Have you ever debated an actual issue or do you just engage in deflection
It reminds me if the episode from Friends where Joey defected all conversations to the title of 'V' because that was the encyclopedia he bought.
It's never too late to expand your limited knowledge base.
Talk about deflection....
Canovsp, ever notice how liberals love to use fictitious T,V. situations and fictional characters to put down someone they are debating...... as a form of deflection from the topic ..and to try and get you to defend the phony narrative..
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Have you ever debated an actual issue or do you just engage in deflection
It reminds me if the episode from Friends where Joey defected all conversations to the title of 'V' because that was the encyclopedia he bought.
It's never too late to expand your limited knowledge base.
Talk about deflection....
Canovsp, ever notice how liberals love to use fictitious T,V. situations and fictional characters to put down someone they are debating...... as a form of deflection from the topic ..and to try and get you to defend the phony narrative..
I dont think you know what kind of dictator Saddam was.
Under his control more people had more freedoms than you think. Women were not oppressed, now they are, religions were able to co-exist and now they cannot.
Please read that again....now please read it aloud...now please never make that argument agian in that context. To me it does not make sense to say that he is an okay dictator and people not so bad off. You CANNOT assume the next dictator will be worse. If you don't like the next one it can be argued get rid of him as well. Just because someone was better off under a previous dictator does NOT mean it was for the best. In other words, if SH were still alive, would you recommend putting him back in power just to stabilize things? Of course not! But just letting people have one election and halfway train some of their security people and say 'okay your are good to go---bye'. Imagine if U.S. had thought that way in Revolution times, or many other countries.
I understand the not going in there point. I am simply saying you cannot justify it in hindsight and try to blame Bush because we maybe didn't do things right afterwards.
U.S. people have grown weak and do not have the fortitude they used to.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Raiders,
I dont think you know what kind of dictator Saddam was.
Under his control more people had more freedoms than you think. Women were not oppressed, now they are, religions were able to co-exist and now they cannot.
Please read that again....now please read it aloud...now please never make that argument agian in that context. To me it does not make sense to say that he is an okay dictator and people not so bad off. You CANNOT assume the next dictator will be worse. If you don't like the next one it can be argued get rid of him as well. Just because someone was better off under a previous dictator does NOT mean it was for the best. In other words, if SH were still alive, would you recommend putting him back in power just to stabilize things? Of course not! But just letting people have one election and halfway train some of their security people and say 'okay your are good to go---bye'. Imagine if U.S. had thought that way in Revolution times, or many other countries.
I understand the not going in there point. I am simply saying you cannot justify it in hindsight and try to blame Bush because we maybe didn't do things right afterwards.
U.S. people have grown weak and do not have the fortitude they used to.
If I had to choose between a middle of the road dictator like Saddam or religious fighting, I take Saddam.
Now that guy in N.Korea..he is bad news as a dictator.
The point is that they are not the only two choices you should have. And there are plenty of people you can ask about how bad SH was. Oh wait maybe you can't...they are no longer with us.
Sure he was okay for us because he kept us from having to worry about dealing with them. But he was by no means okay dictator for them. By definition there is no such thing.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
If I had to choose between a middle of the road dictator like Saddam or religious fighting, I take Saddam.
Now that guy in N.Korea..he is bad news as a dictator.
The point is that they are not the only two choices you should have. And there are plenty of people you can ask about how bad SH was. Oh wait maybe you can't...they are no longer with us.
Sure he was okay for us because he kept us from having to worry about dealing with them. But he was by no means okay dictator for them. By definition there is no such thing.
I dont think you know what kind of dictator Saddam was.
Under his control more people had more freedoms than you think. Women were not oppressed, now they are, religions were able to co-exist and now they cannot.
How I see Saddam is he was a person that always thought someone was out to get him, so if he thought you were trying to undermine him, you were in serious trouble..but the majority of people did not have that fear.
There are some dictators out there like that one in Korea that seem to be cruel to more of the majority but I did not get that impression of SH.
Anyway---we may disagree on that forever---did you get a chance to look at that stock on E-Cig thing? I never saw if you replied or not?
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Raiders,
I dont think you know what kind of dictator Saddam was.
Under his control more people had more freedoms than you think. Women were not oppressed, now they are, religions were able to co-exist and now they cannot.
How I see Saddam is he was a person that always thought someone was out to get him, so if he thought you were trying to undermine him, you were in serious trouble..but the majority of people did not have that fear.
