PM
why don't point out where it is was notJesus fucking Christ. If you ask a question in english, I might answer it.
I was going to you credit for being a little smarter than Eva but I think it is a tie Originally Posted by cptjohnstone
"why don't point out where it is was not"
How fucking inbred ARE you?
- WombRaider
- 09-15-2015, 04:10 PM
- cptjohnstone
- 09-15-2015, 04:12 PM
- WombRaider
- 09-15-2015, 04:23 PM
- Rey Lengua
- 09-15-2015, 04:40 PM
Like you go full-on up lusty's ass? There's that transference again. Don't involve me in your gay fantasies. Originally Posted by WombRaiderAs usual, you CAN'T be original, can you woomby ! You're the " transference " master, along with being " The Gloryhole Guru of Arkansas " !! Recycling insults that others have applied to your lying ,swishy walking, well-fudge-packed ass.
- WombRaider
- 09-15-2015, 06:00 PM
As usual, you CAN'T be original, can you woomby ! You're the " transference " master, along with being " The Gloryhole Guru of Arkansas " !! Recycling insults that others have applied to your lying ,swishy walking, well-fudge-packed ass.Original? Like going on about fudge packing and gloryholes? Get the fuck outta here. You're the most unoriginal cocksucker this side of a shiny turd. Transfer your ass out of there, do us all a favor.
- herfacechair
- 09-15-2015, 06:04 PM
WombRaider: You present nothing but anecdotal evidence. You don't speak for every member of the military. Anecdotal. [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN]
Wrong, glory hole fuckface, nowhere did I argue or claim that I spoke for every single one of them. I accurately identified that the vast majority of them have come to the similar conclusions to what I've came to. That's not a claim to "speak for" them.
Your assumptions about my statements being "anecdotal" are complete BS. Again, I present a fact base, reasoned, logical argument. I've only scratched the surface about where I got my information from. If I were to put forth every single source of information that I've used, I would have enough material for a doctoral dissertation. Heck, I would have enough material to write a book.
When I say I base my information on extensive research, that's precisely what I've done. I've lost count of how many books I've read on the topic. I've lost count of how many other legitimate, credible, print material that I've read related to the topic.
Military experience? We're talking about what I've came across in nearly 24 years of military experience. It doesn't just stop there. How about you go mosey along and read blogs and forums frequented by legitimate veterans? You would find a common theme among the arguments they advance.
Nowhere, in any of these posts, do I claim that I speak for every single service-member. However, I'm far more qualified than any of you guys that I'm arguing with, to mention facts based on my interaction with other people in the military in matters related to the Iraq war.
Had this been just a case where I just talked to one or two people, you might, just might, have an argument with regards to this being "anecdotal." I'm still laughing my arse off at that nonsense. However, we're talking about a consistent trend that I experienced from one unit to another throughout the War on Terror. It doesn't matter which military forum I'm on, frequented by legitimate veterans, I see the same trend with regards to where a majority of the service members stand.
Earlier in this thread, I argued that the majority of service members would argue what I argued, or something similar. I also argued that there are those in the military who would not agree with the rest of us. They are in the minority.
Your lack of military experience painfully shows. So does the lack of military experience of those that I'm arguing with on this thread. Instead of yapping about... ROTFLMFAO, "anecdotal," BS, good Lord you're a fucking retard.... How about accepting the fact that I'm far more qualified to know, based on my experiences and research, what the majority of the military would argue? You should be THANKING me for giving you a clue from an insider standpoint.
WombRaider: Go look it up or maybe it's on your word of the day toilet paper.
You need to actually do research on a topic that you are arguing about, on any topic that you argue about, before you demand that other people look up anything. You lack integrity, and you come across as someone that would disregard the right thing to do, or what you are supposed to do, because your arrogance drives you down the wrong path.
Both logic and common sense dictates that you cannot dismiss my military experiences, and my observations and research related to such, simply because my stance, and my experiences, contradict your opinion about matters that give me far more credibility than you.
