XXXXXX

364 results
1
...
4
5
6
7
8

This topic is locked from further discussion.

28247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

Member since 2010 • 28247 Posts

Dear mods, please reinstate old rules. This thread is more evidence of why.chessmaster1989

Judging from past experiences, this thread would likely be the same under the old rules minus the flaming.

13 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#252 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]And then that's what you do. You bring conversations to such depths that people start to make themselves look bad for even continuing to engage you then when they decide 'screw this, i'm only making myself look dumb' you claim they ran in the face of your genius. Seriously, **** you dude. LJS9502_basic

Sorry dude....but no one can make you look bad but yourself. And if you don't understand the word WITH...I'd have been nice enough to explain it to you. You started the entire chain of events and you were WRONG WRONG WRONG. Have a nice night kid.

Edit: No way. You're not my type. Keep dreaming. :)

Dear god... I understand the word with. I'm going to repeat this for the last time. My post said that your whole point, your whole argument, was stupid. That it is stupid to separate the conflict WITH Iraq from the occupation that followed, claiming that the war was actually over years ago when saddam's government fell. Because that isn't true. It didn't end with the fall of Saddam, it went on for another ten years.

13 years ago

180194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#253 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180194 Posts

Also, it was definitely a "war".
coolbeans90

Yes...but that war did end and the mission changed. When people lump the entire thing into a single term...it makes the term meaningless. And since the objectives were different.....how does one answer? And for the last several years...we weren't fighting Iraq. That lasted less than a month I think.

13 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#254 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Also, it was definitely a "war".
LJS9502_basic

Yes...but that war did end and the mission changed. When people lump the entire thing into a single term...it makes the term meaningless. And since the objectives were different.....how does one answer? And for the last several years...we weren't fighting Iraq. That lasted less than a month I think.

Nobody at any point in this thread has said we WERE fighting Iraq for years. That is a ridiculous non-argument that you've invented. The war did not 'end' at any point other than when it formally ended a few days ago. The mission constantly changed throughout the TEN YEARS that our troops were engaged in that country.

13 years ago

180194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#255 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180194 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]And then that's what you do. You bring conversations to such depths that people start to make themselves look bad for even continuing to engage you then when they decide 'screw this, i'm only making myself look dumb' you claim they ran in the face of your genius. Seriously, **** you dude. Ninja-Hippo

Sorry dude....but no one can make you look bad but yourself. And if you don't understand the word WITH...I'd have been nice enough to explain it to you. You started the entire chain of events and you were WRONG WRONG WRONG. Have a nice night kid.

Edit: No way. You're not my type. Keep dreaming. :)

Dear god... I understand the word with. I'm going to repeat this for the last time. My post said that your whole point, your whole argument, was stupid. That it is stupid to separate the conflict WITH Iraq from the occupation that followed, claiming that the war was actually over years ago when saddam's government fell. Because that isn't true. It didn't end with the fall of Saddam, it went on for another ten years.

No dude. YOUR argument was stupid. You obviously DID NOT understand the word with. Because if you do...and you engaged in that argument then you are more stupid than I thought.

13 years ago

180194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#256 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180194 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Also, it was definitely a "war".
Ninja-Hippo

Yes...but that war did end and the mission changed. When people lump the entire thing into a single term...it makes the term meaningless. And since the objectives were different.....how does one answer? And for the last several years...we weren't fighting Iraq. That lasted less than a month I think.

Nobody at any point in this thread has said we WERE fighting Iraq for years. That is a ridiculous non-argument that you've invented.

I didn't invent it. My post said with...you argued with me that I was wrong. So either you can't understand the post....or you just argue for the sake of arguing. Either way...you're boring.

13 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#257 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No dude. YOUR argument was stupid. You obviously DID NOT understand the word with. Because if you do...and you engaged in that argument then you are more stupid than I thought.

That post didn't even make any coherent sense. Literally. That's just words. :| Grow a pair of balls then. Explain to me what you dont understand about that last post. Please explain right now, in detai, wihtout any bullsh*t, what is incorrect about my challenging your position that the war ended long ago when Iraq's government fell, when i instead feel that it NEVER ended until recently, but merely changed over time from invasion to insurgency to security.

