RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any...

RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 5:32:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: Also, "since you got out"? Are you fucking kidding me? The best case scenario for you is that you did "serve," but never combat deployed. The worst case scenario is that you never served. Based on your hatred for the troops, I'd say that you never served. Now that is a interesting jump in your logic process....where do you get that I hate the troops. I may feel that many are ignorant and ill informed some may be as dumb as a stone but nowhere have I mentioned any hatred for them...are you projecting? That's not a jump, but consistent with what I get from reading your posts. This isn't the first thread where you and I have clashed. Your demeanor, as demonstrated in your posts, show that you hate the troops. You could say that you "don't" hate the troops all you want, I look at your conduct on these boards. You're not the only one that hates the troops here. What I've bolded in red in your quote? That gives your true position away, you hate the military. The reality is that the troops have a first-hand account of what's going on in the military. When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan? Those troops that deployed to those countries have a first hand account of what takes place in those countries. Military service gives them a vantage point that someone that isn't in the military doesn't have. What I've bolded in red above shows your reactions to the facts that they express based on their first hand experiences. You, having only received filtered information from the frontlines, have no legs to stand on when accusing many service members being "dumb" or "ill informed." Based on what you've said here, I know for a fact that you're seriously ill informed. If I were to come up with one word describing your knowledge on the topic we're debating, I'd say, "clueless." Strawman argument. So your position is that there are no ignorant,ill informed or stupid people in the military...well except for the officer you say got beat up. Strawman argument. Go back and read what I said, that's not the position that I presented in what you quoted. Also, go back and answer the question that I asked you, the one with a "yes" or "no" answer. You don't have a leg to stand on when asking me questions if you persist on ignoring mine. You didn't come here saying that in the context of the military having those people. You came here in the context of slamming the troops. You've demonstrated your hatred against the military, especially with the way you're reacting to my posts containing first hand experiences in the topic we're debating about.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 5:34:22 PM)
thompsonx: Rediculous??? Yes, you sound ridiculous whenever you reply to me. You deliberately take what I say out of context, and leave conversation history out, so that you could rewrite history. When I add the entire conversation back in, your games become glaringly obvious to the critical thinker. thompsonx: you brag about your talent and now you seek to validate You tried to make it sound that I just jumped on here to brag about something. When you add the entire conversation back in, you'd notice that I mentioned that for a reason. I talked about what I was able to do to prove Lady Boom Boom wrong about the advantages of a facechair. There's no validation seeking here, it's just me matching facts to a factually challenged position. thompsonx: that petulance Don't mistake facts, and a reasoned argument targeted towards a certain point, as "petulance." Save that for the antiques you play here. thompsonx: by challanging something I have not posted. No, I'm challenging what you posted, and I'm challenging the fact that you deliberately left parts of my post out so that you could pull a series of straw-man arguments. I'm showing your post as it would've looked like if you were interested in addressing what I actually said, instead you cutting things out so that my quote says what you wanted me to say. thompsonx: My aren't we just filled with insecurities. Don't mistake my presenting the facts as "insecurities." It's just me presenting the facts in the spirit of the forum title, as well as in the spirit of balancing someone's drivel with the facts. If anybody has insecurities here, it's you. If you weren't insecure about your position, you wouldn't constantly try to validate yourself by replying with disproved statements. You're like someone breathing his own exhaust in when you do. thompsonx: Lets see you are the son of a war hero. My mentioning his serving in Vietnam served various purposes, depending on who I was addressing. In one poster's case, it's to prove that people talk about their military experiences. In your case, it's to compare you with someone that you know would make you more insecure... the fact that he served in Vietnam, and you didn't. The fact that you'd get your panties in a bunch about this and scream "war hero" speaks volumes about the comparison that you're doing between him and you. Your attempts to attack him on this thread is you trying to "knock him down" to your level. It won't work. He was more of a man than you'll ever be. thompsonx: You know all there is to know about the sand box even though you are just another infantry man. I never made that claim. I simply stated that since I was there, I have first-hand experiences of what goes on in that country. I took every opportunity to point out that the people I was debating with didn't deploy to Iraq, or weren't there recently. Hence, I have a better vantage point on this topic than the opposition. This also means that I'm more qualified to talk about this topic than the opposition. thompsonx: Iraq is a pretty big country but you