There are some dictators out there like that one in Korea that seem to be cruel to more of the majority but I did not get that impression of SH.
Anyway---we may disagree on that forever---did you get a chance to look at that stock on E-Cig thing? I never saw if you replied or not?
Wow, just wow! Sure, you can flip-flop all you want on here but it's just too much American lives at stake for a bunch of "maybe".
I agree with you. Certainly not disputing this. If the idea was go get WMD, etc. Do it; get out. If idea is no WMD but get SH. Do it; get out. But if you are obligated to help stabilize or transition; then do that. I am saying if it is worth the effort and the lives, then it should be done correctly. It does not at this point look like it was/has been done to the best of our ability.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:
Wow, just wow! Sure, you can flip-flop all you want on here but it's just too much American lives at stake for a bunch of "maybe".
I agree with you. Certainly not disputing this. If the idea was go get WMD, etc. Do it; get out. If idea is no WMD but get SH. Do it; get out. But if you are obligated to help stabilize or transition; then do that. I am saying if it is worth the effort and the lives, then it should be done correctly. It does not at this point look like it was/has been done to the best of our ability.
Canovsp, ever notice how liberals love to use fictitious T,V. situations and fictional characters to put down someone they are debating...... as a form of deflection from the topic ..and to try and get you to defend the phony narrative..
I will have to disagree with you there Slim because I personally like to compare libs to one of the Golden Girls on their rag.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Talk about deflection....
Canovsp, ever notice how liberals love to use fictitious T,V. situations and fictional characters to put down someone they are debating...... as a form of deflection from the topic ..and to try and get you to defend the phony narrative..
I will have to disagree with you there Slim because I personally like to compare libs to one of the Golden Girls on their rag.
I agree with you. Certainly not disputing this. If the idea was go get WMD, etc. Do it; get out. If idea is no WMD but get SH. Do it; get out. But if you are obligated to help stabilize or transition; then do that. I am saying if it is worth the effort and the lives, then it should be done correctly. It does not at this point look like it was/has been done to the best of our ability.
No, you don't. All you want to do is to throw enough mud around so hopefully, some might stick.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
I agree with you. Certainly not disputing this. If the idea was go get WMD, etc. Do it; get out. If idea is no WMD but get SH. Do it; get out. But if you are obligated to help stabilize or transition; then do that. I am saying if it is worth the effort and the lives, then it should be done correctly. It does not at this point look like it was/has been done to the best of our ability.
No, you don't. All you want to do is to throw enough mud around so hopefully, some might stick.
but it's just too much American lives at stake for a bunch of "maybe".
Some of what you say I agree with and some I don't. This part I agree with you on is all I am saying. Got to have a plan in place and be firm and steadfast or else you are correct it is not worth it. The rest of your ideas on this I disagree with is all.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:
but it's just too much American lives at stake for a bunch of "maybe".
Some of what you say I agree with and some I don't. This part I agree with you on is all I am saying. Got to have a plan in place and be firm and steadfast or else you are correct it is not worth it. The rest of your ideas on this I disagree with is all.
Canovsp, ever notice how liberals love to use fictitious T,V. situations and fictional characters to put down someone they are debating...... as a form of deflection from the topic ..and to try and get you to defend the phony narrative..
You would certainly know about phony narratives.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Talk about deflection....
Canovsp, ever notice how liberals love to use fictitious T,V. situations and fictional characters to put down someone they are debating...... as a form of deflection from the topic ..and to try and get you to defend the phony narrative..
Have I ever debated any issue: I've debated this issue about a hundred times on Covers and a thousand times elsewhere and I'm sick of it. You should know where I stand but I'll say it again: Bush went to congress for approval based off of the info from the intel community and congress was on board. Do I have to attach that video again?
The operation and exit strategy should be debated and criticized but not why we went in.
So its Congress' fault? And now its Obama's fault?
Do you realize how utterly ridiculous you sound when you absolutely refuse to allow in blame on any Republican (unless it is a Republican acting like a Democrat)?
The phrase, "you break it, you own it" is a real quote from Powell. It exactly defines the problem with the strategy and like many other policies, there is no right answer, just the least of the wrong ones.
One cannot examine Obama's failure here without examining the failure of the situation.