13 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#258 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yes...but that war did end and the mission changed. When people lump the entire thing into a single term...it makes the term meaningless. And since the objectives were different.....how does one answer? And for the last several years...we weren't fighting Iraq. That lasted less than a month I think.

Nobody at any point in this thread has said we WERE fighting Iraq for years. That is a ridiculous non-argument that you've invented.

I didn't invent it. My post said with...you argued with me that I was wrong. So either you can't understand the post....or you just argue for the sake of arguing. Either way...you're boring.

Your post said WITH. I said it was dumb to separate the war into WITH and IN; the whole thing never ended from the day we entered to the day we left. What dont you understand? Explain and we can clarify for you. Go for it.

13 years ago

180194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#259 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180194 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No dude. YOUR argument was stupid. You obviously DID NOT understand the word with. Because if you do...and you engaged in that argument then you are more stupid than I thought.

That post didn't even make any coherent sense. Literally. That's just words. :| Grow a pair of balls then. Explain to me what you dont understand about that last post. Please explain right now, in detai, wihtout any bullsh*t, what is incorrect about my challenging your position that the war ended long ago when Iraq's government fell, when i instead feel that it NEVER ended until recently, but merely changed over time from invasion to insurgency to security.

The war WITH Iraq ended soon after it started. Now prove that wrong....

13 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#260 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No dude. YOUR argument was stupid. You obviously DID NOT understand the word with. Because if you do...and you engaged in that argument then you are more stupid than I thought.

That post didn't even make any coherent sense. Literally. That's just words. :| Grow a pair of balls then. Explain to me what you dont understand about that last post. Please explain right now, in detai, wihtout any bullsh*t, what is incorrect about my challenging your position that the war ended long ago when Iraq's government fell, when i instead feel that it NEVER ended until recently, but merely changed over time from invasion to insurgency to security.

The war WITH Iraq ended soon after it started. Now prove that wrong....

I've never contended that comment to be false. For the four hundredth time, my post has - and only has - attacked the ridiculous notion that the war can be claimed to have ended quickly when you bookend it at the fall of saddam's government. In actual fact, it went on and escalated and continued for another nine years. Stop being an idiot.

13 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#261 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

You're clearly going to just continue down this path of insisting that i prove a comment wrong which i never claimed to be false, only stupid. So i'm out

13 years ago

180194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#262 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180194 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]
It tends t happen in most threads, its difficult to keep things in focus when talking to a number of posters at once. On one forum I used to frequent if 2 people wanted to 'have at it' then a thread would be posted that only the two involved would be allowed post in, it added clarity, Im not sure it could be adopted here however.
For the record, this is one of the topics that I tend to agree with you on the most part, the last few years in Iraq were not a war, similiar to the trouble in northern Ireland for the last 30 years were also not a war.
tenaka2

Right. I understand that it was fighting...but the mission was now different and I'd like to make that known. What part of Northern Ireland?

By northern ireland I am referring to the entire situation, not a specific location, the NI situation involved a number of rebels and did not reflect the society as a whole.

I agree the mission was different, every faction with any grudge against the U.S. flocked to iraq as the U.S. army were easy targets in that location, but as you said the initial goal of removing the sadam government was over pretty fast.

Yeah but I was just curious. On my dad's side part of my family was originally from N. Ireland years ago...but we're Catholic which is a minority is it not?

13 years ago

180194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#263 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180194 Posts

You're clearly going to just continue down this path of insisting that i prove a comment wrong which i never claimed to be false, only stupid. So i'm outNinja-Hippo

The post was not stupid. It's a truth. It's a fact. You just don't like it because you can't prove me wrong and your e-peen is hurt.

13 years ago

9581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#264 Frame_Dragger

Member since 2009 • 9581 Posts

Also, it was definitely a "war".
coolbeans90

This. @Ninja-Hippo: I think I love you.

13 years ago

17958

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2004 • 17958 Posts

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Right. I understand that it was fighting...but the mission was now different and I'd like to make that known. What part of Northern Ireland?LJS9502_basic

By northern ireland I am referring to the entire situation, not a specific location, the NI situation involved a number of rebels and did not reflect the society as a whole.

I agree the mission was different, every faction with any grudge against the U.S. flocked to iraq as the U.S. army were easy targets in that location, but as you said the initial goal of removing the sadam government was over pretty fast.

