PDA

View Full Version : Troops being sent to fight Ebola, but not to fight ISIS?



garhkal
09-17-2014, 05:57 AM
OK, so a big threat that is ISIS doesn't seem to warrant "Boots on the ground" but sending troops to set up medical tents, guard doctors etc for the fight against Ebola does?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/16/african-want-in-for-us-ebola-fight/15732249/

http://nypost.com/2014/09/16/us-will-send-3000-troops-to-help-fight-ebola-in-west-africa/

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-sending-troops-to-liberia-expanded-ebola-effort/2451118.html

One wonders, how many of the troops being sent over will come back with the disease, and whether the VA will get a funding boost to care for them?

Capt Alfredo
09-17-2014, 09:46 AM
OK, so a big threat that is ISIS doesn't seem to warrant "Boots on the ground" but sending troops to set up medical tents, guard doctors etc for the fight against Ebola does?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/16/african-want-in-for-us-ebola-fight/15732249/

http://nypost.com/2014/09/16/us-will-send-3000-troops-to-help-fight-ebola-in-west-africa/

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-sending-troops-to-liberia-expanded-ebola-effort/2451118.html

One wonders, how many of the troops being sent over will come back with the disease, and whether the VA will get a funding boost to care for them?

Don't you ever get tired of manufacturing false outrage? You seriously can't see the difference between the two scenarios? The constant drumbeat of this type of post is what is forcing me into retirement from the forum; it's just not worth it for the low level of discourse.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-17-2014, 11:15 AM
Don't you ever get tired of manufacturing false outrage? You seriously can't see the difference between the two scenarios? The constant drumbeat of this type of post is what is forcing me into retirement from the forum; it's just not worth it for the low level of discourse.

I'm not so sure that it is false outrage. I imagine the garkhal house to be much like stately Wayne Manor, equipped with "bat poles" that lead to his internet room.

I see Alfred serving garkhal and Sean Hannity breakfast, a big silver tray with soft boiled eggs in those little cups that make them stand up.

Both he and Hannity are flipping through copies of the Gotham Post, when Hannity exclaims, "Holy Humanitarian Crisis!"

Garkhal calmly sets his newspaper down, and adjusts his silk ascot, "Quickly Sean, to the idiot poles!"

Da da dada dada da da dada dada, garkhal! garkhal! garkhal!

Chris_1991-2011
09-17-2014, 11:40 AM
OK, so a big threat that is ISIS doesn't seem to warrant "Boots on the ground" but sending troops to set up medical tents, guard doctors etc for the fight against Ebola does?

One wonders, how many of the troops being sent over will come back with the disease, and whether the VA will get a funding boost to care for them?

Are you serious? Or is this some sort of act? (FYI, they'll be doing a bit more than setting up tents, guarding doctors, etc. Hint....it's in the articles you've linked to.)

sandsjames
09-17-2014, 11:56 AM
I figure that sending our troops to a location with biological dangers is a good way to justify the continuation of CBRNE/decontamination training.

technomage1
09-17-2014, 12:14 PM
I hearby do NOT volunteer to go to this. Getting shot at? Fine. Getting blown up? Fine. I accept those risks as they come with the job. Not that I want to die, but I accept the risks. But the risk of getting a Ebola is too much to ask. I draw the line at that.

And zombies. I'm not doing zombies, either. There is a line on what you can reasonably ask people to do.

Stalwart
09-17-2014, 01:33 PM
Looking at some of the projections of how ebola could spread if not dealt with, I see the 'national security' threat.

ISIS/ISIL is also a national security threat ... a long term one but a threat none the less that we can deal with now or later. They have stated their goal to attack targets on US soil, so take it for what you will.

I think the decision to put troops in Iraq to deal with ISIS/ISIL is the sum of a different equation that to send them to Africa to support dealing with ebola. Hostile threat, ability to protect own force, support of the locals and political 'optics' are all different. Not saying that I think the lack of presence on the ground is a good idea, but it is an apples and oranges comparison.

