IgnorarenceDrDestruction wrote:
No, more or less your sheer ignorance to anyone's opinions but your own.
IgnoranceHorseman 77 wrote:
IgnorarenceDrDestruction wrote:
No, more or less your sheer ignorance to anyone's opinions but your own.
root word, Ignore .. I ignored your opinion. yet some how I read it and answerd to it
(in jest). The "Ha ha" was a clue that excaped your educated eye, so you didnt get it.
Not the first time I would wager.
Maybe your an asshole? Thats the safe bet.
Last edited by DrDestruction (2005-12-04 16:21:50)
My bet isDrDestruction wrote:
IgnoranceHorseman 77 wrote:
IgnorarenceDrDestruction wrote:
No, more or less your sheer ignorance to anyone's opinions but your own.
root word, Ignore .. I ignored your opinion. yet some how I read it and answerd to it
(in jest). The "Ha ha" was a clue that excaped your educated eye, so you didnt get it.
Not the first time I would wager.
Maybe your an asshole? Thats the safe bet.
n : the lack of knowlegde or edumacation
How old are you? 13? 12? Apparently not old enough for these forums.
Let's see, I could have dissected this one nice and slow, but I decided not to waste so much time on you.Horseman 77 wrote:
My bet isDrDestruction wrote:
IgnoranceHorseman 77 wrote:
Ignorarence
root word, Ignore .. I ignored your opinion. yet some how I read it and answerd to it
(in jest). The "Ha ha" was a clue that excaped your educated eye, so you didnt get it.
Not the first time I would wager.
Maybe your an asshole? Thats the safe bet.
n : the lack of knowlegde or edumacation
How old are you? 13? 12? Apparently not old enough for these forums.
1 you are not in charge of this forum
2 you are not in charge of anything and
3 probebly never will be.
Yep you are in a battle of wits witha 12 year old and you managed to fall on your own sword.
Start with your shoelaces and work your way up.
then enter a battle of wit, as of now your unarmed
ps come up with your own matariel please
Or if Horseman was never born, we wouldn't be having to put up with his arguments.DrDestruction wrote:
Let's see, I could have dissected this one nice and slow, but I decided not to waste so much time on you.Horseman 77 wrote:
My bet isDrDestruction wrote:
Ignorance
n : the lack of knowlegde or edumacation
How old are you? 13? 12? Apparently not old enough for these forums.
1 you are not in charge of this forum
2 you are not in charge of anything and
3 probebly never will be.
Yep you are in a battle of wits witha 12 year old and you managed to fall on your own sword.
Start with your shoelaces and work your way up.
then enter a battle of wit, as of now your unarmed
ps come up with your own matariel please
1. Nice grammar. I see 12 years of education has really paid off on people like you.
2. Wow! More arguments with absolutely no factual basis on anything. Seriously, I would think by 12 years of age you would have grown out of the "well no YOURE stupid" kind of stuff.
3. Fall on my own sword? Please, tell me how I did that? This isnt a battle of wits. You took offense to something harmless I said and starting whining about it. Must be your time of month.
4. Come up with my own material? What "material" did I steal? I simply looked up the definition of a word you apparently had absolutely no understanding of. Sorry if I ruined your day.
By the way, I think the simple fact you decided to change my quote shows your immaturity.
The only thing I'm doing wrong is wasting more time on you than I should have. You are obviously still in your "Im young and I know everything LOL!!!1111" stage of life. Post again when you hit puberty.
Dude, WTF? Knierno is completely right. I am going to take a guess and say that you didn't understand what he said. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but he is still correct. There is no reason for you to go and bash him randomly. Also, how do you know that he is a kid? He could be your age or older. Or he could be younger. Even if he is, why do you care? All he did was make a mature, observant comment about the consequences of religion on human behavior. His age doesn't matter.Horseman 77 wrote:
Listen to this wordy, pseudo intellectual wanna be blather. He thinks the more words he uses in a sentence the smarter he sounds.Kniero wrote:
Just think...if man hadn't the inclination to conjure dellusional belief in the supernatural (i.e. "God/Allah"), no jihadists would exist. Aggressive ignorance is the worst ailment to plague the homo sapien.
" and further more The stated parties Concur whereas in toto the former stipulates Bla bla Bla .."
go to bed kid. Now.. . . NOW
For someone who claims to know what jest is, you certainly can't recognize it. Especially when I put the disclaimer right under it:Horseman 77 wrote:
Or if Horseman was never born, we wouldn't be having to put up with his arguments.DrDestruction wrote:
Let's see, I could have dissected this one nice and slow, but I decided not to waste so much time on you.Horseman 77 wrote:
My bet is
1 you are not in charge of this forum
2 you are not in charge of anything and
3 probebly never will be.