Yeah but I was just curious. On my dad's side part of my family was originally from N. Ireland years ago...but we're Catholic which is a minority is it not?

No as far as I am aware, the religious split was pretty even, the UK did try to reduce the number of catholics by a variety of means the worst of which was to pay catholics less then prodestants.

13 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#266 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]You're clearly going to just continue down this path of insisting that i prove a comment wrong which i never claimed to be false, only stupid. So i'm outLJS9502_basic

The post was not stupid. It's a truth. It's a fact. You just don't like it because you can't prove me wrong and your e-peen is hurt.

It cannot be proven wrong, because it's true. I never claimed it was false. What i claimed was, that it's stupid. At no point did i set out to 'prove you wrong'. We are not dealing in facts. What we're dealing with is the STUPID opinion that the war in iraq ended yeeeears ago and that everything since was just helping out the new government. That has been my stance throughout this entire thread. So each and every time you demand 'prove me wrong' that the war WITH iraq wasn't over quickly, you only highlight your own inability to read something which has been repeated so many times i'm genuinely starting to consider whether severe learning difficulties might be at play. The war in iraq lasted 10 years. It didn't end the day saddam's government fell, that made up merely a small part of what would go on to become a long-term quagmire. To say the war ended at any point other than YEARS down the line is just stupid. The war WITH iraq and the occupation IN iraq are all inclusive, and to act like one was a war which promptly ended and the other was merely a long-term government-helping exercise is ridiculous. Deal with it.

13 years ago

180194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#267 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180194 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]You're clearly going to just continue down this path of insisting that i prove a comment wrong which i never claimed to be false, only stupid. So i'm outNinja-Hippo

The post was not stupid. It's a truth. It's a fact. You just don't like it because you can't prove me wrong and your e-peen is hurt.

It cannot be proven wrong, because it's true. I never claimed it was false. What i claimed was, that it's stupid. At no point did i set out to 'prove you wrong'. We are not dealing in facts. What we're dealing with is the STUPID opinion that the war in iraq ended yeeeears ago and that everything since was just helping out the new government. That has been my stance throughout this entire thread. So each and every time you demand 'prove me wrong' that the war WITH iraq wasn't over quickly, you only highlight your own inability to read something which has been repeated so many times i'm genuinely starting to consider whether severe learning difficulties might be at play. The war in iraq lasted 10 years. It didn't end the day saddam's government fell, that made up merely a small part of what would go on to become a long-term quagmire. To say the war ended at any point other than YEARS down the line is just stupid. The war WITH iraq and the occupation IN iraq are all inclusive, and to act like one was a war which promptly ended and the other was merely a long-term government-helping exercise is ridiculous. Deal with it.

Ah no. There were two different actions. The first was the Iraq War which was the attack into Iraq to remove the current government. That lasted about a month or so. Then the US stayed to rebuild and stabilize the country while the new government held elections. Of course the insurgents now entered into Iraq and attacked US soldiers, British soldiers and Iraqi citizens. But they are NOT the same event. Mission 1 caused Mission 2 but to call them the same is wrong, it's inaccurate, and it doesn't give a valid picture. But hey....you can keep thinking they are the exact same thing. I don''t care. Wallow in ignorance. But shut the f*ck up now.....paint drying is more interesting than watching you try to save face in a thread.

13 years ago

180194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#268 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180194 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="tenaka2"]
By northern ireland I am referring to the entire situation, not a specific location, the NI situation involved a number of rebels and did not reflect the society as a whole.
I agree the mission was different, every faction with any grudge against the U.S. flocked to iraq as the U.S. army were easy targets in that location, but as you said the initial goal of removing the sadam government was over pretty fast.
tenaka2

Yeah but I was just curious. On my dad's side part of my family was originally from N. Ireland years ago...but we're Catholic which is a minority is it not?

No as far as I am aware, the religious split was pretty even, the UK did try to reduce the number of catholics by a variety of means the worst of which was to pay catholics less then prodestants.

Are you in N. Ireland yourself or Ireland the Republic?

13 years ago

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

Member since 2003 • 12901 Posts

How about this, guise. The war against Iraq ended in 2003, and the war IN Iraq ended a couple days ago.

13 years ago

180194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#270 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180194 Posts

How about this, guise. The war against Iraq ended in 2003, and the war IN Iraq ended a couple days ago. fidosim

That would be 100% correct....problem is my initial post did say WITH.