If your friend drives a car into the river and you have a choice of saving yourself or your friend, you have no right answer, just the least of the wrongs. Your actions cannot be judged without an examination of how it happened.
Obama is simply continuing a failed problem. I did (and still do) support the removal of SH of Bush. There was shortsightedness in what would happen after and that will be a problem while we are there and long after we leave. I don't care what party the President is...we can keep troops there and watch them die, or leave and watch Iraq crumble into outright civil war.
That, my friend, is called non-partisan policy analysis. You should take notes. Or buy the "P" in the encyclopedia.
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
Have I ever debated any issue: I've debated this issue about a hundred times on Covers and a thousand times elsewhere and I'm sick of it. You should know where I stand but I'll say it again: Bush went to congress for approval based off of the info from the intel community and congress was on board. Do I have to attach that video again?
The operation and exit strategy should be debated and criticized but not why we went in.
So its Congress' fault? And now its Obama's fault?
Do you realize how utterly ridiculous you sound when you absolutely refuse to allow in blame on any Republican (unless it is a Republican acting like a Democrat)?
The phrase, "you break it, you own it" is a real quote from Powell. It exactly defines the problem with the strategy and like many other policies, there is no right answer, just the least of the wrong ones.
One cannot examine Obama's failure here without examining the failure of the situation.
If your friend drives a car into the river and you have a choice of saving yourself or your friend, you have no right answer, just the least of the wrongs. Your actions cannot be judged without an examination of how it happened.
Obama is simply continuing a failed problem. I did (and still do) support the removal of SH of Bush. There was shortsightedness in what would happen after and that will be a problem while we are there and long after we leave. I don't care what party the President is...we can keep troops there and watch them die, or leave and watch Iraq crumble into outright civil war.
That, my friend, is called non-partisan policy analysis. You should take notes. Or buy the "P" in the encyclopedia.
I will have to disagree with you there Slim because I personally like to compare libs to one of the Golden Girls on their rag.
Canovsp, speaking of agreeing and disagreeing. Because of the curtain events unfolding in Iraq ,,,I find myself agreeing with what Vice-President Biden said a few years ago ,..
Vice President Joe Biden hailed Iraq as one of President Obama's "great achievements"..
I agree Joe,,probably one of his greatest ..
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
I will have to disagree with you there Slim because I personally like to compare libs to one of the Golden Girls on their rag.
Canovsp, speaking of agreeing and disagreeing. Because of the curtain events unfolding in Iraq ,,,I find myself agreeing with what Vice-President Biden said a few years ago ,..
Vice President Joe Biden hailed Iraq as one of President Obama's "great achievements"..
You're still suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome)
ODS and Trolling
I'd rather be suffering with ODS ....than be obsessed with OBS ( Obama slurping)
There is no denying Obama and Hillary Clinton were given an Iraq that was stable. ...in 2009 they were handed a pacified Iraq, with al Qaedas' militarily defeated..
..when President Bush was in charge Al Qaida was winning nowhere..nowhere..
Now ,,,al Qaeda and their splinter groups seem to be winning everywhere...and they are everwhereg.....all across Northern Africa( Algeria ,Libya, Mali ,N-igeria and N-iger ) and (Southeastern (Somaia,Kenya and Uganda) in Pockeestan,Afganistan ,Saudi Arabi,Yeman and Iraq just to name a few...
What's going now is the results of Obama's foreign policy and Hillary and Obama's failure to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq in 2011...
Also notice ilsp2003.. all the civil wars going on in the rest of the Arab states.....none of which we invaded.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ilsp2003:
one of your most deranged comments
You're still suffering from ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome)
ODS and Trolling
I'd rather be suffering with ODS ....than be obsessed with OBS ( Obama slurping)
There is no denying Obama and Hillary Clinton were given an Iraq that was stable. ...in 2009 they were handed a pacified Iraq, with al Qaedas' militarily defeated..
..when President Bush was in charge Al Qaida was winning nowhere..nowhere..
Now ,,,al Qaeda and their splinter groups seem to be winning everywhere...and they are everwhereg.....all across Northern Africa( Algeria ,Libya, Mali ,N-igeria and N-iger ) and (Southeastern (Somaia,Kenya and Uganda) in Pockeestan,Afganistan ,Saudi Arabi,Yeman and Iraq just to name a few...
What's going now is the results of Obama's foreign policy and Hillary and Obama's failure to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq in 2011...