So, actually do some research, from credible sources of information related to the argument on this thread, so that you could actually look like you know what you're talking about.
Also, don't assume that the toilet papers at your glory hole work locations are standard throughout the country. Your clients put that there knowing full well that your education system colossally failed you.
WombRaider: No corporation worth its salt, huh? I guess that's why out of the top 10 companies lobbying DC, half of them are defense contractors or have divisions that provide military equipment, right dipshit? [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN]
Pay attention to what you're reading, Glory Hole Fuckface! What I actually said:
"No corporation, worth its salt, would waste a lot of time or money trying to start wars through the government." -- herfacechair
Now, let me g-o-o-o-o-o R-E-E-E-E-A-A-A-A-A-A-L S-L-O-O-O-O-O-W for you, you glory hole fuckface... Do you see the part of that quoted statement that I bolded? If you're not colorblind, it's bolded in red. Do you see it? Please let me know if you have problems seeing it. What part of "start wars" did you not understand?
Start, as in begin, initiate, get into action, etc. Wars, as in "shit hit the fan" and rounds are flying. This leads me to a question that you should be able answer, as it's simple and has no "gotcha" assigned to it.
Are defense contractors, and companies with divisions that provide military equipment, the MAJORITY of the contractors, and companies, that exists within the United States free market economy? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy that statement to your reply, and put an "X" in the box that represents your response. Spare me any other BS response that you normally provide when it comes to that question.
Second, they are not there to control the government, or to force the government to go to war. Stay with me now, let's keep this consistent with what I argued. Considering that the US military, Active, Reserve, Guard, is a small percent of the total population, and considering that the majority of the corporations and contractors in the United States cater to commercial, nonmilitary interests, it's only natural for these companies that do cater to the military go to the government in order to try to make money.
Again, this is business. If the government does not purchase their services, they go under. They are not there to "control" the government, nor to force it to go to war. They are there trying to get contracts so their business to stay afloat. This is a fact regardless of whether it is peace or war. They are trying to make money, not trying to force the government to make major policy decisions that would bring us to war.
These businesses do not constitute the majority, not even by a longshot, of all the businesses and corporations in the United States.
Throughout your diarrhea rants, nowhere did you prove my statement "wrong". How about addressing what I actually said instead of what you hoped I said? Oh yeah, that's right, you can't argue with what I actually said without pulling straws and building strawmen to address what you thought I said.
PROVE that these corporations are pushing for war, and not for contracts that they'd receive whether we're at war or not. What I said earlier in this thread:
"There is a lot of money running around the United States. Big businesses, and banks, receive an inflow of money. The vast majority of this cash flow is a result of economic activity not having anything to do with war.
"If you take the money flow that takes place as a result of war, and compare that to the money flow that takes place as a result of normal economic activity, the money flow resulting from war is small compared to the money flow from normal economic activity.
"There is far more profit in peace then there is in war." -- herfacechair
WombRaider: I highly recommend you bend over and stick your head up your own ass.
So that I could see things from your perspective so that we could agree with each other? No thanks.
I have a better idea. I highly recommend that you pull your head out of the Tin Foil Hat general's ass, remove your horse blinders, standup, and reach for one of those clues passing you by. If you choose not to do that, you better hope that your Tin Foil Hat Master doesn't make a sharp bend around the corner. You'll end up breaking your neck.
Wrong, glory hole fuckface, nowhere did I argue or claim that I spoke for every single one of them. I accurately identified that the vast majority of them have come to the similar conclusions to what I've came to. That's not a claim to "speak for" them.
Your assumptions about my statements being "anecdotal" are complete BS. Again, I present a fact base, reasoned, logical argument. I've only scratched the surface about where I got my information from. If I were to put forth every single source of information that I've used, I would have enough material for a doctoral dissertation. Heck, I would have enough material to write a book.
When I say I base my information on extensive research, that's precisely what I've done. I've lost count of how many books I've read on the topic. I've lost count of how many other legitimate, credible, print material that I've read related to the topic.