are allowed to roam it in its entirety as a sgt. Since troop numbers are being brought down, we found ourselves with larger responsibilities. Our platoon had the responsibility for an area covered by a company from the unit we relieved. Our company had the responsibility for an area that used to be a battalion responsibility. Our battalion had the responsibility that the previous unit's brigade had. I've been up and down our brigade area of responsibility. As an infantryman, we were one of the few MOSs that crossed the wire and rolled out into sector. For those areas in Iraq that I didn't go to, I either had battles that I had communication with, or information feeds from units from all over the country. In both instances, what they observed in their AOs were pretty much consistent with what we were observing in our AO. Heck, if you've ever worked with blue force tracker, you could have an up to date picture of what's going in all over Iraq. This is MUCH better than what the opposition is using in this argument. Compare the opposition to me, and you'll see that I have a better vantage point in this discussion. thompsonx: You are a mba. A fact that I used in a debate against your inventory misconception. You claimed to be a stock holder, then proceeded to say things that made red flags pop up on the MBA side of the house. thompsonx: You are an expert in the meaning of the u.n. charter. Anybody could read the UN charter. When I say that it addresses symmetric realities, and not asymmetric realities, it's just me pointing reality out. It was designed to address threats that existed during World War II, these were symmetrical threats, not asymmetrical threats. Discussion of the UN in this thread fell under the symmetrical versus asymmetrical warfare part of this debate. thompsonx: You are an engineer because you can tell the difference between battle damage and neglect of infrastructure. No, you don't need to be an engineer to tell the difference between battle damage and infrastructure neglect. All you need is common sense. Battle damage is blatantly obvious. If you could spot infrastructure decay in the US, you'd be able to spot it in Iraq. I guarantee you, if you were standing in Iraq right now, looking at their buildings, you'd have an extremely hard time holding onto your opinion that the majority of those buildings were destroyed by war. thompsonx: You are a mind reader. Don't mistake having you people placed in categories, and my knowing your characteristics down based on debating against your kind over the years, as my being a "mind" reader. I never made that claim. You people advance the same argument, and react in similar ways. thompsonx: Oh yes lets not forget you can read because you claim to have read the britanica when you were only in the third grade. What I actually said: "Going back to the reading comprehension deal, you illustrate my point nicely. What you quoted? It could be understood by a 5th grader. Nothing in there is more "technical" than the Encyclopedia Britannica books that I read starting from when I was in the 3rd Grade. The point that I'm making here is that I'm for the most part straight forward with what I'm saying here. I put words together so that even a 5th grader could understand what I'm getting across. I never said anything about convincing 5th graders." --herfacechair There's no "claim" about this, it's a statement of fact. It's a fact that I used to prove your contention wrong; your insinuation that 5th graders "wouldn't" understand my post. Unlike you, I could read with the intentions of understanding what the reader is saying. thompsonx: My my you really have a desire to prop up your image... Look at my replies to your breakdown. What I have in my replies, I mentioned to you, and the opposition, in various points in this thread. Part of that is to counter your drivel, and attempts to take me out of context. Part is to show you that I know what I'm talking about, and that you don't; part of that is to counter your attempts to destroy my image. As you could see, there's a legitimate point behind my doing what you're venting about, and taking out of context, above. thompsonx: of course we believe all you post No, you're part of the opposition. The opposition wasn't going to believe me. Critical thinking people will believe what I post, as the facts that I present are obvious. thompsonx: why would we disagree with all of your Because the facts that I present contradict your misconceptions of what's going on. thompsonx: alleged knowledge Nothing alleged, it's actual knowledge based on extensive research and experience based facts. thompsonx: it is soooo believable... It's believable to the rational people, to the critical thinkers, and to those who are privy to the facts. thompsonx: or not Your BS stories aren't believable, especially your stories of having gone to Vietnam. The fact that you'd push that angle, despite your never having served, speaks volumes about your insecurities. And get this. You going through all the list that I just addressed? My MBA, my being in Iraq, et al? There's something else going on in your mind when you mentioned those things. Not only

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 5:35:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy I knew 3 guys in Iraq. They sure are nothing like the OP. They are not as detailed. All 3 could sum up Iraq in less then a paragraph. Most the time I talk to people, I describe what's going on in Iraq in a few sentences. Now, when I come across someone that tries to rationalize it away, I get more in-depth. In the latter case, the person ends up not trying to rationalize our success in Iraq away. I also thought I'd quote a couple posters here: "I have talked to more than a few vets coming home and most have stories similar to yours." -- Kana "I base my belief in that he talks like a Soldier and does know about things going on there." --toxic66

