Re: So the war on Iraq was decided before 9/11

think of it as

BUSH = BLOODS
IRAQ = CRIPS

 

Actually, this would be the part of the argument where I demonstrate to you how ridiculous you are being.

I've already made points which you have failed to answer. If you want to hide behind a book, I'm not flailing away against your defense, I'll go hunker down behind a book too and we can wait each other out... you'll get tired first. Keep charging paragon. Maybe if you could just find a few more flaws with Sir Rose, his book will implode on shelves all over the world. Have you looked into his personal life yet? Maybe he goes both ways... That would discredit him! Quick, go look.

 

I'm not hiding behind a book. I defined the strategy that Poole suggests and if you look at his book you can see the vast amount of research that he put into it. How much of his strategy would I have to detail before you actually considered it rather than automatically writing it off?
You on the other hand have provided nothing in the way of describing why Rose believes what he does.

Also, I am very disturbed if you actually believe that this is true although I'm betting you are just being sarcastic.

How would this discredit him in any way? Alexander was bisexual and he took over most of that area. Also, sexual orientation has nothing to do with this conversation. Please stop adding things that are irrelevant.

 

What does your being disturbed have to do with this conversation?

Now not only have you given up on debating the points presented, but you've even given up on discrediting Sir Rose? Now you're ad hominining away against me? tsk tsk tsk

 

NateSMZ - Stop avoiding my questions.

 

Start asking better questions...

... after you read his book of course. =]

 

You've basically lost this argument at this point.

Here is an account of the argument:
1) You say something incorrect
2) I correct you and give evidence
3) You say that I am wrong
4) I show more evidence from a book by an expert in this specific field
5) You say that he is wrong
6) I describe his experience and say why it is relevant
7) You bring up someone with more general experience but a lot less specific and relevant experience and say that I have to read his book but provide no details on what his argument is, what his research involves, and call my position absurd which again argues with the ideas of experts in the specific field.
8) I find information on the man and his book on my own and ask you three important questions and say that it is SURPRISING that he chose the American Revolution. Not wrong, surprising.
9) You fail to answer the questions and fall back only on his military experience and bring up ridiculous and trivial things that you think I would actually care about such as sexual orientation.
10) You claim that I am the first one to back away from the argument when this is clearly not the case. In my previous post I had outlined what was happening in the argument. Additionally, you gave up on debating the points of the argument when you just gave links to a book and a man but you fail to actually present his argument.
11) I go back to my questions and request that you answer them
12) You refuse yet again and say I have to ask better questions. However, each question is relevant and they have to be answered by anyone who thinks what you are thinking.

 

I don't know how you've managed to type THIS much, since ^that post, without ever even attempting a rational response to it... but I certainly have to applaud your work ethic. I already told you you'll get tired of hiding in your bunker first, why won't you just believe me? Since we're doing conversation synopsis now, here's mine:

Person A: Apples are not oranges.
Person B: Well this guy says they are. I'd like to see you argue with that!
Person A: Yeah... but they're not.
Person B: *sticks tongue out* plllbbbbpppb

EDIT: lol, just noticed you "powered me down" for pointing out your absurdity... I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and ignore the bad publicity, but you really are a sad individual

 

You know what I contribute to this thread?

"Ride through the storm, see the knights fighting evil and crime.
A modern day team of heroes in medieval times.
Arthur and the Knights of Justice putting evil down.
Ride through the storm with the knights of the Table Round."

 

NateSMZ - My first post after you wrote that responded to it. Here it is again:

As for power downs. I've been powered down twice in this tread. Who cares.

Now, please get back to the actually discussion and answer my simple questions or don't continue this discussion.

Hadean - what does a Sunday morning cartoon that lasted 2 seasons have to do with this thread?

 

That response doesn't even begin to approach the problem of how you rely on those causing disorder to enforce order.

Put them in small squads? How are you supposed to keep them in small squads? and how does that keep them from causing problems?

Make sure they don't know each others location? IT'S THEIR COUNTRY! lol...

Essentially you're arguing that we could use prisoners as police officers if we just instituted the proper protocols. It's insane. You can't take the same people who are breaking laws and use them to enforce laws.

Obviously you care, seeing as you decided to use the mechanism yourself.

Denial isn't healthy.

 

Hot topic... ;D Michael Moore is a genius.

 

Do I actually have to spell it out for you?