GEN Dempsey's testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday was particularly interesting, and at one point when questioned by Sen. Graham he give his opinion on the role that Middle East nation-states have in funding ISIS that is counter to the Administration's stated position (bravo to the GEN for following his legal role give his opinion when asked.)

efmbman
09-17-2014, 02:50 PM
In some ways, I think the two are related. Sending the troops to West Africa for the Ebola mission does present a risk of infection. However, their presence may also be seen as a target of opportunity by those that wish to do us harm. Once the shooting starts, it is not easy to turn it off. Besides, the culture in West Africa is very distrusting of western medicine, so ISIS has an opportunity to not only do us harm, but to future erode our humanitarian standing (which is on shaky ground already). If the presence of US troops in the area means that terrorists will attack, then that's just another reason to not want US troops in the area.

TJMAC77SP
09-17-2014, 03:27 PM
Rhetoric and hyperbole aside to completely dismiss the politics involved in the decision for and against in these cases is as myopic as anything Garhkal is being accused of.

Stalwart
09-17-2014, 03:32 PM
True, it is a difficult situation.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-17-2014, 03:51 PM
Rhetoric and hyperbole aside to completely dismiss the politics involved in the decision for and against in these cases is as myopic as anything Garhkal is being accused of.

Fair enough, since you obviously are traveling in the "pipe & slippers" circle these days, how about explaining the political calculus to us?

What are the political considerations behind sending troops to help contain the Ebola outbreak in West Africa?

I won't even ask you to explain the political concerns involved in trying to limit our footprint in Iraq. Since the "hand-buzzer" circle that I travel in thinks we are getting dragged back into a conflict in the Middle East sooner, or later.

MikeKerriii
09-17-2014, 04:02 PM
OK, so a big threat that is ISIS doesn't seem to warrant "Boots on the ground" but sending troops to set up medical tents, guard doctors etc for the fight against Ebola does?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/16/african-want-in-for-us-ebola-fight/15732249/

http://nypost.com/2014/09/16/us-will-send-3000-troops-to-help-fight-ebola-in-west-africa/

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-sending-troops-to-liberia-expanded-ebola-effort/2451118.html

One wonders, how many of the troops being sent over will come back with the disease, and whether the VA will get a funding boost to care for them?

Since there Job is to build faculties not treat patents, the risk is extremely small.

And The VA won't get a funding boost to treat Ebola patients, funeral costs are low for the VA and the survivors don't need long term medical help

Stalwart
09-17-2014, 04:11 PM
Ebola in west Africa; why not HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, avian flu in Asia or tuberculosis in Latin America? I can see arguments for all of those becoming politically charged discussions.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-17-2014, 04:31 PM
Ebola in west Africa; why not HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, avian flu in Asia or tuberculosis in Latin America? I can see arguments for all of those becoming politically charged discussions.

Sure, almost any topic can become politically charged. I think the point that eluded garkhal in the OP was that ground troops have already been deployed to Iraq. Yes, they haven't been sent in an offensive combat role, but they have been sent, and been added to since the initial deployment.

The troops going to West Africa aren't going as combat troops either.

Hence, we are somewhat baffled by his outrage.

Rainmaker
09-17-2014, 06:32 PM
Great. FORWARD TO THE WAR ON EBOLA!!! . What a bunch of fucking Bullshit. It's official folks... They've gone full retard now. Unfuckingbelievable. Just when you think it can't get any more absurd... it does. You can't even make this shit up.

This is all about securing resources before China does and nothing else. hell, What could go wrong? Never mind if we inadvertently create a GLOBAL FUCKING PANDEMIC along the way. not to worry, at least the LA school system will be armed with its MRAPs once the first Ebola panic breaks out in this country. Maybe they should keep the M203s after all.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-schools-weapons-20140917-story.html

Jesus, what a shitty fucking deployment. gotta feel for the poor bastards that gettin stuck with this gig. God Bless our troops. because, NOBODY is watching the store.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5awrAUWtk4

G. dubya highway. made in China

Rainmaker
09-17-2014, 07:28 PM
Looking at some of the projections of how ebola could spread if not dealt with, I see the 'national security' threat.