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 5:37:17 PM)
thompsonx: Hunkie...that is because they are "poseurs". That is if they disagree with the o.p. What he actually said: "I knew 3 guys in Iraq. They sure are nothing like the OP. They are not as detailed. All 3 could sum up Iraq in less then a paragraph." --pahunkboy That's him saying that the 3 guys he knew, that served in Iraq, didn't provide the Iraq details that I provided here. This is just another example of you reading what you want to read, and addressing what you thought the poster said. thompsonx: I am sure you have gleaned that from the past 60 + pages of rant Actually, it took more than one person to make this a 60+ pages. You and the others that disagree with me contributed the rant. I contributed the reasoned argument that's based on facts and first-hand experience. thompsonx:by the "soldier" There's no quotation about this, I'm a soldier. And, unlike you, I served. thompsonx: who knows all there is to know about the sand box. He is an enlisted man who has traveled the length and breadth of the country noting all and bringing all of it's detail back to share with us ignorati.REPEAT POINT I never said that I know all there is to know. I simply said that my having been to Iraq, compared to the opposition's not being there, puts me at a better advantage in this thread. My first-hand experiences over there makes me qualified to speak about this thread's topic. I know for a fact that the Iraq you guys have in your mind isn't the Iraq in real life. thompsonx: The next time you have one of those soldier boys with his feet up in the air, There you go again with your gay fantasies. thompsonx: ask him how much of the country they were able to see. How much of the country a soldier has seen is beside the point... and it's a lame liberal attempt to insinuate that the rest of Iraq is going the way they think it's going. Never mind that when the majority of the soldiers that came back from Iraq, from all over that country, they tell a story that's consistent with what I've told on this thread. thompsonx: Of course they would all speak arabic so they would be able to communicate with all of the locals that they visited. I wonder how fluent our "soldier" is in arabic... Soldiers have interpreters. They don't go on mission without an interpreter present. Each platoon is assigned a certain number of interpreters, so the larger the mission, the more interpreters there are. There was no need to speak Arabic. thompsonx: I am sure that would have made his gulivarian escapades in iraq much easier Don't dismiss a mission out in sector as a "Gulliverian escapade." Your attitude on this post proves your hatred of the military. thompsonx: thus allowing him to bring us spoon fed fools the "twue scoop" on what is going on over there because all of the news people are "liberals" who hate amerika but the officers who control them are helpless because the government hates amerika also.[8\|] Despite your sarcasm, you touched on a reality that you're refusing to accept. Your intellect knows it's true, and it's telling your one brain celled operation. Unfortunately, your ego is in the way. Again, I've ben to Iraq, you guys haven't. This makes a big difference in how we see things, and it determines which one of us is going to be right about Iraq. For example, your claim that battle damage destroyed Iraq's infrastructure. I counter that based on what I actually saw when I was there... infrastructure in decay due to decades of neglect. If you step foot in Iraq, you'd see that the majority of the decay there is due to lack of maintenance. The fact that the opposition holds strongly to an image of Iraq that doesn't exist speaks volumes to the media's success. They show you what they want you to see, then successfully manipulate you guys so that you believe what they want you to believe. Considering that you guys are misguided, this wasn't a hard task to accomplish.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 5:40:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Every woman that has sat on my face had a great time. Any of them ever take the opportunity to take a huge dump? They must have been tempted. It's amusing how liberals react to someone exercising their freedom of speech. For instance, Al Pieda throwing custard cream pies at An Coulter. What's this clown's contribution? He reacts to the facts by symbolically throwing feces at me. Liberals are all about "the free exchange of ideas," as long as it's their ideas that get shared, and nothing dares challenge it. Dare challenge a liberal, and they'll try to find ways to "shut you up." This clown isn't the only one though. I recently received a PM from a frustrated liberal attempting to shut me down; his message had a veiled threat. EbonyWood: Care to explain where you get from my post that I'm Actually, you need to read my post with the intention of understanding what I say. Doing that would've saved you the need from asking me stupid questions. EbonyWood: a liberal "During the Bush fiasco. Remember those wacky conservatives." --EbonyWood "Yeah not sure why all the neocons here do that." --EbonyWood "Perhaps the conservative view on these boards seems to be in the minority because of the invalidity of their position in many topics." -- EbonyWood "Take the win, Ken." --EbonyWood supporting a liberal in a debate against a conservative. "Don't deny yourself. Glenn wants you to kneel to the true master." --EbonyWoods "Besides, when did you get the idea I'm Far Left?" --EbonyWoods in response to Sanity "Double the meds. Your therapy is going nowhere" --EbonyWoods in response to Sanity accurately pointing the Democrats out in a fiasco If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck... Do I