13 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#271 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="fidosim"]How about this, guise. The war against Iraq ended in 2003, and the war IN Iraq ended a couple days ago. LJS9502_basic

That would be 100% correct....

And now to highlight just how amazing you are, let's look at the original post: 'Correction, the invasion ended a long time ago, the war is ongoing, or was ongoing uintil the US left. The Invasion was successful in it's objectives, but has the occupation been a success? only time will tell' THAT SAYS THE EXACT SAME THING.

13 years ago

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

How about this, guise. The war against Iraq ended in 2003, and the war IN Iraq ended a couple days ago. fidosim

How could the US have been to war if war was never officially declared!?

13 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#274 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="fidosim"]How about this, guise. The war against Iraq ended in 2003, and the war IN Iraq ended a couple days ago. Ace6301

How could the US have been to war if war was never officially declared!?

And as LJ has explained, you cannot have a war unless congress declares war. He even said that Vietnam and Korea were not wars. But now he says the above comment is correct... but... but... ....congress never declared war on Iraq. :o

13 years ago

12901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

Member since 2003 • 12901 Posts

[QUOTE="fidosim"]How about this, guise. The war against Iraq ended in 2003, and the war IN Iraq ended a couple days ago. Ace6301

How could the US have been to war if war was never officially declared!?

Aliens.

13 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#276 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

Correction, the invasion ended a long time ago, the war is ongoing, or was ongoing until the US left. The Invasion was successful in it's objectives, but has the occupation been a success? Only time will tell
gamedude2020

LJ says - 'You are wrong.'

How about this, guise. The war against Iraq ended in 2003, and the war IN Iraq ended a couple days ago. fidosim

LJ says - 'that is 100% correct.' ....just me? anyone?

13 years ago

13320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#277 commonfate

Member since 2010 • 13320 Posts

LJS is either a master troll or just too proud/dumb to recognize when he is wrong.

13 years ago

9581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#278 Frame_Dragger

Member since 2009 • 9581 Posts

This thread should be stickied... :)

13 years ago

15902

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#279 needled24-7

Member since 2007 • 15902 Posts

i wish we (US) would just stay out of other countries' business. let's fix our own sh!t before we try to fix other people's sh!t. our politicians don't give a sh!t about the American people, as long as they can fill their pockets with cash, i don't think they care what happens.

13 years ago

9581

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#280 Frame_Dragger

Member since 2009 • 9581 Posts

i wish we (US) would just stay out of other countries' business. let's fix our own sh!t before we try to fix other people's sh!t. our politicians don't give a sh!t about the American people, as long as they can fill their pockets with cash, i don't think they care what happens.
needled24-7

Okay.

13 years ago

28247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

Member since 2010 • 28247 Posts

[QUOTE="gamedude2020"]
Correction, the invasion ended a long time ago, the war is ongoing, or was ongoing until the US left. The Invasion was successful in it's objectives, but has the occupation been a success? Only time will tell
Ninja-Hippo

LJ says - 'You are wrong.'

How about this, guise. The war against Iraq ended in 2003, and the war IN Iraq ended a couple days ago. fidosim

LJ says - 'that is 100% correct.' ....just me? anyone?

That's what happens when one is arguing for the sake for arguing and not because they have a coherent stance.

13 years ago

chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#282 chessmaster1989

Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Dear mods, please reinstate old rules. This thread is more evidence of why.GreySeal9

Judging from past experiences, this thread would likely be the same under the old rules minus the flaming.

Of course, you can't stop the pointless semantics arguments from LJ. I just ignore them, not worth the time.

13 years ago

709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#283 Nayef_shroof

Member since 2011 • 709 Posts

Ya, I'm certain that 1.5-2 million dead innocent civillians, millions of displaced refugees, destroyed infrastructure, and extreme poverty caused by the war would indicate the U.S's success in securing their capitalistic goals/ulterior motives in establishing their western corporations (Hint: Iraq has the second largest oil reserve on the planet) :/

13 years ago

9036

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Member since 2004 • 9036 Posts

I ignore this thread for hours and it has already devolved into an argument about arguing.

13 years ago

33160

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#285 super600 Moderator

Member since 2007 • 33160 Posts

How can a country lose when they got rid of a dictator?