Military experience? We're talking about what I've came across in nearly 24 years of military experience. It doesn't just stop there. How about you go mosey along and read blogs and forums frequented by legitimate veterans? You would find a common theme among the arguments they advance.
Nowhere, in any of these posts, do I claim that I speak for every single service-member. However, I'm far more qualified than any of you guys that I'm arguing with, to mention facts based on my interaction with other people in the military in matters related to the Iraq war.
Had this been just a case where I just talked to one or two people, you might, just might, have an argument with regards to this being "anecdotal." I'm still laughing my arse off at that nonsense. However, we're talking about a consistent trend that I experienced from one unit to another throughout the War on Terror. It doesn't matter which military forum I'm on, frequented by legitimate veterans, I see the same trend with regards to where a majority of the service members stand.
Earlier in this thread, I argued that the majority of service members would argue what I argued, or something similar. I also argued that there are those in the military who would not agree with the rest of us. They are in the minority.
Your lack of military experience painfully shows. So does the lack of military experience of those that I'm arguing with on this thread. Instead of yapping about... ROTFLMFAO, "anecdotal," BS, good Lord you're a fucking retard.... How about accepting the fact that I'm far more qualified to know, based on my experiences and research, what the majority of the military would argue? You should be THANKING me for giving you a clue from an insider standpoint.
WombRaider: Go look it up or maybe it's on your word of the day toilet paper.
You need to actually do research on a topic that you are arguing about, on any topic that you argue about, before you demand that other people look up anything. You lack integrity, and you come across as someone that would disregard the right thing to do, or what you are supposed to do, because your arrogance drives you down the wrong path.
Both logic and common sense dictates that you cannot dismiss my military experiences, and my observations and research related to such, simply because my stance, and my experiences, contradict your opinion about matters that give me far more credibility than you.
So, actually do some research, from credible sources of information related to the argument on this thread, so that you could actually look like you know what you're talking about.
Also, don't assume that the toilet papers at your glory hole work locations are standard throughout the country. Your clients put that there knowing full well that your education system colossally failed you.
WombRaider: No corporation worth its salt, huh? I guess that's why out of the top 10 companies lobbying DC, half of them are defense contractors or have divisions that provide military equipment, right dipshit? [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: STRAWMAN]
Pay attention to what you're reading, Glory Hole Fuckface! What I actually said:
"No corporation, worth its salt, would waste a lot of time or money trying to start wars through the government." -- herfacechair
Now, let me g-o-o-o-o-o R-E-E-E-E-A-A-A-A-A-A-L S-L-O-O-O-O-O-W for you, you glory hole fuckface... Do you see the part of that quoted statement that I bolded? If you're not colorblind, it's bolded in red. Do you see it? Please let me know if you have problems seeing it. What part of "start wars" did you not understand?
Start, as in begin, initiate, get into action, etc. Wars, as in "shit hit the fan" and rounds are flying. This leads me to a question that you should be able answer, as it's simple and has no "gotcha" assigned to it.
Are defense contractors, and companies with divisions that provide military equipment, the MAJORITY of the contractors, and companies, that exists within the United States free market economy? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy that statement to your reply, and put an "X" in the box that represents your response. Spare me any other BS response that you normally provide when it comes to that question.
Second, they are not there to control the government, or to force the government to go to war. Stay with me now, let's keep this consistent with what I argued. Considering that the US military, Active, Reserve, Guard, is a small percent of the total population, and considering that the majority of the corporations and contractors in the United States cater to commercial, nonmilitary interests, it's only natural for these companies that do cater to the military go to the government in order to try to make money.
Again, this is business. If the government does not purchase their services, they go under. They are not there to "control" the government, nor to force it to go to war. They are there trying to get contracts so their business to stay afloat. This is a fact regardless of whether it is peace or war. They are trying to make money, not trying to force the government to make major policy decisions that would bring us to war.
These businesses do not constitute the majority, not even by a longshot, of all the businesses and corporations in the United States.