ISIS/ISIL is also a national security threat ... a long term one but a threat none the less that we can deal with now or later. They have stated their goal to attack targets on US soil, so take it for what you will.

I think the decision to put troops in Iraq to deal with ISIS/ISIL is the sum of a different equation that to send them to Africa to support dealing with ebola. Hostile threat, ability to protect own force, support of the locals and political 'optics' are all different. Not saying that I think the lack of presence on the ground is a good idea, but it is an apples and oranges comparison.

GEN Dempsey's testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday was particularly interesting, and at one point when questioned by Sen. Graham he give his opinion on the role that Middle East nation-states have in funding ISIS that is counter to the Administration's stated position (bravo to the GEN for following his legal role give his opinion when asked.)

And What was up with Dempsey's strange pronunciation of ISIL yesterday? He kept calling it iss-uhl. Instead of pronouncing the I (Eye-Suhl).

Must be more PC bullshit. just like when the CNN stooges started pronouncing Qatar. "Gutter" and "cutter". Instead of the old British way, that we'd been saying it for 2 decades. didn't wanna hurt anybody's wittle feelings.

We don't have any Generals anymore. All we have are cheap suit Politicians. Just like obozo calling them the Tally Bahn. What a bunch of elitist assholes. These guys are too much

garhkal
09-17-2014, 08:12 PM
Don't you ever get tired of manufacturing false outrage? You seriously can't see the difference between the two scenarios? The constant drumbeat of this type of post is what is forcing me into retirement from the forum; it's just not worth it for the low level of discourse.

How is it false outrage when i find it strange, that we are sending in Troops into a humanitarian zone, but NOT a war zone when those in the war zone are the bigger threat, AND i have yet to hear what is going to be done to ensure that those being sent into the disease zone don't catch and bring back the disease??


Sure, almost any topic can become politically charged. I think the point that eluded garkhal in the OP was that ground troops have already been deployed to Iraq. Yes, they haven't been sent in an offensive combat role, but they have been sent, and been added to since the initial deployment.

The troops going to West Africa aren't going as combat troops either.

Hence, we are somewhat baffled by his outrage.

But those troops sent into Iraq are not called troops, they were classed as military advisors, to watch and train. Heck obama even made it clear he does NOT want 'our boots on the ground' to combat ISIS in either Syria or Iraq, so why is it ok to send them into This area?

Absinthe Anecdote
09-17-2014, 10:18 PM
Must be more PC bullshit. just like when the CNN stooges started pronouncing Qatar. "Gutter" and "cutter". Instead of the old British way, that we'd been saying it for 2 decades. didn't wanna hurt anybody's wittle feelings.


How is that an example of PC bullshit?

I've studied a number of foreign languages over the years, and I can tell you that there are always more than one way to transliterate the sounds of a foreign language into the romanized alphabet of the English language.

The C and G sounds are always problematic and often lead mispronunciation and confusion. That's not just in Arabic either.

So what if CNN switched to a more widely accepted pronunciation of Qatar. It makes them more knowledgable in my opinion.

I think your statement above reeks of hypersensitivity to political correctness, and a ignorance of languages, including your native tongue.

You seem to enjoy viewing yourself as having the ability to see through bullshit, but how often do you question your own views?

Perhaps you should try to identify gaps in your own knowledge. I see evidence in your posts of considerable holes in your knowledge base of domestic and foreign affairs.

You really should, "tighten that shit up."

Gnomesaying?

Absinthe Anecdote
09-17-2014, 10:43 PM
How is it false outrage when i find it strange, that we are sending in Troops into a humanitarian zone, but NOT a war zone when those in the war zone are the bigger threat, AND i have yet to hear what is going to be done to ensure that those being sent into the disease zone don't catch and bring back the disease??


LOL @ humanitarian zone.





But those troops sent into Iraq are not called troops, they were classed as military advisors, to watch and train. Heck obama even made it clear he does NOT want 'our boots on the ground' to combat ISIS in either Syria or Iraq, so why is it ok to send them into This area?