13 years ago

180194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#286 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180194 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="fidosim"]How about this, guise. The war against Iraq ended in 2003, and the war IN Iraq ended a couple days ago. Ninja-Hippo

That would be 100% correct....

And now to highlight just how amazing you are, let's look at the original post: 'Correction, the invasion ended a long time ago, the war is ongoing, or was ongoing uintil the US left. The Invasion was successful in it's objectives, but has the occupation been a success? only time will tell' THAT SAYS THE EXACT SAME THING.

The war in Iraq ended in 2003....absolutely 100% correct.

13 years ago

180194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#287 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180194 Posts

And as LJ has explained, you cannot have a war unless congress declares war. He even said that Vietnam and Korea were not wars. But now he says the above comment is correct... but... but...

....congress never declared war on Iraq. :oNinja-Hippo

And as Ninja doesn't understand....Congress did declare war in Iraq. You seem very very lost dude....

13 years ago

Victorious_Fize

6128

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#288 Victorious_Fize

Member since 2011 • 6128 Posts

US ME policy have always utterly failed.

13 years ago

8902

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#289 chilly-chill

Member since 2010 • 8902 Posts

..

13 years ago

180194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#290 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180194 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] GreySeal9

That's what happens when one is arguing for the sake for arguing and not because they have a coherent stance.

Ninja was the one to argue to argue. My stance was quite simple. The war with Iraq ended some time ago. He's the one that took exception to that and started an argument. Really should not let your personal dislikes color judgment.

And it seems after I leave he mentioned me what....four or five times. Yeah he doesn't have issues.

13 years ago

XiaolinPrincess

7907

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#291 XiaolinPrincess

Member since 2006 • 7907 Posts

We didn't lose; we won. Get your facts straight before saying stuff on OT.

13 years ago

VanHelsingBoA64

5455

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#292 VanHelsingBoA64

Member since 2007 • 5455 Posts

Oh god why did I read this entire thread

13 years ago

28247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

Member since 2010 • 28247 Posts

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] LJS9502_basic

That's what happens when one is arguing for the sake for arguing and not because they have a coherent stance.

Ninja was the one to argue to argue. My stance was quite simple. The war with Iraq ended some time ago. He's the one that took exception to that and started an argument. Really should not let your personal dislikes color judgment.

And it seems after I leave he mentioned me what....four or five times. Yeah he doesn't have issues.

You can interpret my comments any way that makes you happy, but really, your responses massively contradicted each other as fidoism and that guy weren't really saying anything different unless you want to engage in nitpicky semantics . However, I'm not going to argue about it for pages and pages. I'll just say that you can go ahead and think about what happened in this thread and my comments in whatever way helps you sleep better.

13 years ago

180194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#294 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180194 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] GreySeal9

That's what happens when one is arguing for the sake for arguing and not because they have a coherent stance.

Ninja was the one to argue to argue. My stance was quite simple. The war with Iraq ended some time ago. He's the one that took exception to that and started an argument. Really should not let your personal dislikes color judgment.

And it seems after I leave he mentioned me what....four or five times. Yeah he doesn't have issues.

You can interpret my comments any way that makes you happy, but really, your responses massively contradicted each other as fidoism and that guy weren't really saying anything different unless you want to engage in nitpicky semantics . However, I'm not going to argue about it for pages and pages. I'll just say that you can go ahead and think about what happened in this thread and my comments in whatever way helps you sleep better.

You don't affect my sleep either way. But you shouldn't make assumptions if you didn't follow the conversation. For the record...I did not engage ninja. He quoted my post. And he didn't understand it either.

13 years ago

28247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

Member since 2010 • 28247 Posts

You don't affect my sleep either way. But you shouldn't make assumptions if you didn't follow the conversation. For the record...I did not engage ninja. He quoted my post. And he didn't understand it either.LJS9502_basic

I did follow the conversation and it was pretty entertaining but what Ninja Hippo pointed out was indeed a massive contradiction regardless of how engaged who first. Like I said tho, there's no point in arguing about it. You don't have to agree, but it comes off as a pretty big contradiction.

13 years ago

taterfrickintot

2851

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#296 taterfrickintot

Member since 2008 • 2851 Posts

When was the last time the US won a war anyways? WWII?
Mozelleple112

OP desert storm was the most successful military campaign in the history of the US. lrn2history.