need to go on with your own words incriminating you as a liberal? I've debated with liberals for years. Even those who label themselves liberal argue using your line of reasoning. Like the vast majority of the liberals that I debated with, you use inductive fallacy. For instance, the canard that the conservative view being the minority because of "invalidity" of their position. The REAL reason our position is in the minority on this board is because the vast majority of the posters here are far left... not because of "invalidity." The reality is that your (liberals) arguments are indefensible, they're indefensible because they're predominantly invalid. EbonyWood: threatening you? What I ACTUALLY said: "This clown isn't the only one though. I recently received a PM from a frustrated liberal attempting to shut me down; his message had a veiled threat." --herfacechair WHERE, in THAT post, does it say that YOU threatened me? It indicate that you're not the only one, then proceeds to talk about how someone else tried to shut me up. EbonyWood: I asked a question related to a kink. Do you honest to God believe what you're saying? Given your history of arguing against conservative positions on this message board, your statement was clear. If the women sitting on my face "took a dump," they would've effectively "shut me up." This is essentially what you wanted me to do... "shut up," so that your side would remain unchallenged in this fight. EbonyWood: This is a kink/alternative lifestyle site. My comment has more relevance than any discussion about external issues indicated by the thread title. Wrong. Topics related to the thread title takes precedence, and have more relevance on this thread, than any other issues, including those that have everything to do with this being a kink site. In case you didn't notice this, my thread is in the Politics and Religion Forum. It's a forum intended for non kink related material. You didn't come here, to the politics and religion forum, on a thread about Iraq, to talk about kink. You, like the rest of the opposition, got frustrated with my constantly coming back to destroy the liberal position with regards to the Iraq War. You were simply expressing your wish that I "shut up," in the most "feces throwing" way. But wait! There's more! You honest to God don't believe what you say here, you know why? Your own words: "This belongs on the Edge Play thread." --EbonyWood You were sarcastic about this, but it shows that you know that there's a thread that covers certain things. If your post was intended to approach the kink side of the house, you would've asked this on the "ask a submissive/slave" forum. EbonyWood: Quite a leap to think that my question is an attempt to subvert your rights to free speech. Has to be the most tenuous connection I've seen on these boards in some time. You're no different from the liberals that I've debated with in the past. Even here, we've had one poster after another attempt to get me to "stop" something I have every intention of doing. This happens on the other threads that I've debated on. Given your background, and what you've debated on the other threads, your message was clear. You were trying to say that I was "full" of "shit," and you were attempting to get me to "shut up." EbonyWood: "Reacts to the facts?" What facts? The reasoned arguments that I've made on this thread, which are based on extensive research and my first-hand experiences in Iraq. EbonyWood: I haven't read any of this thread except the post about women on your face. I don't believe that, and I highly doubt that you believe that statement either. Again, if you look at your conduct in these forums, you tend to follow threads where someone slams a liberal, or a liberal position. You don't hesitate to make a comment on these threads... you've made plenty of them in the Glenn Beck thread. So I know that you've read the other posts on here. EbonyWood: As for "shutting you up", I actually asked you for a response. The total opposite. You asked a rhetorical question, not a question that warranted a response. It was your feeble attempt at an insult, given my position on the thread. Your message was clear, you were communicating your true thoughts with that post. One was your insinuation that I was "full of it," and the other was your insinuation that the "dump" was enough to keep me from "talking." EbonyWood: Seems a basic comprehension skill to get that right, or did you just have an agenda to say whatever you were going to irrespective of the question? There's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension abilities. If anybody has basic comprehension skill deficit, it's you. Don't believe me? Let me give you a reminder: You assumed that I said that you threatened me, when I made it clear that I was talking about someone else. Go back to the post that you responded to, and read it again. I bolded it in red, and you still kicked basic reading comprehension skills out the door. EbonyWood: The irony is I didn't call you any kind of name at all, in the way you have to me, and yet it is you acting indignant. Again, do you seriously believe what you're saying here? I'm looking at how you act towards other conservatives on this board. I'm seeing your real intentions here rather than the persona you're trying to portray yourself as. EbonyWood: You might want to reconsider your reaction to a thoughtful legitimate question. There's nothing thoughtful about asking if one of the women that sat on my face had taken a dump, and nothing thoughtful about expressing that one of them may have been tempted to. That wasn't a legitimate question on this thread. Had you worded that question properly, and asked me via private message, you may have gotten a different response. But no, you asked it on an open forum, when you could've use this site's "search" function