Troops have been sent to both places, neither set of troops are going in a combat role. What's your beef?

If you don't like Obama, just say, "I don't like Obama."

No biggie, I don't like him that much either.

If you are going to start thread after thread of half baked criticisms of random news stories, be prepared to face my lampooning of your horribly inaccurate interpretation of current events.

Now, go slide down your idiot pole, and dig up another example of an outrageous inconsistency in the news.

Rainmaker
09-18-2014, 01:01 PM
How is that an example of PC bullshit?

I've studied a number of foreign languages over the years, and I can tell you that there are always more than one way to transliterate the sounds of a foreign language into the romanized alphabet of the English language.

The C and G sounds are always problematic and often lead mispronunciation and confusion. That's not just in Arabic either.

So what if CNN switched to a more widely accepted pronunciation of Qatar. It makes them more knowledgable in my opinion.

I think your statement above reeks of hypersensitivity to political correctness, and a ignorance of languages, including your native tongue.
You seem to enjoy viewing yourself as having the ability to see through bullshit, but how often do you question your own views?

Perhaps you should try to identify gaps in your own knowledge. I see evidence in your posts of considerable holes in your knowledge base of domestic and foreign affairs.

You really should, "tighten that shit up."

Gnomesaying?

Does Rainmaker ever reconsider his views? Yep, Every damn day. He understands perception is reality to him who perceives it. He also knows that ,in order to have a free society 2 +2 must be allowed to = 4.

And Just like AIPAC Lobbyist Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the CNN talking heads, Rainmaker also knows that Words mean things. So, Political Correctness is a cancer that must be rooted out wherever it is found. Rainmaker is the Posterity they were talking about. English is our language and Anglo-Saxon is the Syntax.

Congrats on completing your Rosetta Stone Farsi Level 1 courses. Impressive... Rainmaker used to be conversational German and Spanish (back when he lived in those countries) But, it's been 20+ years ago, so he's lost it. He also spent 3 1/2 years BOG in the AOR, and his duties included things other than reading a Reuters news feed and writing an assessment. He workin' on his MBA from a brick n mortar(not cause he thinks it makes him smarter. He Just don't want to give the money changers any reason to pay him less). Sure it prolly won't compare to "intelligence studies" or "Homeland Security" So, Your Hubris is understandable. That what happens to peeps who have no God. Always Remember...When the personification of reason asked the personification of truth. What is truth? The personification of truth didn't answer him.

You got the Typical down-state mentality. Smartest guy in the room. But, it's all good. Cause the curse of Davy Johnson is over. So, How bout dem O's Hon? Gnomesayn?

TJMAC77SP
09-18-2014, 01:33 PM
Sure, almost any topic can become politically charged. I think the point that eluded garkhal in the OP was that ground troops have already been deployed to Iraq. Yes, they haven't been sent in an offensive combat role, but they have been sent, and been added to since the initial deployment.

The troops going to West Africa aren't going as combat troops either.

Hence, we are somewhat baffled by his outrage.

So, since you seem to actually have the answer you sought from me (ignoring the part where I specifically dismissed Garkhal's rhetoric) was there something else you needed?

BTW..........."pipe and slippers circle"? Sorry, missed the reference. Also missed the 'hand-buzzer' reference while we're at it.

Another BTW: Regardless of what hairs the President decides to split, continuing to state the troops going into Iraq are not going to be in a combat role diminishes your credibility and quite frankly sounds naive. I guarantee you that the families of those troops are not resting any easier because politicos continue to say they aren't combat troops.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-18-2014, 04:02 PM
Does Rainmaker ever reconsider his views? Yep, Every damn day. He understands perception is reality to him who perceives it. He also knows that ,in order to have a free society 2 +2 must be allowed to = 4.

And Just like AIPAC Lobbyist Wolf Blitzer and the rest of the CNN talking heads, Rainmaker also knows that Words mean things. So, Political Correctness is a cancer that must be rooted out wherever it is found. Rainmaker is the Posterity they were talking about. English is our language and Anglo-Saxon is the Syntax.