Throughout your diarrhea rants, nowhere did you prove my statement "wrong". How about addressing what I actually said instead of what you hoped I said? Oh yeah, that's right, you can't argue with what I actually said without pulling straws and building strawmen to address what you thought I said.
PROVE that these corporations are pushing for war, and not for contracts that they'd receive whether we're at war or not. What I said earlier in this thread:
"There is a lot of money running around the United States. Big businesses, and banks, receive an inflow of money. The vast majority of this cash flow is a result of economic activity not having anything to do with war.
"If you take the money flow that takes place as a result of war, and compare that to the money flow that takes place as a result of normal economic activity, the money flow resulting from war is small compared to the money flow from normal economic activity.
"There is far more profit in peace then there is in war." -- herfacechair
WombRaider: I highly recommend you bend over and stick your head up your own ass.
So that I could see things from your perspective so that we could agree with each other? No thanks.
I have a better idea. I highly recommend that you pull your head out of the Tin Foil Hat general's ass, remove your horse blinders, standup, and reach for one of those clues passing you by. If you choose not to do that, you better hope that your Tin Foil Hat Master doesn't make a sharp bend around the corner. You'll end up breaking your neck.
- herfacechair
- 09-15-2015, 06:07 PM
Wrong. If you paid attention to what you quoted, you would notice this:
[STRAWMAN]
I'm so glad that men sacrificed their lives so Americans could retire or vacation in some Central American shithole. Bravo! What a goddamn bunch of bullshit. Originally Posted by WombRaider
"Now, without client states in Central America, the Soviet Union was limited in what it was able to do in our own backyard. So was Cuba. Before that, we were potentially limited in what we were able to do in our own backyard.
"Do you see how that contributed to us having greater standing relative to the Soviet Union and just at one area? Today, we have a free trade agreement with those countries, strengthening our influence in this hemisphere." -- herfacechair
WHERE, in the above quoted statement of mine, do I argue that we sent troops to those areas so that we could vacation there? Where?
You asked me to "quantify" our gained standing, while erroneously claiming that they were still communist. I pointed out the fact that the one of the end results of our involvement there was a free trade agreement that benefits both sides. CAFT-DR (Dominican Republic -- Central America FTA) is one of those quantifiable things that you're looking for.
Also, pull your head out of your ass when it comes to what these countries are like. These countries have made progress. They may not be "United States quality", but they have a growing middle class and are moving forward.
Go ahead, continue acting like a juvenile. You dismiss the facts, reason, and logic that are present as "bullshit" in the same way that a "know it all" teenager would dismiss his parent's wisdom as "bullshit." You have consistently failed to prove any of my statements wrong. In those areas where you attempted to, you pulled straws and created a strawman of my argument, which did not represent the argument I was making.
- herfacechair
- 09-15-2015, 06:09 PM
Assup Gayridden: what's cracking me up is the fact that HFC is so incredibly full of projectile bluster and death defying bullshit he doesn't realize that: [INDUCTIVE FALLACY: emotional dismissal of opposition's argument]
I highly doubt that you, or anybody else in the opposition, are "cracking up" over anything that those on my side of the argument are saying. What you dismiss as "projectile bluster" and "death defying bullshit", quotation marks used strongly, are fact based, logical, reasoned arguments proving your arguments, as well as those made on your side of the argument, wrong.
First, I don't just jump in the thread "on a whim." I followed the arguments on this thread for days before I jumped on. I made sure that the opposition was indeed clueless about what they were arguing about. This was evident when I first jumped on here to work. This fact became consistent during the other days when I came on here and lurked on this thread.
That was one requirement needed for me to jump on a thread to debate against the opposition.
Second, the topic of this thread fell in an area where I have a strength against the opposition's weaknesses. In order for me to jump on a thread to debate, certain conditions have to be met. One, I have to have extensive knowledge compared to the opposition, gained via both extensive research and first-hand experience. Second, the opposition has to clearly be wrong and not know what they are talking about.
Both conditions were met. It was then when I started to generate my replies. I had not posted yet. I generate my replies on Microsoft Word. I go through a review process with the view of anticipating what the opposition would try to say in response. I make adjustments. It's amazing how you people have played from the same playbook for well over a decade of my doing this.