Also notice ilsp2003.. all the civil wars going on in the rest of the Arab states.....none of which we invaded.
I'd rather be suffering with ODS ....than be obsessed with OBS ( Obama slurping)
There is no denying Obama and Hillary Clinton were given an Iraq that was stable. ...in 2009 they were handed a pacified Iraq, with al Qaedas' militarily defeated..
..when President Bush was in charge Al Qaida was winning nowhere..nowhere..
Now ,,,al Qaeda and their splinter groups seem to be winning everywhere...and they are everwhereg.....all across Northern Africa( Algeria ,Libya, Mali ,N-igeria and N-iger ) and (Southeastern (Somaia,Kenya and Uganda) in Pockeestan,Afganistan ,Saudi Arabi,Yeman and Iraq just to name a few...
What's going now is the results of Obama's foreign policy and Hillary and Obama's failure to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq in 2011...
Also notice ilsp2003.. all the civil wars going on in the rest of the Arab states.....none of which we invaded.
Iraq wasn't stable; it was occupied. What has happened in Iraq was predicted from just about every foreign policy expert at State and elsewhere. The country is too unstable and has too much turmoil and animosity among its political factions to have any form of consolidated power to fight insurgents.
I posted at length on this the other day (with the usual facts and figures and references) and of course, right wing extremists like yourself that don't rely upon the same couldn't address the contentions.
It is no coincidence that US deaths in Iraq since 2009 are less than in 2009 along. Our presence in Iraq will continue to lead to US deaths unless we essentially make it a state, which will lead to war in the area.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
I'd rather be suffering with ODS ....than be obsessed with OBS ( Obama slurping)
There is no denying Obama and Hillary Clinton were given an Iraq that was stable. ...in 2009 they were handed a pacified Iraq, with al Qaedas' militarily defeated..
..when President Bush was in charge Al Qaida was winning nowhere..nowhere..
Now ,,,al Qaeda and their splinter groups seem to be winning everywhere...and they are everwhereg.....all across Northern Africa( Algeria ,Libya, Mali ,N-igeria and N-iger ) and (Southeastern (Somaia,Kenya and Uganda) in Pockeestan,Afganistan ,Saudi Arabi,Yeman and Iraq just to name a few...
What's going now is the results of Obama's foreign policy and Hillary and Obama's failure to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq in 2011...
Also notice ilsp2003.. all the civil wars going on in the rest of the Arab states.....none of which we invaded.
Iraq wasn't stable; it was occupied. What has happened in Iraq was predicted from just about every foreign policy expert at State and elsewhere. The country is too unstable and has too much turmoil and animosity among its political factions to have any form of consolidated power to fight insurgents.
I posted at length on this the other day (with the usual facts and figures and references) and of course, right wing extremists like yourself that don't rely upon the same couldn't address the contentions.
It is no coincidence that US deaths in Iraq since 2009 are less than in 2009 along. Our presence in Iraq will continue to lead to US deaths unless we essentially make it a state, which will lead to war in the area.
I'd rather be suffering with ODS ....than be obsessed with OBS ( Obama slurping)
There is no denying Obama and Hillary Clinton were given an Iraq that was stable. ...in 2009 they were handed a pacified Iraq, with al Qaedas' militarily defeated..
..when President Bush was in charge Al Qaida was winning nowhere..nowhere..
Now ,,,al Qaeda and their splinter groups seem to be winning everywhere...and they are everwhereg.....all across Northern Africa( Algeria ,Libya, Mali ,N-igeria and N-iger ) and (Southeastern (Somaia,Kenya and Uganda) in Pockeestan,Afganistan ,Saudi Arabi,Yeman and Iraq just to name a few...
What's going now is the results of Obama's foreign policy and Hillary and Obama's failure to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq in 2011...
Also notice ilsp2003.. all the civil wars going on in the rest of the Arab states.....none of which we invaded.
Come on slim, you couldn't have said that with a straight face.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
I'd rather be suffering with ODS ....than be obsessed with OBS ( Obama slurping)
There is no denying Obama and Hillary Clinton were given an Iraq that was stable. ...in 2009 they were handed a pacified Iraq, with al Qaedas' militarily defeated..
..when President Bush was in charge Al Qaida was winning nowhere..nowhere..