Congrats on completing your Rosetta Stone Farsi Level 1 courses. Impressive... Rainmaker used to be conversational German and Spanish (back when he lived in those countries) But, it's been 20+ years ago, so he's lost it. He also spent 3 1/2 years BOG in the AOR, and his duties included things other than reading a Reuters news feed and writing an assessment. He workin' on his MBA from a brick n mortar(not cause he thinks it makes him smarter. He Just don't want to give the money changers any reason to pay him less). Sure it prolly won't compare to "intelligence studies" or "Homeland Security" So, Your Hubris is understandable. That what happens to peeps who have no God. Always Remember...When the personification of reason asked the personification of truth. What is truth? The personification of truth didn't answer him.

You got the Typical down-state mentality. Smartest guy in the room. But, it's all good. Cause the curse of Davy Johnson is over. So, How bout dem O's Hon? Gnomesayn?

Thanks for the resume, and all that other stuff.

Since you maintain that political correctness is something that must be rooted out, then I think you would be concerned with how to identify it.

Going on a rant about how newscasters pronounce Qatar, seems like you are very eager to slap the PC label on almost anything.

On the issue of how to pronounce Qatar, the confusion and variations on how English speakers pronounce it, has to do with sounds in the Arabic dialect used in Qatar that don't exist in English.

If you label that as an example of political correctness run amok, I'd have to say that you are seeing things that aren't there.

You are coming across as an angry villager with a pitch fork, and not as a suave intellect with an MBA.

As far as me being the smartest guy in the room, in some rooms I am. In the room that contains AA and rainmaker? Hell yes! I am the smartest!

Absinthe Anecdote
09-18-2014, 04:35 PM
So, since you seem to actually have the answer you sought from me (ignoring the part where I specifically dismissed Garkhal's rhetoric) was there something else you needed?

BTW..........."pipe and slippers circle"? Sorry, missed the reference. Also missed the 'hand-buzzer' reference while we're at it.

Another BTW: Regardless of what hairs the President decides to split, continuing to state the troops going into Iraq are not going to be in a combat role diminishes your credibility and quite frankly sounds naive. I guarantee you that the families of those troops are not resting any easier because politicos continue to say they aren't combat troops.

Try again, you quoted one of my posts, and then referenced a bunch of stuff in a different post. Plus, you strayed off topic and referenced the families concern over the safety of deployed troops. That wasn't even a point of contention. Additionally, if you quoted the post with the "hand buzzer" reference, you'd see that I think we are headed for another war in the Middle East, sooner or later.

Sorry you couldn't enjoy the "pipe & slippers" and "hand buzzer" references. Try figuring it out from contextual clues, or go practice your Google Fu.

Captain Alfredo recently made a comment about the low-level of discourse around here, your response is a great example of it.

I asked you to explain the political calculus of sending troops to help contain the Ebola outbreak, and just look at your response. Rambling, off-target, and with a quote from my exchange with another person.

Try following the advice in your own signature block!

Rainmaker
09-18-2014, 04:42 PM
Thanks for the resume, and all that other stuff.

Since you maintain that political correctness is something that must be rooted out, then I think you would be concerned with how to identify it.

Going on a rant about how newscasters pronounce Qatar, seems like you are very eager to slap the PC label on almost anything.

On the issue of how to pronounce Qatar, the confusion and variations on how English speakers pronounce it, has to do with sounds in the Arabic dialect used in Qatar that don't exist in English.

If you label that as an example of political correctness run amok, I'd have to say that you are seeing things that aren't there.

You are coming across as an angry villager with a pitch fork, and not as a suave intellect with an MBA.

As far as me being the smartest guy in the room, in some rooms I am. In the room that contains AA and rainmaker? Hell yes! I am the smartest!

Maybe Rainmaker wants to sound like an angry villager wiff a pitchfork? Reportedly,You pretty smart, so Rainmaker won't be putting irony punctuation on his posts for you genius. you either get it or you don't.