to attempt to get an answer to that question. EbonyWood: You seem emotional, angry, and out of control. Bad signs. Oh really? "Double the meds. Your therapy is going nowhere" --EbonyWood "their continual blaming and deflection looks particularly whiney and pathetic to me. I think they have unstated masochism issues and prefer to wallow in their negativity." --EbonyWood "Are all your thoughts 8 years old? Take your pills." --EbonyWood Bad signs indeed, look up the definition of hypocrite. EbonyWood: Actually, don't worry about a response. Are you kidding? My replying to the opposition is almost as guaranteed as death and taxes. EbonyWood: You clearly have an agenda outside the realm of the purpose of this site. Nope, not an agenda but a purpose. To give facts, using my first hand experience and research, to counter the massive misconception about Iraq that the opposition has.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 5:42:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I've combat deployed to that country What exactly does this term mean? If you were a veteran, you would've never asked that question, it would've been plainly obvious. Thanks for continuing to prove me right about you, that you never served.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 5:46:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx thompsonx: Not dense at all just making the point that looking at her apendages would be more fun than looking at yours... quote: Hence the fact that you're dense. She expressed her opinion that we were "involved" in a "pissing" contest. You, being a reject in real life, with women not wanting to have anything to do with you, started perving after her. That's the second woman on this thread that you perved after, wouldn't be surprised if you perved after many more woman on this board. Perhaps a change of attitude, as well as a change in focus in the bedroom, would let women overlook your ED problems. It may have escaped your attention but this is a sexually explicit website...perving is what we do here First, if you got some ass in the real world, you wouldn't be perving on this message board. Second, you come across as a loser. The main reason you bitch about my advantages, as well as my credentials, is that what I've accomplished, and what my Dad has done in his time, simply pisses you off. You look back on your life and aren't happy, wouldn't be surprised if you had regrets. Then you look at me, and what I've accomplished in the real world, and that pisses you off even more. I've accomplished, in 2/3rds the length of your life, far more than what you've done your whole life. So, to compensate for what little you've done in your life, you fabricate things. You fabricate your military "experiences." You claim that you did a combat tour to Vietnam. You work overtime to try to make my dad something he isn't. You know why? Deep down inside, you know that you don't match to either one of us. He deployed to Vietnam when you stayed in the states and horsed around. If you were a veteran, and you put your uniform on, you'd look like a joke right next to my dad... had he ben alive and in his uniform. That bothers you to the core. You tend to take issues with me mentioning what I've done, with regards to eating pussy. This is you having issues with me getting something that you don't. You see, you're a loser. Women in your real world don't want anything to do with you because they see you as a loser. You're here perving on the women here, and giving yourself a false sense of victory. You're doing this to cover up for the fact that in real life, you're a nobody.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 5:48:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: You'd have to be "blind" to make that comment. I read what you quoted from the UN charter. It didn't prove my argument wrong, all you did was show text written to address symmetrical warfare. The people writing that charter didn't realize that this was what they were doing. But in terms of 21st Century Warfare, that's precisely what they were doing. Strawman argument + Red herring Is it your position that churchill and roosevelt had no understanding of asymetrical warfare? Strawman argument + Red herring. This is a strawman argument, as both of them dealt with a symmetrical war, and had good understanding of symmetrical war. Twenty First Century warfare isn't something that they needed to know... they came well before the paradigm shift in warfare happened. Your question is a red herring question as it has nothing to do with the thread.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 5:49:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: REAL Veterans know that I'm being truthful, and what I say happens in the military is actually what happens. So only those vets who agree with you are "twue veterans" and all who disagree with you are nothing but lying posers. That certainly makes it easier for you to claim you have proved something[8\|] You're missing my point... as usual. "The internet is a great resource, but unless you know and have lived a subject firsthand, you cannot fake it with someone who has. thompsonx is so obviously lying that he deserves every bit of ridicule he gets. Of course that is his mo on virtually all topics, so it shouldnt be a surprise." -- willbeurdaddy Willbeurdaddy gives you a hint of what I'm talking about. Real veterans, having real active duty experience, would notice that I'm a veteran. We've had real veterans jump on this thread, acknowledge my service, and thanked me. Those people questioning my statements of being in the military obviously don't have any military experience; hence aren't real veterans but posers. I've said enough things on here to cause a real veteran to recognize that I'm someone in the military. Posers would miss these signs.