I'm fully aware that I'm presenting a fact base, logical, reasoned argument. I've been told this as well, across multiple message boards, in over a decade of doing this. You, being in the opposition, would naturally pull crap out of your arse that my arguments are "otherwise." This is consistent. The opposition says one thing, and those in my side of the argument say the opposite. The latter tend to hit the nail on the head.
This is a just a case of people coming up with an opinion based on what side of the argument they are on. I've had people go from being in the opposition to being allies, and vice versa. It's amazing how their opinions of my replies changes depending on which side they end up on versus the one they were on earlier.
So, I know for fact that you are pulling shit out of your ass for emotional reasons.
Assup Gayridden: A) Many of his facts are erroneous in origin, irrelevant to the argument.
Wrong on both counts. My facts are dead accurate, and are based on credible sources. They have everything to do with the argument on hand. Unless you've been living under a rock, you would notice that I reply to the opposition "point by point." Everything I say in response is related to the point that I'm disagreeing with.
However, your side of the argument tends to argue without the facts. When they do come up with "facts," they are either irrelevant or are based on a response to a strawman. Your side of the argument is advancing an argument that is irrelevant to the debate.
Assup Gayridden: B). Almost all of his ejaculations are so poorly written that the only take away is that his reckless ranting and raving is so overwhelming verbose
First, you need to quit butchering the English language when you post before criticizing other people's writing. Also, I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking, Version 13, to dictate my replies. My voice gets converted to typed text. I don't change every mistake it makes, as I know that desperate people would jump at those mistakes the way Olongapo kids jumped into muddy waters after coins tossed in, or like Iraqi kids rushing in after candy thrown on street sides.
Again, those on my side of the argument have congratulated me not just on this board but on other message boards when I hammer retards like you, and those on your side of the argument. Likewise, those in your side of the argument here and on other message boards dismiss the quality of my postings as "poorly written", as "too wordy", as "rants," or some other description that they could pull out of their asses.
What you retards are really saying is that you disagree with my statements, thus my statements are all the negative descriptions you assign to them.
I've lost count of how many people said the same thing about my statements that you gestated. Then, in a future debate, that same person complements my work against someone that we both disagreed with. And here's the icing on the cake. I've even had some of those, in the opposition, praise how well I have generated my replies.
Assup Gayridden: that Her, himself, doesn't know what he's tryIng to do with it
Wrong. None of my posts, on this thread or any others, are "random" or "shooting from the hip." There is a clear-cut purpose behind everything that I use in my post. There is a purpose behind every post, paragraph, sentence, word, emoticon, etc., that I use in my replies.
Every single thing that I put in my posts have a purpose. I know exactly what I'm doing with these posts. As usual, I'm getting the reactions from the opposition that I predict I will get. Bottom line, I take sadistic pleasure in destroying your arguments, as well as that of those that I'm arguing against on this thread. I know exactly what I'm doing and saying.
Assup Gayridden: C) half of this board put him on ignore the last time he spammed our forum.
You mean, the bullies that tried the force me out of this this message board? They did not expect me to keep replying to them, didn't they? It's like what I told WTF, a reply from me is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes. Even if I do not get back with the opposition that same day, night, the next day, the next week, the next month, the next year, the next decade, etc., I WILL get back with a reply.
I've analyzed and categorized you people for over a decade. By "you people," I'm talking about the people stupid enough to argue with me. I have a very good idea of what you people's psychological profile is. I "abuse" that knowledge to get you guys in the jugular, to get you guys to react a certain way that makes me laugh, and to get you guys to act in a way that facilitates my destroying your credibility.
You people wanted me to roll over and be a rug, instead of doing what I actually did. I kept hammering you guys until you guys wizened up and realized that I kept hammering you guys every time you guys replied. I'm no stranger to having trolls put me on ignore.
Assup Gayridden: D) none of these posters give a frogs fat ass whether this dick cheese whether HFC posts, doesn't post, lives or dies.