Well, golly gee... then, please remember your audience and keep your keen analysis simple for us ignant crackas in the room. We a little slow on the uptake. You know Mama always had a way of explaining things so we could understand em...

TJMAC77SP
09-18-2014, 05:33 PM
Try again, you quoted one of my posts, and then referenced a bunch of stuff in a different post. Plus, you strayed off topic and referenced the families concern over the safety of deployed troops. That wasn't even a point of contention. Additionally, if you quoted the post with the "hand buzzer" reference, you'd see that I think we are headed for another war in the Middle East, sooner or later.

Sorry you couldn't enjoy the "pipe & slippers" and "hand buzzer" references. Try figuring it out from contextual clues, or go practice your Google Fu.

Captain Alfredo recently made a comment about the low-level of discourse around here, your response is a great example of it.

I asked you to explain the political calculus of sending troops to help contain the Ebola outbreak, and just look at your response. Rambling, off-target, and with a quote from my exchange with another person.

Try following the advice in your own signature block!

It seems you have defaulted to simple (repeat simple) attempts at sarcastic insults as a way to answer points raised on the forum. I would venture Capt Alfredo might include that in his description of the current state of affair in the MTF. I rather thought he meant the multi-page rants about the most mundane topics while remaining completely silent (or near silent) on the really important things going on here.

I think you and I have a different definition of 'rambling'. My last post had exactly three parts.

Part one was a simple statement that you seem to actually recognize the political aspects of the two situations (troops to Iraq and troops to Africa) and so I am left to assume that you have another agenda in asking me to explain my rather obvious post on the topic.

Part two was a simple statement that I didn't get your attempt at humor (again) and didn't understand the two cited quips. You are correct in that I could have Googled them.

Part three was to point out the blatant and obvious ludicrousness of portraying any US troops deploying to Iraq now as being in anything but a combat mission. You can play semantics with the term all you want. It is either naïve or intentionally obtuse. Either way it is wrong in so many ways.

I quoted the second post because it directly related to the 'question' you asked me. Exactly how was it rambling? Hell this post is more rambling than that one.

Let me add just for those who might have a legitimate question regarding my comments made earlier.

In one case we have conflicting statements by various members of the administration and an admission by the President that there is no plan to counter the obvious threat of ISIS. A couple of weeks later after howling by a HUGE majority of Americans, dems and GOP alike, the President announces a troop deployment. A deployment so rife with double talk ("No Boots on the Ground") as to be absurd. Even the CJCS can't get the words out of his mouth.

Next we have a quick and decisive decision to deploy troops to Africa to aid in the fight against Ebola. Not medical aid mind you but basically construction and logistics support. This is window dressing. There are probably over a hundred aid organization already on the ground in Africa which direct support to their existing infrastructure may have helped quicker and more efficiently. Of course that doesn't have the political graphic appeal of sending US troops does it?

This isn't a matter of what I desire or not. I do not want another war in Iraq (but think it is inevitable) and I certainly don't oppose in our aiding in the fight against Ebola. It is simply a matter of calling political maneuvering just that.

Hence why I made my first comment. Garhkal might have been attempting to stir the shit pot but to just dismiss his overall point is just as specious.

Absinthe Anecdote
09-18-2014, 06:47 PM
It seems you have defaulted to simple (repeat simple) attempts at sarcastic insults as a way to answer points raised on the forum. I would venture Capt Alfredo might include that in his description of the current state of affair in the MTF. I rather thought he meant the multi-page rants about the most mundane topics while remaining completely silent (or near silent) on the really important things going on here.

I think you and I have a different definition of 'rambling'. My last post had exactly three parts.

Part one was a simple statement that you seem to actually recognize the political aspects of the two situations (troops to Iraq and troops to Africa) and so I am left to assume that you have another agenda in asking me to explain my rather obvious post on the topic.

Part two was a simple statement that I didn't get your attempt at humor (again) and didn't understand the two cited quips. You are correct in that I could have Googled them.

Part three was to point out the blatant and obvious ludicrousness of portraying any US troops deploying to Iraq now as being in anything but a combat mission. You can play semantics with the term all you want. It is either naïve or intentionally obtuse. Either way it is wrong in so many ways.

I quoted the second post because it directly related to the 'question' you asked me. Exactly how was it rambling? Hell this post is more rambling than that one.

Let me add just for those who might have a legitimate question regarding my comments made earlier.

In one case we have conflicting statements by various members of the administration and an admission by the President that there is no plan to counter the obvious threat of ISIS. A couple of weeks later after howling by a HUGE majority of Americans, dems and GOP alike, the President announces a troop deployment. A deployment so rife with double talk ("No Boots on the Ground") as to be absurd. Even the CJCS can't get the words out of his mouth.

Next we have a quick and decisive decision to deploy troops to Africa to aid in the fight against Ebola. Not medical aid mind you but basically construction and logistics support. This is window dressing. There are probably over a hundred aid organization already on the ground in Africa which direct support to their existing infrastructure may have helped quicker and more efficiently. Of course that doesn't have the political graphic appeal of sending US troops does it?

This isn't a matter of what I desire or not. I do not want another war in Iraq (but think it is inevitable) and I certainly don't oppose in our aiding in the fight against Ebola. It is simply a matter of calling political maneuvering just that.

Hence why I made my first comment. Garhkal might have been attempting to stir the shit pot but to just dismiss his overall point is just as specious.

My problem with your responses are as follows:

You routinely call people wrong or imply they are wrong, and then offer evidence that is at best, only tangentially related. Either that, or you completely mischaracterize their posts.

When proven to be incorrect on a point, you so very often have the audacity to innocently ask, "what part of my post did I say that?" When it has been bolded and placed in red font.

In this latest exchange, you jumped in and called everyone myopic, then when challenged by me, you responded by choosing another post of mine to quote, while responding to the first one in an attempt to twist the narrative in your favor.

You are either doing that crap on purpose, or you have trouble following along.

I can't tell which, but trust me, it is every bit annoying as my sarcastic, irreverent shenanigans.

Then you stuffily call me simple for taking jabs at you like pipe & slippers? What a hoot you are sometimes, really, what a fucking hoot.

Pal, you have a long reputation on this forum for pulling that crap on people, and not just me.

I used to think you were a masterful troll, and were just fucking with people, but now I'm not so sure.

TJMAC77SP
09-18-2014, 07:22 PM
My problem with your responses are as follows:

You routinely call people wrong or imply they are wrong, and then offerevidence that is at best, only tangentially related. Either that, or youcompletely mischaracterize their posts.

When proven to be incorrect on a point, you so very often have the audacity toinnocently ask, "what part of my post did I say that?" When it hasbeen bolded and place in red font.

In this latest exchange, you jumped in and called everyone myopic, then whenchallenged by me, you responded by choosing another post of mine to quote,while responding to the first one in an attempt to twist the narrative in yourfavor.

You are either doing that crap on purpose, or you have trouble following along.

I can't tell which, but trust me, it is every bit annoying as my sarcastic,irreverent shenanigans.

Then you stuffily call me simple for taking jabs at you like pipe &slippers? What a hoot you are sometimes, really, what a fucking hoot.

Pal, you have a long reputation on this forum for pulling that crap on people,and not just me.

I used to think you were a masterful troll, and were just fucking with people,but now I'm not so sure.

I am pretty sure I know what actual problem you have with my response.

I offer direct evidence. Granted sometimes this reflects my opinion but I try to identify that assuch and leave out the hyperbole.

I explained quite clearly why I quoted your second post and I see that other than this rant which says basically…”you are wrong” there is nothing of substance in this rant.

Speaking of ‘hoots’, you using the ‘stuffily’ towards anyone is hypocrisy to the point of the absurd.

I claimed a myopic view and have explained that position incogent and relevant terms. I haven’t seen that from you. In fact I haven’t seen any point I raised directly addressed.

I am well aware of the problem you have with my responses……..I have outlined it above.

Perhaps in your next response you could actually address what I said and not your disdain
for my “wall-of-words” as you said?