Yep you are in a battle of wits witha 12 year old and you managed to fall on your own sword.
Start with your shoelaces and work your way up.
then enter a battle of wit, as of now your unarmed
ps come up with your own matariel please
1. Nice grammar. I see 12 years of education has really paid off on people like you.
2. Wow! More arguments with absolutely no factual basis on anything. Seriously, I would think by 12 years of age you would have grown out of the "well no YOURE stupid" kind of stuff.
3. Fall on my own sword? Please, tell me how I did that? This isnt a battle of wits. You took offense to something harmless I said and starting whining about it. Must be your time of month.
4. Come up with my own material? What "material" did I steal? I simply looked up the definition of a word you apparently had absolutely no understanding of. Sorry if I ruined your day.
By the way, I think the simple fact you decided to change my quote shows your immaturity.
The only thing I'm doing wrong is wasting more time on you than I should have. You are obviously still in your "Im young and I know everything LOL!!!1111" stage of life. Post again when you hit puberty.
This is not an insult. wtf
don't move to NYC you'd get your ass kicked off pretty quick.
I answered you in jest, it was obvious, if not to you, .
and yea I did reach puberty that's what's caught on your tongue
Chill out, you win I just get pissed easy, must be menstrual thing
Slaming is fun now curse back at me
Boy, yeah, sure looked serious to me. (SARCASM, in case you are wondering).Or if Horseman was never born, we wouldn't be having to put up with his arguments.
Not being a jackass, .... to late lol
just making a point.
Thank you. At least Im not the only one recognizing this kid's immaturity.This forum is called "Debate and Serious Talk" for a reason. Grow up, and please try to state your opinions in a mature, articulate fashion instead of bashing someone's else's opinion.
-Jeff
Good plan, except I wouldn't be allowed. I am 14, turning 15 in Feb.Thank you. At least Im not the only one recognizing this kid's immaturity.
I think there should be a 16 and older rule for these boards, but that's just my view.
My apologies then. I could not have known, because your posts are mature. I would have taken you for much older than you were.psykoroman wrote:
Good plan, except I wouldn't be allowed. I am 14, turning 15 in Feb.Thank you. At least Im not the only one recognizing this kid's immaturity.
I think there should be a 16 and older rule for these boards, but that's just my view.
-Jeff
Tell me this four months ago, and I would have told you your thinking is a crock of sh*t. Nowadays, however, Im growing to believe this more and more, good point.It's no longer a war. It's now a police action. We all know what happened during the last police action. We won the battles but lost the war.
how true. well put.lush-kil wrote:
It's no longer a war. It's now a police action. We all know what happened during the last police action. We won the battles but lost the war.
Dude, Korea was a police action, it worked out rather well Strategically for The US as a Whole.j5f5ff wrote:
how true. well put.lush-kil wrote:
It's no longer a war. It's now a police action. We all know what happened during the last police action. We won the battles but lost the war.
The issue with Nam wasn't so much the media as it was the threat of nuclear war. Russia threatened to support North Vietnam in the conflict if it was needed, and they more than likely would have employed nuclear weapons in the process. This to me is much more dangerous and disgraceful (to everyone) than just pulling out of Nam and letting the (seemingly inevitable) happen.Horseman 77 wrote:
Dude, Korea was a police action, it worked out rather well Strategically for The US as a Whole.j5f5ff wrote:
how true. well put.lush-kil wrote:
It's no longer a war. It's now a police action. We all know what happened during the last police action. We won the battles but lost the war.
Nam was going well to the Media made it a failure. They want us back there now.
Last edited by MajorSpittle (2015-11-16 16:37:59)
So what's you're solution then precisely?MajorSpittle wrote:
here we are a decade later.
Bush lost the war by not knowing what the enemy was. All he had to do was insure freedom of religion was protected and part of Iraq's new constitution.
US lost the lives, the money destroying/rebuilding a country, and then turned it all over to the same violent force that destroys all that will not bow before the lowest common denominator in its ranks.
I find it amazing that our political leaders and many citizens are still in the dark as to what "fighting terrorism" is, yet they still want to wage an endless war against the "terrorist" with no other plan on how to stop "terrorism".
No matter how many bad guys you kill they will always be replaced because the root of the problem is never addressed. Until people are free of the repression of Islam, Islam will always create terrorists. Freedom to choose your religion, freedom to convert, human rights, education, social freedom...... this is more powerful than any bomb in fighting terrorism.
There is no hope of winning the war. 100 sheep can't defeat 1 wolf.