If nobody, on your side of the argument, gave a frog's fat ass whether I posted or not, they would NOT reply to me. The mere fact that they reply to me is PROOF that they do CARE if I post are not.
Assup Gayridden: Just a name in an ignore list, he is.
Judging by those that I'm destroying here, who are replying to me, it's apparent that I'm not on many of these idiot's ignore list.
I highly doubt that you, or anybody else in the opposition, are "cracking up" over anything that those on my side of the argument are saying. What you dismiss as "projectile bluster" and "death defying bullshit", quotation marks used strongly, are fact based, logical, reasoned arguments proving your arguments, as well as those made on your side of the argument, wrong.
First, I don't just jump in the thread "on a whim." I followed the arguments on this thread for days before I jumped on. I made sure that the opposition was indeed clueless about what they were arguing about. This was evident when I first jumped on here to work. This fact became consistent during the other days when I came on here and lurked on this thread.
That was one requirement needed for me to jump on a thread to debate against the opposition.
Second, the topic of this thread fell in an area where I have a strength against the opposition's weaknesses. In order for me to jump on a thread to debate, certain conditions have to be met. One, I have to have extensive knowledge compared to the opposition, gained via both extensive research and first-hand experience. Second, the opposition has to clearly be wrong and not know what they are talking about.
Both conditions were met. It was then when I started to generate my replies. I had not posted yet. I generate my replies on Microsoft Word. I go through a review process with the view of anticipating what the opposition would try to say in response. I make adjustments. It's amazing how you people have played from the same playbook for well over a decade of my doing this.
I'm fully aware that I'm presenting a fact base, logical, reasoned argument. I've been told this as well, across multiple message boards, in over a decade of doing this. You, being in the opposition, would naturally pull crap out of your arse that my arguments are "otherwise." This is consistent. The opposition says one thing, and those in my side of the argument say the opposite. The latter tend to hit the nail on the head.
This is a just a case of people coming up with an opinion based on what side of the argument they are on. I've had people go from being in the opposition to being allies, and vice versa. It's amazing how their opinions of my replies changes depending on which side they end up on versus the one they were on earlier.
So, I know for fact that you are pulling shit out of your ass for emotional reasons.
Assup Gayridden: A) Many of his facts are erroneous in origin, irrelevant to the argument.
Wrong on both counts. My facts are dead accurate, and are based on credible sources. They have everything to do with the argument on hand. Unless you've been living under a rock, you would notice that I reply to the opposition "point by point." Everything I say in response is related to the point that I'm disagreeing with.
However, your side of the argument tends to argue without the facts. When they do come up with "facts," they are either irrelevant or are based on a response to a strawman. Your side of the argument is advancing an argument that is irrelevant to the debate.
Assup Gayridden: B). Almost all of his ejaculations are so poorly written that the only take away is that his reckless ranting and raving is so overwhelming verbose
First, you need to quit butchering the English language when you post before criticizing other people's writing. Also, I use Dragon NaturallySpeaking, Version 13, to dictate my replies. My voice gets converted to typed text. I don't change every mistake it makes, as I know that desperate people would jump at those mistakes the way Olongapo kids jumped into muddy waters after coins tossed in, or like Iraqi kids rushing in after candy thrown on street sides.
Again, those on my side of the argument have congratulated me not just on this board but on other message boards when I hammer retards like you, and those on your side of the argument. Likewise, those in your side of the argument here and on other message boards dismiss the quality of my postings as "poorly written", as "too wordy", as "rants," or some other description that they could pull out of their asses.
What you retards are really saying is that you disagree with my statements, thus my statements are all the negative descriptions you assign to them.
I've lost count of how many people said the same thing about my statements that you gestated. Then, in a future debate, that same person complements my work against someone that we both disagreed with. And here's the icing on the cake. I've even had some of those, in the opposition, praise how well I have generated my replies.
Assup Gayridden: that Her, himself, doesn't know what he's tryIng to do with it
Wrong. None of my posts, on this thread or any others, are "random" or "shooting from the hip." There is a clear-cut purpose behind everything that I use in my post. There is a purpose behind every post, paragraph, sentence, word, emoticon, etc., that I use in my replies.
Every single thing that I put in my posts have a purpose. I know exactly what I'm doing with these posts. As usual, I'm getting the reactions from the opposition that I predict I will get. Bottom line, I take sadistic pleasure in destroying your arguments, as well as that of those that I'm arguing against on this thread. I know exactly what I'm doing and saying.
Assup Gayridden: C) half of this board put him on ignore the last time he spammed our forum.
You mean, the bullies that tried the force me out of this this message board? They did not expect me to keep replying to them, didn't they? It's like what I told WTF, a reply from me is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes. Even if I do not get back with the opposition that same day, night, the next day, the next week, the next month, the next year, the next decade, etc., I WILL get back with a reply.
I've analyzed and categorized you people for over a decade. By "you people," I'm talking about the people stupid enough to argue with me. I have a very good idea of what you people's psychological profile is. I "abuse" that knowledge to get you guys in the jugular, to get you guys to react a certain way that makes me laugh, and to get you guys to act in a way that facilitates my destroying your credibility.
You people wanted me to roll over and be a rug, instead of doing what I actually did. I kept hammering you guys until you guys wizened up and realized that I kept hammering you guys every time you guys replied. I'm no stranger to having trolls put me on ignore.
Assup Gayridden: D) none of these posters give a frogs fat ass whether this dick cheese whether HFC posts, doesn't post, lives or dies.
If nobody, on your side of the argument, gave a frog's fat ass whether I posted or not, they would NOT reply to me. The mere fact that they reply to me is PROOF that they do CARE if I post are not.
Assup Gayridden: Just a name in an ignore list, he is.
Judging by those that I'm destroying here, who are replying to me, it's apparent that I'm not on many of these idiot's ignore list.
- i'va biggen
- 09-15-2015, 06:11 PM
- herfacechair
- 09-15-2015, 06:12 PM
Says the guy that consistently farts on this thread and in others. You, dismissing a fact based, logical, reasoned argument that destroys your position as "nothing but hot air" are just throwing your stress shields up. I doubt that you have me on ignore, as with anything else that you've lied about on this thread, that's BS. However, your last sentence reminds me of the time I said something similar, back when I was a kid, after my parents belted me. Of course, I said that when I was elsewhere. But, that last sentence is testament to your sub conscience telling you that you got your arse whopped bad.
Nothing but hot air. He's already on ignore. Fuck him and his bullshit. Originally Posted by WombRaider
- herfacechair
- 09-15-2015, 06:17 PM
Wrong. The only person here, that's spouting the party line, is you. Except, you are not spouting a Republican or Democrat party line, you're spouting the conspiracy whack job party line. You people like to fart flap your lips about "corporate control" or "New World order" or "the illuminati," or some other entity that allegedly takes our rights away and is controlling things from the background.
[CONSPIRACY WHACK JOB NONSENSE]
Keep spouting the party line. You've been too indoctrinated to see the truth. Lots of Iraq vets agree with me. We had no business being there. We had no business in Vietnam. We really have business anywhere else in the world but right here. But keep typing. Blue is pretty. It brightens the page.
But you're still full of corporatist bullshit.
[TINFOIL HAT MANGINA MONOLOGUE] Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
You people mistake these misperceptions, and your emotional rants frenzies, as the "truth." You people don't realize that what you think is the "truth" is pure nonsense. You people are gullible. Dale Gribble, of King of the Hill, is a perfect representation of you guys. How the audience sees him is how the population sees you people.
Lots of Iraq Veterans agree with you? BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAA! Good one! You're funnier than that guy that came here threatening people with a lawsuit for libel.