Now ,,,al Qaeda and their splinter groups seem to be winning everywhere...and they are everwhereg.....all across Northern Africa( Algeria ,Libya, Mali ,N-igeria and N-iger ) and (Southeastern (Somaia,Kenya and Uganda) in Pockeestan,Afganistan ,Saudi Arabi,Yeman and Iraq just to name a few...
What's going now is the results of Obama's foreign policy and Hillary and Obama's failure to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq in 2011...
Also notice ilsp2003.. all the civil wars going on in the rest of the Arab states.....none of which we invaded.
Come on slim, you couldn't have said that with a straight face.
It's a fact that the Iraq Obama inherited was so good the Obama administration actually took credit for it...
That's when VP Joe Biden declared that Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of the Obama administration.”
Biden is soooo prophetic in 2010 VPJoe Biden on the Larry King Show..
You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.
I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society.
It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.
Obama took credit for Iraq,but in reality all he did was cut and run..
..o-o-o-o-o-o-o
It was President George W. Bush that warned .. if America withdrew prematurely from Iraq..it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda...
0
It's a fact that the Iraq Obama inherited was so good the Obama administration actually took credit for it...
That's when VP Joe Biden declared that Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of the Obama administration.”
Biden is soooo prophetic in 2010 VPJoe Biden on the Larry King Show..
You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.
I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society.
It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.
Obama took credit for Iraq,but in reality all he did was cut and run..
..o-o-o-o-o-o-o
It was President George W. Bush that warned .. if America withdrew prematurely from Iraq..it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda...
Tell me bunny651 if Iraq wasn't stable in 2009 when Obama took over ...what exactly did Obama do between then and Dec.2011 when Persident Obama declared that “we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq..
..and to think Romney lost to these guys..
0
Tell me bunny651 if Iraq wasn't stable in 2009 when Obama took over ...what exactly did Obama do between then and Dec.2011 when Persident Obama declared that “we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq..
Tell me bunny651 if Iraq wasn't stable in 2009 when Obama took over ...what exactly did Obama do between then and Dec.2011 when Persident Obama declared that “we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq..
..and to think Romney lost to these guys..
you do need help for sure
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
Tell me bunny651 if Iraq wasn't stable in 2009 when Obama took over ...what exactly did Obama do between then and Dec.2011 when Persident Obama declared that “we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq..
Iraq wasn't stable; it was occupied. What has happened in Iraq was predicted from just about every foreign policy expert at State and elsewhere. The country is too unstable and has too much turmoil and animosity among its political factions to have any form of consolidated power to fight insurgents.
I posted at length on this the other day (with the usual facts and figures and references) and of course, right wing extremists like yourself that don't rely upon the same couldn't address the contentions.
It is no coincidence that US deaths in Iraq since 2009 are less than in 2009 along. Our presence in Iraq will continue to lead to US deaths unless we essentially make it a state, which will lead to war in the area.
And the same applies to your post #87...
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Iraq wasn't stable; it was occupied. What has happened in Iraq was predicted from just about every foreign policy expert at State and elsewhere. The country is too unstable and has too much turmoil and animosity among its political factions to have any form of consolidated power to fight insurgents.
I posted at length on this the other day (with the usual facts and figures and references) and of course, right wing extremists like yourself that don't rely upon the same couldn't address the contentions.
It is no coincidence that US deaths in Iraq since 2009 are less than in 2009 along. Our presence in Iraq will continue to lead to US deaths unless we essentially make it a state, which will lead to war in the area.
Crisis in Iraq, President Barack Obama said Friday he would not be
putting U.S. troops on the ground and that any other decisions will take days of
planning....
Sunday..Between 50 and 100 U.S. Marines and U.S. Army personnel have arrived Sunday at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad...
In between paying a round of golf at Porcupine Creek in Rancho Mirage.. (The course, with an extra “championship hole” took Obama about five hours.).. Obama was being “updated "through out the day by watching CNN..
0
Crisis in Iraq, President Barack Obama said Friday he would not be
putting U.S. troops on the ground and that any other decisions will take days of
planning....
Sunday..Between 50 and 100 U.S. Marines and U.S. Army personnel have arrived Sunday at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad...
In between paying a round of golf at Porcupine Creek in Rancho Mirage.. (The course, with an extra “championship hole” took Obama about five hours.).. Obama was being “updated "through out the day by watching CNN..
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
..o-o-o-o-o-o-o
you do need help for sure 
And the same applies to your post #87...
Hot Forum Topics