I am ready to recommit troops to Iraq and to defeat ISIS in Syria. Only way ISIS is going to be expelled from their territory there. Instead of going through a large nation building effort, we should just train and assist in the formation of a domestic security force able to hold territory against Islamic extremists. Then pressure the two governments to devolve political power down to the local America friendly groups.coke wrote:
So what's you're solution then precisely?MajorSpittle wrote:
here we are a decade later.
Bush lost the war by not knowing what the enemy was. All he had to do was insure freedom of religion was protected and part of Iraq's new constitution.
US lost the lives, the money destroying/rebuilding a country, and then turned it all over to the same violent force that destroys all that will not bow before the lowest common denominator in its ranks.
I find it amazing that our political leaders and many citizens are still in the dark as to what "fighting terrorism" is, yet they still want to wage an endless war against the "terrorist" with no other plan on how to stop "terrorism".
No matter how many bad guys you kill they will always be replaced because the root of the problem is never addressed. Until people are free of the repression of Islam, Islam will always create terrorists. Freedom to choose your religion, freedom to convert, human rights, education, social freedom...... this is more powerful than any bomb in fighting terrorism.
There is no hope of winning the war. 100 sheep can't defeat 1 wolf.
Also "I am more afraid of an army of 100 sheep led by a lion than an army of 100 lions led by a sheep."
We did that already and it cost us billions to fail. Unless the usa polices the region for generations and reforms all levels of government to enforce human rights, especially freedom of religion, the lowest common denominator of the Islamic religion will control the area.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I am ready to recommit troops to Iraq and to defeat ISIS in Syria. Only way ISIS is going to be expelled from their territory there. Instead of going through a large nation building effort, we should just train and assist in the formation of a domestic security force able to hold territory against Islamic extremists. Then pressure the two governments to devolve political power down to the local America friendly groups.coke wrote:
So what's you're solution then precisely?MajorSpittle wrote:
here we are a decade later.
Bush lost the war by not knowing what the enemy was. All he had to do was insure freedom of religion was protected and part of Iraq's new constitution.
US lost the lives, the money destroying/rebuilding a country, and then turned it all over to the same violent force that destroys all that will not bow before the lowest common denominator in its ranks.
I find it amazing that our political leaders and many citizens are still in the dark as to what "fighting terrorism" is, yet they still want to wage an endless war against the "terrorist" with no other plan on how to stop "terrorism".
No matter how many bad guys you kill they will always be replaced because the root of the problem is never addressed. Until people are free of the repression of Islam, Islam will always create terrorists. Freedom to choose your religion, freedom to convert, human rights, education, social freedom...... this is more powerful than any bomb in fighting terrorism.
There is no hope of winning the war. 100 sheep can't defeat 1 wolf.
Also "I am more afraid of an army of 100 sheep led by a lion than an army of 100 lions led by a sheep."
Last edited by MajorSpittle (2015-11-17 09:01:49)
It didn't fail though. It worked. Our disengagement is what doomed Iraq. There was peace in northern Iraq when we left.Spit wrote:
We did that already and it cost us billions to fail.
Mac, if you haven't noticed, that's the only thing people here who talk about "serious" subjects do.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Just a lot of complaining.
I was just pointing out that it is pointless to do anything militarily unless it is in parallel with removing Islamic control over the people's lives. That didn't happen in iraq. Sharia law ruled, people could express other religious veiws, people could not leave that religion. Islam was addressed right in the Constitution for iraq. It took precedence over everything.SuperJail Warden wrote:
It didn't fail though. It worked. Our disengagement is what doomed Iraq. There was peace in northern Iraq when we left.Spit wrote:
We did that already and it cost us billions to fail.
What the hell are you talking about freedom? The Iraqi constitution is freer than the American.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitut … d_freedoms
How are you supposed to give them freedom (???) without eliminating ISIS open movement and political control.
Sharia law did not rule in Iraq. Islamic principles were cited as the basis of the government but the courts and legal system was secular in practice and by law. Sharia was only applicable as an option in civil cases such as divorce and marriage. But many U.S. states allow Sharia courts to have it as an option also.MajorSpittle wrote:
I was just pointing out that it is pointless to do anything militarily unless it is in parallel with removing Islamic control over the people's lives. That didn't happen in iraq. Sharia law ruled, people could express other religious veiws, people could not leave that religion. Islam was addressed right in the Constitution for iraq. It took precedence over everything.SuperJail Warden wrote:
It didn't fail though. It worked. Our disengagement is what doomed Iraq. There was peace in northern Iraq when we left.Spit wrote:
We did that already and it cost us billions to fail.
What the hell are you talking about freedom? The Iraqi constitution is freer than the American.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitut … d_freedoms
How are you supposed to give them freedom (???) without eliminating ISIS open movement and political control.