I combat deployed to Iraq with an entire brigade. Every single last soldier that I came across, and that brigade, agreed with me about the Iraq war, as well as the concepts that argued on this thread. Many of them came up with those conclusions as well. There were a handful of soldiers that questioned why we were there; however, after a series of questioning, it turned out that they were really saying that if they were not on the deployment, they would've been home doing one thing or another. Even those soldiers came around to seeing the very concepts that I argued on this thread.
The vast majority of the Iraq war veteran that I've came across, outside of those that have deployed with, have also argued the same concepts that I've argued on this thread. I post in the comments section of a military blog. None of the Iraq war veterans there agree with you, or those alleged Iraq vets that agree with you. The common trend, that you would hear, is very similar to what I argued here. The White House fumbled it, and that we should've stayed there. That conclusion is consistent, even among those who were civilians before who had argued that we should not have gone into Iraq. These guys had subsequently argued that we should've stayed there once we went in until the job was truly done.
Again, the majority of the Iraq war veterans will argue the same concepts that I'm arguing on this thread. IF "many" Iraq Veteran "agree" with you, they are part of the minority that I talk about. I guarantee you that if I were to meet them face-to-face, and ask a series of questions, I'll get their actual positions.
Yes, we had to go into Iraq given the asymmetrical warfare threat that it, under Saddam posed to us. Being there was our business. Being in Vietnam was also our business. In both cases, it was up to Democrats to facilitate the victory that we made possible.
Our failure to invade Iraq would've made Afghanistan bloodier. Our entry into Iraq forced the majority of the terrorists to divert to Iraq. Why is that important? Afghanistan is known as the graveyard of empires, and rightfully so. Afghanistan's terrain is effective in neutralizing the advantage that our war machine has over there.
Iraq? Flat terrain, perfect for bringing the majority of our war machine to bear in a battle. It was in this terrain that the terrorists brought their main fight to. Thanks to that, we pulverized them in Iraq while the US led coalition stood up the Afghan army in Afghanistan. By the time it became evident that they were not going to achieve their objectives in Iraq, the terrorists started trickling back to Afghanistan. By the time the terrorist momentum in Afghanistan picked up, they were not just fighting a US-led coalition. They were also fighting a fledgling Afghan army.
Considering that your lack of a military experience, and knowledge, painfully shows in your replies, it's evident that you would not see that. It explains why you don't understand, or even see, the concepts that I'm arguing here.
Only a fool, with no understanding of world history, geostrategic and geopolitical realities, would argue that we could just focus on what's happening in the US. If only we would just "stay out" of the rest the world. That's idiotic. If we did that, it would make it easier for the terrorists to bring the fight to us on a larger scale. History is littered with examples of civilizations that "just focused on the Homeland, to hell with the rest the world." That attitude did not bode well for them.
Again, energies and resources that the enemy utilizes for defense are energies and resources they cannot use an offense. By withdrawing to the United States, and just focusing on the United States, we remove that pressure on the enemy. Thus, making it easier for them to go on the offensive and take the fight to us. You don't win a war by adopting a "defense only" stance. That's outright stupid, and that's what you're asking for if you insist that we should disengage with the world.
Every country in the world is going to pursue its interests. Guaranteed, if we were to pull out of the world, another country will step in and do precisely what we are doing. We're simply setting ourselves up, in your scenario, to have other powers meddle in our business. History has proven that over and over again.
The information that I am presenting here is based on my own conclusions, based on my own extensive research on what I'm arguing about, and on my own firsthand experiences. I don't need anybody to tell me what to think. I'm too stubborn for that. These conclusions that I've argued, are based on my own analysis based on the facts that I researched. Other people, in the military, have independently came to very similar conclusions that I've came too.
Again, corporations are not out and about presenting the arguments that I'm arguing here. That's not their job to come up with such arguments. These corporations are competing against each other for increased customer share. That's where the vast majority of their energies and resources are going.
The cold hard reality is that I'm not full of "corporate propaganda." You're full of conspiracy whack job nonsense.
Also, I'm not typing these responses. You, of all people, should know that I'm using speech to text. I even told you which speech to text program I was using a few years ago. I'm using Version 13 of the same program.
Now STFU and be retarded elsewhere.