EbonyWood -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 5:51:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Nope, not an agenda but a purpose. To give facts, using my first hand experience and research, to counter the massive misconception about Iraq that the opposition has. And yet nothing, absolutely zero, in my entire post and your response, is about Iraq, so I believe you just condemned yourself out of your own mouth concerning your agenda. Epic fail.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 5:54:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Strawman Argument. KBR, which at the time was part of halliburton, was providing services for the u.s. govt in the sand box. That means that it was halliburton that was making money through a company that it had owned for more than forty years. Some how you refuse to see that obvious connection. Halliburton owned kbr and kbr had the contract but halliburton somehow in your mind was not the benificiary of that contract....how does that work? Strawman Argument That's beside the point, what you said: "As a stock holder in Halliburton" -- thompsonx, May 2010 What I said to you in response to one of your later posts: "KBR was working for Halliburton when they carried out logistics services for Iraq in the beginning of the war. Since then, Halliburton and KBR split, with KBR continuing with the services for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Halliburton not being involved with Iraq or Afghanistan. So, if you're a stockholder with Halliburton, and they're not involved with Iraq today, then you're not doing what you insinuate you're doing." --herfacechair Your argument was that you were making money from your Halliburton "stocks," and insinuated that I was helping your bottom line. I pointed the above split to you, which happened in 2007. Hence, the fact that I didn't make you money. Again, from KBR's website: Now, from Halliburton's own website: Q: What work is the Company performing in Iraq? A: Halliburton Company has never been contracted for services by the U.S. government, particularly none of the logistics support services frequently discussed in the media today. The CRUX of our argument was whether we made you money via your "Halliburton stocks" or not. The facts that I presented here prove you wrong, that I didn't make you money. Whether Halliburton made money in Iraq or not in the past is beside the point. thompsonx: No strawman here. WRONG. You contended that we were making money for your Halliburton "stocks." I pointed out to you that since KBR and Halliburton split in 2007, I wasn't making money for your non-existent Halliburton stocks.[./color] thompsonx: If the troops were not there to protect them, halliburton would not last thirty days in the sand box RED HERRING + Strawman Argument. This has absolutely nothing to do with either one of our arguments. First, Halliburton is saying that it's not providing any services in Iraq. So that's a non issue. Second, what you say is applicable for any non Arab organization in Iraq. It doesn't have any bearing on the debate.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 6:20:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Nope, not an agenda but a purpose. To give facts, using my first hand experience and research, to counter the massive misconception about Iraq that the opposition has. And yet nothing, absolutely zero, in my entire post and your response, is about Iraq, so I believe you just condemned yourself out of your own mouth concerning your agenda. Epic fail. Your statement has as much validity as Baghdad Bob's statement when he claimed that there were "no" Americans in Baghdad... after the world saw American forces take one block after another in Baghdad. Your initial statement was a reaction to my constantly destroying the opposition with regards to the Iraq War, and other topics on this thread. Your use of "agenda" was made in a thread where I'm debating Iraq, Asymmetrical Warfare, and other topics. "Agenda" as used by a liberal, like you, implies attempt at propaganda. This isn't the same thing with me posting on here for a purpose. Two different things. So my mentioning Iraq, in a 60+page whose title contains the word IRAQ in it, does not constitute "epic fail." You know what constitutes epic fail? You asking me why I see you as a liberal, and me responding with your own words incriminating yourself as a liberal. THAT'S epic fail. It's like what I told thompsonx, using your own words against you is like beating a man across the head with his own prosthetic limbs.

thompsonx -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 7:14:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair thompsonx: Just like your squid daddy leaving his post to show a certified welder how to do his job... REPEAT POINT A fire watch assigned to a welder would be in that welder's vicinity, with a fire extinguisher. He has to be near the welder in order to quickly put a fire out if the welder starts a fire. When my dad did the welder's job, he was still in his station. This should've been obvious to you if you served. I just love the way you prove me right with your actions. If you served, your posts don't do you any justice. You seem to know as little about welding as you do about being a soldier. If we were to match that statement to reality, I'd have enough knowledge to be a professional welder. However, your statement doesn't reflect reality. You don't have military experience to work from to determine both, how good or bad I am at being a soldier. Your posts here initially indicated that you didn't have a clue about welding, so you can't determine how much, or little, I'd know about welding. You have little to no military service under your belt, and you've demonstrated ignorance about what's entailed in a fire watch. thompsonx: The firewatch guy is standing by with his fire extinguisher watching the sparks that are caused by the welder and making sure that they do not catch anything on fire. What? Is there an echo in here? What I said in the post that you replied to: "A fire watch assigned to a welder would be in that welder's vicinity, with a fire extinguisher. He has to be near the welder in order to quickly put a fire out if the welder starts a fire. When my dad did the welder's job, he was still in his station." - herfacechair You're either learning from what I'm saying, or you've gotten busy with google. thompsonx: Now when your squid daddy put on the welders helmet how was he able to see where the sparks went? What I actually said, pay attention now: "Like the time he was doing fire watch for a welder. He got tired of waiting on the welder. The welder was working