Iran massing troops on Iraq border

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Info - you can call my feeding of the troll whatever you want if it helps you sleep at night.

CkG

Was that entire post aimed at me? It's completely irrelevant what other people are doing. I'm not talking about heartsurgeon, michael, or other posters who I've heard berated by other posters for being trolls or whatnot.

I'm talking about conjur and your post. You completely failed to respond to my previous post. I will assume you are at your bleating point unless your next post actually responds to some of my questions or statements.

Here's what I'm calling your post: the same thing that conjur did, troll or not. (Also, it was more off-topic).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Info - you can call my feeding of the troll whatever you want if it helps you sleep at night.

CkG

Was that entire post aimed at me? It's completely irrelevant what other people are doing. I'm not talking about heartsurgeon, michael, or other posters who I've heard berated by other posters for being trolls or whatnot.

I'm talking about conjur and your post. You completely failed to respond to my previous post. I will assume you are at your bleating point unless your next post actually responds to some of my questions or statements.

Here's what I'm calling your post: the same thing that conjur did, troll or not. (Also, it was more off-topic).

You still don't seem to understand that I alread addressed that. My feeding of the troll(my first post in this thread) was incorrect and I have apologized for it. Do you understand yet info or do I need to use bold words before you catch it....oh wait...

CkG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

You still don't seem to understand that I alread addressed that. My feeding of the troll(my first post in this thread) was incorrect and I have apologized for it. Do you understand yet info or do I need to use bold words before you catch it....oh wait...

CkG

Wrong. You haven't answered my question. I didn't ask you whether your feeding the troll was incorrect. "Nice try though."

Here is what I've asked you repeatedly and you have failed to answer:

Do you consider your first post to be a troll?

Saying that your first post was incorrect doesnt' say if it's a troll or not, unless your definition of a troll is someone who makes an "incorrect" post. Is that your definition?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

You still don't seem to understand that I alread addressed that. My feeding of the troll(my first post in this thread) was incorrect and I have apologized for it. Do you understand yet info or do I need to use bold words before you catch it....oh wait...

CkG

Wrong. You haven't answered my question. I didn't ask you whether your feeding the troll was incorrect. "Nice try though."

Here is what I've asked you repeatedly and you have failed to answer:

Do you consider your first post to be a troll?

Saying that your first post was incorrect doesnt' say if it's a troll or not, unless your definition of a troll is someone who makes an "incorrect" post. Is that your definition?

I see you still don't understand that I answered you. You wanted a yes/no answer to somthing which is debatable depending on if you think feeding a troll is trolling itself. Some do - some don't. conjur trolled and I fed him. THAT is what my first post was and that is what I have said. Call it what you wish if it helps you sleep. I see you tried to use bold words. That's nice but I've already understood and addressed that issue. It's YOU who soesn't seem to be understanding what is going on here.

You can continue if you wish but I don't think you'll ever understand because you don't seem to want to. I hope I'm wrong but if history serves as a guide - you won't.

CkG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

I see you still don't understand that I answered you.

You haven't.

You wanted a yes/no answer to somthing which is debatable depending on if you think feeding a troll is trolling itself.

No, I am asking you if you think feeding a troll is trolling itself.

Some do - some don't.

AND WHAT DO YOU THINK?

That is my question.

conjur trolled and I fed him. THAT is what my first post was and that is what I have said.

I know that, but that's not what I've been asking.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

I see you still don't understand that I answered you.

You haven't.

You wanted a yes/no answer to somthing which is debatable depending on if you think feeding a troll is trolling itself.

No, I am asking you if you think feeding a troll is trolling itself.

Some do - some don't.

AND WHAT DO YOU THINK?

That is my question.

conjur trolled and I fed him. THAT is what my first post was and that is what I have said.

I know that, but that's not what I've been asking.

I consider my first post to be feeding a troll. THAT is how it has been answered and will be answered. You can say it's trolling itself and some will agree and some won't. The point is - I apologized for my feeding of the troll regardless of what you wish or want others to call it. I still don't know why you feel it necessary to continue with your diversion. I've addressed the issue of me feeding the troll and so lets get back to Iran(or blaming Bush since that's why this thread was posted anyway).

CkG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

You can say it's trolling itself and some will agree and some won't.

And what would YOU say?

The point is - I apologized for my feeding of the troll regardless of what you wish or want others to call it.

That's not my point. At this point I'm curious to see if you're capable of answering a yes or no question and to know whether you think answering a troll is a troll itself. Honestly, I've given you a couple yes or no questions and you're obfuscating. It's not like they're quetions that assume something you don't agree with.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

You can say it's trolling itself and some will agree and some won't.

And what would YOU say?

The point is - I apologized for my feeding of the troll regardless of what you wish or want others to call it.

That's not my point. At this point I'm curious to see if you're capable of answering a yes or no question and to know whether you think answering a troll is a troll itself. Honestly, I've given you a couple yes or no questions and you're obfuscating. It's not like they're quetions that assume something you don't agree with.

