Such smugness, arrogance ...such insufferable moral superiority.

[KrazyHorse]

Maybe not KH, but there must be some Canucks who actually want to do something positive in their lives and actually fight for the betterment of mankind rather than just sit back an criticize America for being the foolish policeman of the world.

a) I criticise idiots of all stripes. Just because there are so many of them in the current US administration shouldn't put you off.

b) I have a day job. Making fun of you is a hobby.

c) We're already in Afghanistan, doing most of the work. Instead of doing one job right you've done two jobs wrong. We'll fix one of them. Not the second.

d) There is no (d). The first three should be enough.

[Ned]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Maybe not KH, but there must be some Canucks who actually want to do something positive in their lives and actually fight for the betterment of mankind rather than just sit back an criticize America for being the foolish policeman of the world.

a) I criticise idiots of all stripes. Just because there are so many of them in the current US administration shouldn't put you off.

b) I have a day job. Making fun of you is a hobby.

c) We're already in Afghanistan, doing most of the work. Instead of doing one job right you've done two jobs wrong. We'll fix one of them. Not the second.

d) There is no (d). The first three should be enough.

Canadian criticism of America seems a full time job for most Canucks. What they do for a living is just a hobby.

Bravo, though, about Canadians in Afghanistan. Good show.

[KrazyHorse]

Canadian criticism of America seems a full time job for most Canucks

If you think this is rough you might want to check in on the real Canpol threads.

Politics is a blood sport where I'm from. We tear at each other a lot worse than we tear at you. So pardon me for offending your delicate sensibilities.

And you might want to check out my "France Sucks" thread from a couple of days ago...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You're a dunce, Ogie. My position has always been that neither party is great but that the Republicans are absolutely in a league of their own when it comes to harming this nation for their own political gain. That in no way means the other side is "a white as the driven snow" but it does mean they are a lesser of two evils. Much less then the current evil.

Feel free to continue to lie and distort though. I realize that is all you ever do.

OK I'll bite despite this being approximately the 20th instance of adhom against me. (You do of course realize that normally signals a weak arguement)

Please explain to me the difference in my statement that Comparatively speaking (you'll note that distinction in each and every one of my posts) one side being "white as driven snow" is different than...

"but it does mean they are a lesser of two evils. Much less then the current evil."

I'm failing to see the ohhh so subtle distinction. Lie distortion or otherwise. (btw that also probably sinks to the level of a bit of adhom for no particularly good reason other than it signals your weak position).

The arguements put forward by every person countering your seemingly countless inane drivel ridden posts has always been that both parties are corrupt and moreover approximately equally so. You have always maintained the Repugs as teh evil while poo-pooing every instance of Demonrat ill behavior. That marks your arguements as clearly in support of a statement that comparatively speaking Dems are pure as driven snow in comparison to Repugs.

Even your statements above, as one being the lessor of two evils, in fact much less so; support such an interpretation. It matters not if you think the Dems show instances of corruption merely your seemingly insane thought process that marks them as significantly better one way or the other.

Funny, but according to you I am one of the most partisan hacks on the board despite my insistance that all members of governement are insanely corrupt regardless of party affiliation. (I despise Dems for other reason than corruption btw). Only those who can see the Dems as the obvious comparative 'good guys' aren't partisan. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? (even handed assumption of the ability for elected officials to be tempted by corruption, naah couldn't be. It has to be only one set of of human beings that are teh evil )

Not that partisanship is necessarily a bad thing mind you but apparently you think it so.

So that being said

Partisan

1. an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

Peronally, I can't see myself fitting that profile. Antipartisan absolutely.

How 'bout you? Think of anyone that definition might possibly fit? (Hint: a person who might have donated their time and effort making calls etc. to enlist others to vote Demonrat.)

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Sandman
That's a new one. 'It was inevitable!'

Hardly new, just look at dictatorships around the world. Just look at how Saddam rose to power.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Originally posted by Straybow
That's because Shensiki was wrong about needing 500k to invade. That is already proven fact. He was also wrong about needing 500k to effectively control Iraq.

Not necessarily in either count. Yes, you can invade, ignore security of supply lines and fail to establish effective control over a majority of the country - all those arms caches, supply points, and points of entry for foreign *******s which we never effectively secured.

Since there's no effective control over Iraq four years into the FUBAR, it's far from obvious that 500k was not needed. We could have been in a much stronger interdiction and disruption posture from the beginning, instead of waiting a year and a half plus to scrape troops from elsewhere to deal with problems like Fallujah.

You have a point, but it's far from unassailable. Sure, having 500k would've been better. Can't argue with that, but instead let's make our wish for world peace so that we don't need the 500k soldiers if the genie grants the wish.

Asymmetric warfare is a b1tch, MtG. Supply lines are always the weakest link, and suicidal saboteurs can always exploit that weakness. Trippling the number of soldiers also increases the targets of opportunity and makes supply lines more critical. I sincerely doubt there would be a lower number of casualties.

We were hoping that Jordan and Syria would have an enlightened self-interest in reducing the porosity of their borders. It turns out that their self-interest was served by allowing their fundies to seek their martyrs' prize in Iraq while we take the casualties and the blame. Hindsight is always 20/20.

It has worked out well for Jordan. Al Zarqawi was an enemy of the Hashemites and their intel was critical in finding him. The media has ignored some 450 raids made based on information found in Zarqawi's stuff that has crippled the network that supported foreign Sunni fighters. Good for us and Iraq, even better for Jordan.

As far as points of entry from Iran: Good luck with that. Makes the US-Mexican border a picnic by comparison. In this case we anticipated the problem and knew we could do little to thwart it. Not even with 500k. Once again, OOTW has different rules of engagement and we wouldn't be able to simply kill everything that moves.

[Ned]

Maliki formerly invited the soldiers of the former Iraqi Army to rejoin. If they are not taken in, they will get pensions.

Hopefully, this will go a long way to solving the problem of Iraq.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20061216/D8M259RO0.html

Straybow, fighting wars and occuppying are two different things. If we have learned any lessons here it must be that we need to have an armed forces that can do both.

MTG, dispite your earlier reservations about the Stryker, it seems to be the vehicle of choice in Iraq. Have you changed your views?