slow as he was working by the hour. My dad grabbed the guy's torch and finished the job in minutes. Pissed the welder off." -- herfacechair Where, in that statement, does it say that my dad put the welder's helmet on? Why use the welder's helmet when he had PPE for the task, like firewatch goggles? My dad had the fire extinguisher where he'd be able to grab it, after shutting the torch off. Had anything caught fire, he would've turned the torch off and use the fire extinguisher. But he got the job done real quick, took two to three minutes... when the welder tried to take half an hour to an hour. thompsonx: The welder is a certified specialist and your daddy was neither certified nor the one contracted to do the job. If you were in the department that my dad was attached to back then, you'd know how to use a welder's torch... as well as other ship's hull maintenance/repair tools. It didn't matter if he were the one contracted to do the job or not. He got the job done quick, and saved man hours that were being tied up with the welder taking forever to do something my dad did in two to three minutes. Do continue to show how little you know about the military. thompsonx: Yet he put down his fire extinguisher and put on the welders helmet and abandoned his post. What I actually said: "Like the time he was doing fire watch for a welder. He got tired of waiting on the welder. The welder was working slow as he was working by the hour. My dad grabbed the guy's torch and finished the job in minutes. Pissed the welder off." -- herfacechair Where, in that statement, does it say that my dad put a welder's helmet on? He already had the safety goggles that the fire watch normally wears when they're assigned fire watch. My dad was both, with the welder and he had a fire extinguisher with him. He didn't abandon his post, he stayed at his post and did the welder's job. There's no marking on the floor, ahem, deck, for the firewatch to stand in. They usually select where they stand, or sit, when watching the welder. The only thing that matters is that they're within distance of the welder and his job. My dad met both requirements. Again, had a fire started, my dad would've turned the torch off and activated the fire extinguisher. thompsonx: See even your "my daddy is so bitchin' stories" lack any semblance of veracity. You demonstrated how little you know about the military with this one post. You played parrot, regurgitating what I previously told you, to sound like you "knew" what you were talking about. You don't make yourself look good faking your experience, then turning around and acting like you've "busted" me in the act of doing what you're actually doing. As usual, you're taking what I say out of context, and addressing what you wanted me to say rather than what I actually said. My stories have been consistent, and they're factual. Your attempts to show that you know what you're talking about, with regards to a fire watch, are textbook and make you come across as a faker. You continue to demonstrate that you have little to no military experience. thompsonx: This would be the same daddy that you claim did six years in viet nam?...yeah right Repeat Point All you did was give your opinion that my dad "didn't" serve in Vietnam. I countered you with the facts, that he did 6 combat tours in Vietnam... I saw his old award orders for one of the combat tours that he did. Unlike you, my dad served. You could sit there, having never served, and fart the opinion that my dad "didn't" serve all you want, that doesn't change the fact that unlike you, he served in Vietnam. I didn't say anything about years, I said that my dad did six combat tours in Vietnam. I'm deliberately leaving one key piece of information out, because I know what you're going to try to say in response. I'm sadistic that way. According to the aws(american welding society) the minimum shade used in welding gogles for oxy/acetylene is #5...this would preclude the welder from seeing where the sparks were falling. Wearing ppe (safety glasses) to weld is a sure sign that someone has no clue what they are doing. That some squid knows how to weld is hardly relevant. His job is firewatch and not welder so it would appear that you learned your military discipline from someone who had little. As for your squid daddy serving six tours in viet nam that is clearly misleading. If your squid daddy was a frog or a seal,as you claim, he would have been serving 6 month tours with no less than six months out of country between tours. This would mean he only did three years. I gave you ample opportunity to clarify your position but you in your effort to paint yourself as the son of some "big deal" kept you from stating the facts which begs us to question the validity of your other statements.

thompsonx -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 7:37:17 PM)
quote: thompsonx: You are an expert in the meaning of the u.n. charter. Anybody could read the UN charter. When I say that it addresses symmetric realities, and not asymmetric realities, it's just me pointing reality out. It was designed to address threats that existed during World War II, these were symmetrical threats, not asymmetrical threats. Discussion of the UN in this thread fell under the symmetrical versus asymmetrical warfare part of this debate. You do not seem to know very much about the history of warfare...did the dog eat that volumn of your britanica? Sun Tzu speaks of it. Thermopalie was an example of asymetrical warfare. The napolianic war against england The Boar war in south africa is another. WWII there was the finish/russian encounter. Then there was that little mix up between england and germany in wwII. You do not seem to really understand what asymetrical warfare really is. Just because it got a name in the 70's does not mean it did not exist.

thompsonx -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 7:39:39 PM)
quote: thompsonx: I am sure that would have made his gulivarian escapades in iraq much easier Don't dismiss a mission out in sector as a "Gulliverian escapade." Your attitude on this post proves your hatred of the military. No I just like pointing out phonies

thompsonx -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 7:42:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I've combat deployed to that country What exactly does this term mean? If you were a veteran, you would've never asked that question, it would've been plainly obvious. Thanks for continuing to prove me right about you, that you never served. So you have used a term to bolster your ego and now find yourself unable or unwilling to actually define your terms... Long on rhetoric and short of fact seems to be your m.o.

thompsonx -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 7:47:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: You'd have to be "blind" to make that comment. I read what you quoted from the UN charter. It didn't prove my argument wrong, all you did was show text written to address symmetrical warfare. The people writing that charter didn't realize that this was what they were doing. But in terms of 21st Century Warfare, that's precisely what they were doing. Strawman argument + Red herring Is it your position that churchill and roosevelt had no understanding of asymetrical warfare? Strawman argument + Red herring. This is a strawman argument, as both of them dealt with a symmetrical war, and had good understanding of symmetrical war. Twenty First Century warfare isn't something that they needed to know... they came well before the paradigm shift in warfare happened. Your question is a red herring question as it has nothing to do with the thread. You might want to avail yourself of churchills little tome on wwII. He goes into this concept quite deeply and how he dealt with it's advantages and disadvantages. The work also contains all of his letters to roosevelt and roosevelts answers to them. Both men were quite aware of what asymetrical warfare was just as did sun tzu, long before the term was coined the concept was well understood.

thompsonx -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 7:54:34 PM)
quote: thompsonx:by the "soldier" There's no quotation about this, I'm a soldier. And, unlike you, I served. Well of course you are[8\|]. You have spent more than 60 pages telling us so. Everyone who wants to believe you does and those who are a little sceptical you attack with your "superlative rhetoric"

thompsonx -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 8:15:36 PM)
quote: First, if you got some ass in the real world, you wouldn't be perving on this message board. It is clear that you get more ass than a toilet seat Second, you come across as a loser. You seem to be quite an expert on loosers [8\|] The main reason you bitch about my advantages, I was unaware of any advantages you had...pray tell enlighten us. as well as my credentials, For which we have your boastful words is that what I've accomplished, Did I miss that part? Just what have you accomplished besides making a fool out of yourself? and what my Dad has done in his time, simply pisses you off. Besides being a squid what exactly was it that he did? You look back on your life and aren't happy, wouldn't be surprised if you had regrets. Well there are some people I killed I probably should not have and some I did not that I should have but then that is life and one can only move forward and learn from their mistakes. Then you look at me, and what I've accomplished in the real world, and that pisses you off even more. I've accomplished, in 2/3rds the length of your life, far more than what you've done your whole life. When I look at you all I get is your avitar and that is just a rat with wings So, to compensate for what little you've done in your life, you fabricate things. You fabricate your military "experiences." You claim that you did a combat tour to Vietnam. Actually it was two and they were back to back, unlike your squid daddy who never did more than six months at a time in country. You work overtime to try to make my dad something he isn't. What I said about your squid daddy was that from what you posted he was short on discipline and that he was never in country more than six months straight. You know why? Deep down inside, you know that you don't match to either one of us. Thank gawd for that. He deployed to Vietnam when you stayed in the states and horsed around. If you were a veteran, and you put your uniform on, you'd look like a joke right next to my dad... had he ben alive and in his uniform. That bothers you to the core. You tend to take issues with me mentioning what I've done, with regards to eating pussy. Oh please do tell us more about your sexual exploits we are all on the edge of our chairs in rapt anticipation[8\|] This is you having issues with me getting something that you don't. You see, you're a loser. Women in your real world don't want anything to do with you because they see you as a loser. How could they not when a rat with wings is my competition? You're here perving on the women here, Yeah! aint it kewel[:)]

EbonyWood -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (7/22/2010 8:33:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Nope, not an agenda but a purpose. To give facts, using my first hand experience and research, to counter the massive misconception about Iraq that the opposition has. And yet nothing, absolutely zero, in my entire post and your response, is about Iraq, so I believe you just condemned yourself out of your own mouth concerning your agenda. Epic fail. Your statement has as much validity as Baghdad Bob's statement when he claimed that there were "no" Americans in Baghdad... after the world saw American forces take one block after another in Baghdad. Your initial statement was a reaction to my constantly destroying the opposition with regards to the Iraq War, and other topics on this thread. Your use of "agenda" was made in a thread where I'm debating Iraq, Asymmetrical Warfare, and other topics. "Agenda" as used by a liberal, like you, implies attempt at propaganda. This isn't the same thing with me posting on here for a purpose. Two different things. So my mentioning Iraq, in a 60+page whose title contains the word IRAQ in it, does not constitute "epic fail." You know what constitutes epic fail? You asking me why I see you as a liberal, and me responding with your own words incriminating yourself as a liberal. THAT'S epic fail. It's like what I told thompsonx, using your own words against you is like beating a man across the head with his own prosthetic limbs. Ugh, this is weak and evasive, even by your standards. You completely failed to address why you resorted to your agenda and then denied it. Back to BT until you're less confused. At this point, you log into one of your other IDs and go and help out your boys. Last time I looked, they were coughing up blood on all fronts.

Page: << < prev 64 65 [66] 67 68 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125