No, I'm not obfuscating. I've already addressed the issue, you just don't seem to be able to accept that fact. Are you ever going to get around to discussing the topic or is your only goal to have me answer your silly question that can be answered either way depending on your opinions.

CkG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
silly question that can be answered either way depending on your opinions.

What's your opinion about it? This thread is already woefully off-topic as it is. Nobody is being stopped from posting on topic again. You've only address YOUR issue.

Your possible answers to a simple question are:

1. yes
2. no
3. I don't know
4. your question is loaded (i.e. it assumes something I disagree with)
5. I don't understand your question

1-5 which one is it?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Michael
Perknose - The US Congress and Senate voted overwhelmingly to invade. The American public opinion was also very much in favor of the invasion. Clinton came out in support of the invasion. The UK was also strongly involved from the get go.

You're letting Bush hate overtake your reasoning facilities. Take a step away from the keyboard and engage your brain again.

And, yes, Bush is the Commander-in-Chief, but it wasn't as if the vast amjority of people were not saying go for it.

Plus there are lots of hand-wringers saying I warned ya. Of course, they've been wrong on so many other items that i doubt they're right on this issue.

I swear, one unsubstantiated wire report and the anti-Bush bleators all pile into the thread and whine their same old whines while predicting that the sky is falling.

Michael

No they didn't. They gave Bush a blank cheque to do with as he saw fit. Big difference.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I think the key sticking point that many neocons ignore is that most democrats are not opposed to the removal of Sadaam Hussein.

What we are opposed to is the following:

1. Given false information about Hussein being an imminent threat, and being lied to about the basic PREMISE for war.
2. The irresponsible and immature way this administration treats other countries. The arrogance that Bush displays and the attitude of this administration is disgusting. We need to create a global unit to combat terrorism, but Bush has taken major steps backwards in this area.
3. The lack of a true, global, and united coalition force to deal with the Iraq situation. If we had come to Iraq, not alone, but with the help and aid of many countries we would not be seen in the same light that we are seen now. Instead, we are breeding more terrorists through the irresponsible and irrational approach to foreign policy this administration has displayed.

In the end, was Hussein's removal necessary? I think so. Did we go about it in the best possible way? Hell no, and that is why I'm voting for Kerry. He understands how we need to combat terrorism on a global level, and it does not mean we have to fight this battle alone.

 

[sandorski]

That aricle is rather brief and vague. There could be other reasons besides invasion of Iraq.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
silly question that can be answered either way depending on your opinions.

What's your opinion about it? This thread is already woefully off-topic as it is. Nobody is being stopped from posting on topic again. You've only address YOUR issue.

Your possible answers to a simple question are:

1. yes
2. no
3. I don't know
4. your question is loaded (i.e. it assumes something I disagree with)
5. I don't understand your question

1-5 which one is it?

6. Maybe, maybe not.
I've already answered how I'm going to answer this issue. It was feeding a troll - that is my position.
***************

sandorski- "blank cheque"? no, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the war.

CkG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


6. Maybe, maybe not.

And what does it depend on? Don't tell me someone's opinion because I'm asking for your opinion and you MUST know that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY


6. Maybe, maybe not.

And what does it depend on? Don't tell me someone's opinion because I'm asking for your opinion and you MUST know that.

Depends on who's definition you use.

CkG

 

[AndrewR]

I haven't been reading much on here lately, but it's absolutely amazing to watch the anti-administration zealots in action. The obfuscation and hyperbole is truly astonishing.

...massed four battalions...

Oh God, we're talking anywhere from 1,000-3,000 troops!! Given the level of quality of the Iranian military, that's about the equivalent of a couple companies of US troops. In actuality, with dominant US airpower, we only need a TAC-P team on the ground to augur in some aircraft with a few cluster munitions. This is a threat? To whom? Bambi?

This situation is 100% Bush's fault.

What situation? For all we know, these are regular manuevers of Iranian troops, or perhaps they are actually enforcing border controls to prevent their intelligence agents from aiding Shia groups.

Tell us that Iran does not already have Terrorists inside the USA waiting to strike??

Better go hide in your bunker in the backyard. The Iranians have learned what happens when they attempt to attack the US and have wisely backed off that tack over the last couple decades (remember their Navy and their oil platforms? the ones we annihilated?). As for their nukes, if they exist, they have no means to deliver them very far. But for all their idiocy, they aren't crazy enough to a) launch nukes against anyone, or b) somehow fund or incite terrorists to attack the US. We would find out if they were behind attacks, and they would go the way of the Taliban -- AND THEY KNOW THIS. They aren't as stupid as you appear to be.

Why, we have such airtight control over the situation in Iraq that starting another front against another enemy is just the ticket!

Oh, did you just get back from Iraq? Please do share your in-country experiences. See my other post (in a few minutes).

 

[Red Dawn]

Just threaten to douse them with Water Cannons and soap, that should demoralize them!

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
I haven't been reading much on here lately, but it's absolutely amazing to watch the anti-administration zealots in action. The obfuscation and hyperbole is truly astonishing.

Just like Dubya's fan boys

...massed four battalions...

Oh God, we're talking anywhere from 1,000-3,000 troops!! Given the level of quality of the Iranian military, that's about the equivalent of a couple companies of US troops. In actuality, with dominant US airpower, we only need a TAC-P team on the ground to augur in some aircraft with a few cluster munitions. This is a threat? To whom? Bambi?

Just like Iraq's WMD's.

As for their nukes, if they exist, they have no means to deliver them very far.

Just like Iraq's WMD's.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[Michael]

There was no "blank cheque" given. That would be an ever greater scandal. You cannot say (with credibility) that the war was not voted on in the House and Sneate and approved.

Again, bleating "Bush Bad!" and working yourself into a frenzy over unsustantiated wire reports is, in my opinion, a sign of a mental disturbance where rational thought has been abandoned. I don't expect better from posters like conjur. Perknose I'm surprised at. I often disagree with his point of view, but it usually has more substance behind it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
silly question that can be answered either way depending on your opinions.

What's your opinion about it? This thread is already woefully off-topic as it is. Nobody is being stopped from posting on topic again. You've only address YOUR issue.

Your possible answers to a simple question are:

1. yes
2. no
3. I don't know
4. your question is loaded (i.e. it assumes something I disagree with)
5. I don't understand your question

1-5 which one is it?

That was quite a Schmoo punching event there, Infohawk. I told you Cad was a waste of time. His modus operandi is deflect deflect deflect. I'm sure he's so far gone that he actually believes he answered your question. He couldn't say he was trolling cause of the egg on the face, but he couldn't say he wasn't because God knows it's a lie. Caddy makes a tremendous noise, but he's not very big.

 

[lozina]

So allegedly, Iran has "massed" four battalions on the border. Now, based on this site, a battalion is typically 300-1,000 soldiers. So all this hysteria over possibly 1,200 troops?

Talk about 'sky is falling' paranoia. They're probably just border guard reorganization.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: lozina
So allegedly, Iran has "massed" four battalions on the border. Now, based on this site, a battalion is typically 300-1,000 soldiers. So all this hysteria over possibly 1,200 troops?

Talk about 'sky is falling' paranoia. They're probably just border guard reorganization.

this isn't even the juiciest part.

who is the source for this news item. here in p&n we have a huge mania with 'legitimate'
news sources. the definition for 'legitimate', or unbiased, or fair, is quite fickle and changes
with the liberal mood.

the washington times is revered moon's pet crusade on behalf american conservatives.
they were born with a pronounced ideological slant and now the original poster is using
a news site, that under any other circumstance he would not have deigned to consider,
as his primary - and only - source. spell 'hypocrite'.

a google search about any recent news item involving iran contains not one other mention.

google - news - iran

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Vadatajs

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Maybe, we should send one of our divisions in that direction and see if they want to play?

Brilliant! It's not like we're woefully stretched thin as it is. Why, we have such airtight control over the situation in Iraq that starting another front against another enemy is just the ticket!

1st, what makes you think that we are actually stretched thin?
2nd, what actual proof do you have that the situation in Iraq is not under control?
3rd, what proof do you have that an enemy exists in the place that the op suggested?

4th, why does my sarcasm deserve to be called brilliant?

I've never seen anybody pWn themself before, so this is a first. Congradulations

I guess my two posts up there were over your head also?

So 4 minutes later you get yourself banned? Looks like I touched a nerve.

Yeah, seems someone's nerve got touched. I don't see how you think it was you who touched Ozoned's nerve though. I feel confident in saying that he probably was laughing at your post. I know I got a chuckle out of it because his posts seem to have sailed WAY over your head.

CkG

Over my head CAD. Ozoned had nothing of value to say in this thread. A recap for the short-attention-spanned rightwinger:

Thanks for that info conjur "Fvcking Idiot" lifer.

Maybe, we should send one of our divisions in that direction and see if they want to play?

probably sarcasm

And that just leaves the one quoted above. In fact the only thing you're right about is the fact that I touched a nerve. Ozoned did it to himself 100%.

 

[Genx87]

Oh boy...what fun we have to look forward to if we pull out soon.

Thanks again, George "Fvcking Idiot" Bush.

Yes it is Geaorge Bushs fault the Iranians are going to try and take advantage of a possible early exit by the US. Funny how the early exit wouldnt even be considered without people like the original poster crying their eyes out.

They create the situation and then complain about it.

BTW 4 battalions? My guess is they are there to stop the flood of refugees that will be coming due to the thugs taking over.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well we know that Bush was working with Chalabi to pass secret cryptographic info to the Iranians and Americans are turning against Bush for that and other reasons, so it only stands to reason, if Kerry gets elected and their spy thrown out, we might be coming after them.