When they are in small groups it is easy to find out who the bad ones are due to lack of participation in helping defend them against insurgents as well as the fact that they would probably help the insurgents when they did attack if those police were also insurgents. It will be easy to tell who the bad ones are because the groups are so small rather than large pushes that are used now.

And they would not know where the other patrols are. Do you know where the police patrolling your town are? No? Well it's your country. By your logic, you should know just by virtue of the fact that it is your country.

And why are you comparing Iraqi citizens as a whole to prisoners. Despite what conspiracy theorists may be telling you, the US military is actually trying to stabilize the country and help the Iraqi people.

Oh and the military is being trained in the tactics that Poole is recommending. So clearly those that know the most about the situation believe that this is the right direction to take.

 

It's easy to find out who the bad ones are now. The problem is that you can't punish half of the whole police force. There isn't, and will not ever be enough manpower to enforce our sense of justice.

And it's not that hard for me to find the cops in my own city. Maybe that's a problem for you... iunno.

I know you can read. I compared the Iraqi police force to prisoners, not civilians. Stop playing stupid.

Oh? The military is trying Poole's tactics? Well isn't that a great support! It's not like they've completely fucked up for the last 6 years or anything. If the current US administration said they liked any plan of mine, I'd think it was time to seriously reexamine it.

 

Um... the police is civilians. And the police recruits? Also civilians. And people who want to be police? Civilians as well. Amazing. Civilians actually become police through some crazy thing called "training."

I said "the military is being trained in the tactics that Poole is recommending." The administration has nothing to do with what training military personnel receive. Do I have to go over the difference between strategy and tactics with you?

 

yes paragon, you should go over that for me

also you should come back to this very thread next year when Iraq is still a shitstorm so I can say: I told you so.

but first, please educate me

 

Strategy is the overall plan
Tactics is the individual rifle team's/fire team's/soldier's way of fighting

All I'm trying to do is show that you are incorrect and show you what is correct. These are things that are actually happening, there is a right and wrong way of looking at it. You clearly care more about "outlasting" me in stubbornness than you do in actually proving that your view is correct. If you don't want to accept it then I really don't give a shit.

 

Long story short Paragon. King Arthur pwns.

More importantly, whoever said Michael Moore is a genius is a fucking douche. The guy is a cold hearted son of a bitch. I agree with the issues he brings up but his methods are fucking despicable. Seen Fareinheit 911 and Bowling for Columbine. "Zomg! They're crying! I'm gonna go comfort them, you keep rolling!" instead of what a normal, non asshole would say "Okay bro. shut off the camera." Also in Sicko! the michael moore hater who got the money in the end. Was puuure just so he could have an "Aha! Gotcha!" moment in the movie, however nice the fact was, it was meant for impure means.

Overall, Michael is a piece of shit. His beliefs are spot on imo, but his methods are worse than what you see republican journalists do.

 

Why am I outclassing you in stubborness? Because you stopped attempting to be rational several pages ago. The instant you started your whole, "you're not arguing with me - you're arguing with an old guy who wrote a book", you abandoned all appearance of caring about logic.

And so, I simply found an even older guy with more credentials, and threw his book at your book. At which point you wandered off into babble land even more. It takes a fool to argue with a fool. As long as you refuse to act reasonably, I'm just going to play along.

And you said that police are civilians because they are drawn from civilian ranks.... I wonder where soldiers come from in your "right" world-view?

But yeah, could you explain that whole strategy/tactics thing with a lil more detail? I think if you write a three page report about it, I might finally understand how it is possible to use criminals as law enforcement.

 

Heaven forbid I actually get my reasonings from an actual source with actual credentials relating to the topic!

(sarcasm, impression of you)
BUT YOU'RE USING SOMEONE ELSE'S RESEARCH AND IDEAS TO PROVE ME WRONG!
(/sarcasm, impression of you)

And read a dictionary if you want to know about strategy and tactics. You do know you have to do some of your own research in order to discuss something right?

Police - An organized civil force for maintaining order, preventing and detecting crime, and enforcing the laws.
Thats the dictionary definition. Would you like to argue with the dictionary?

Soldier - a person who serves in an army.
Army - The entire military land forces of a country.
Military - NOT CIVILIAN.

Your arguments are not logical.

And since I'm using the dictionary now anyways heres those terms you can't seem to look up for yourself.
Strategy - The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations.
Tactics - The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy

Now. Would you like to answer my questions about "your guy" or would you instead like to proceed with your bitching.