13 years ago

180194

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#297 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180194 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You don't affect my sleep either way. But you shouldn't make assumptions if you didn't follow the conversation. For the record...I did not engage ninja. He quoted my post. And he didn't understand it either.GreySeal9

I did follow the conversation and it was pretty entertaining but what Ninja Hippo pointed out was indeed a massive contradiction regardless of how engaged who first. Like I said tho, there's no point in arguing about it. You don't have to agree, but it comes off as a pretty big contradiction.

What contradiction? I mentioned to someone that the war WITH Iraq ended earlier and he went on a rant about combat soldiers. Which was not even the discussion. And frankly the war had ended. Yes I know everyone uses the term war for combat but a legal war....which I told him more than once I was talking about required Congress to declare. Merely having guns and bombs involved...which he stated in one of his posts....does not mean we are involved in "war". Armed conflict...yes. But not a legal war. He then in the last few pages said Iraq wasn't declared a war by Congress...which is, of course, wrong. Congress did declare war. Whether one agrees with the action or not....it was a legal war as required by US policy. Second after the initial invasion and subsequent war with the Iraqi military under Hussein the government fell. For all intents and purposes that ended the declared war. Now the insurgents are a different issue. Had they not occurred we'd have stayed and helped rebuild and wait for the new government to be elected as we did and then we'd have left. However, the subsequent insurgency problems were of a more disruptive tactic than full scale war. Yes. The military had to engage the insurgents....but even in the absence of a war declaration they would still defend themselves when hit. So that in and of itself does not mean a country is at war. And considering my post did clearly said WITH Iraq.....I have no idea why he went off on a tangent about subsequent actions. The US was not fighting Iraq but insurgents...and working with the Iraqi government.

13 years ago

14049

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 14049 Posts

Everyone lost.

13 years ago

28247

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 41

User Lists: 0

Member since 2010 • 28247 Posts

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You don't affect my sleep either way. But you shouldn't make assumptions if you didn't follow the conversation. For the record...I did not engage ninja. He quoted my post. And he didn't understand it either.LJS9502_basic

I did follow the conversation and it was pretty entertaining but what Ninja Hippo pointed out was indeed a massive contradiction regardless of how engaged who first. Like I said tho, there's no point in arguing about it. You don't have to agree, but it comes off as a pretty big contradiction.

What contradiction? I mentioned to someone that the war WITH Iraq ended earlier and he went on a rant about combat soldiers. Which was not even the discussion. And frankly the war had ended. Yes I know everyone uses the term war for combat but a legal war....which I told him more than once I was talking about required Congress to declare. Merely having guns and bombs involved...which he stated in one of his posts....does not mean we are involved in "war". Armed conflict...yes. But not a legal war. He then in the last few pages said Iraq wasn't declared a war by Congress...which is, of course, wrong. Congress did declare war. Whether one agrees with the action or not....it was a legal war as required by US policy. Second after the initial invasion and subsequent war with the Iraqi military under Hussein the government fell. For all intents and purposes that ended the declared war. Now the insurgents are a different issue. Had they not occurred we'd have stayed and helped rebuild and wait for the new government to be elected as we did and then we'd have left. However, the subsequent insurgency problems were of a more disruptive tactic than full scale war. Yes. The military had to engage the insurgents....but even in the absence of a war declaration they would still defend themselves when hit. So that in and of itself does not mean a country is at war. And considering my post did clearly said WITH Iraq.....I have no idea why he went off on a tangent about subsequent actions. The US was not fighting Iraq but insurgents...and working with the Iraqi government.

The contradiction was that fidoism and the other guy in Ninja Hippo's post weren't really saying anything substantially different unless one delves into pointless semantic nitpicking yet that other guy was, in your estimation, "wrong" and fidoism was 100% correct even tho there wasn't enough difference between their two stances to warrant one person being completely wrong and other being completely right. It really came off as if you disagreed with that guy when you didn't really disagree with him at all. Well, not if you agree with fidoism. But like I said, I really don't want to get into a semantics argument over this. I'm just answering your question.

13 years ago

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

Everyone lost.Sajo7

In this thread or in Iraq?

13 years ago

364 results
1
...
4
5
6
7
8

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment