Oldtimer said:
Whitewing- I don't know how you can assert it was well preplanned- when they didn't plan out how to pay all the costs associated :???: ... But you assert whatever you want because you will anyway- and personally I could give a shite less what you think... If you can't see how poorly prepared we were from those D.C. idiots statements- I can't help you as you are beyond help... :wink:
Aside from consistently talking out of your ass OT by making assertions that you can't possibly support, you have three other chronic problems when it comes to your attempts to debate here on this forum.
First is your poor reading comprehension. Again, here's exactly what I opined....my "assertion" as it were:
The invasion itself and defeat of Saddam's military forces went about as well as one could have expected. The screws-ups started with the occupation.
See what I mean? I spoke generally but clearly of the invasion and the defeat of Saddam's military....NOTHING ELSE was implied.
Which brings us to your second chronic problem which is inter-related to the first.
Instead of just concentrating on proving the other guy wrong, you often try to distort his position by implying that he's saying things he never said. This represents intellectual dishonesty (because you know you're talking BS) and, to me, also represents an argument by someone who is either ill-prepared or is arguing a very weak point to begin with.
Finally, you change the subject when things don't seem to go your way. Perhaps these things are just how you think you're getting the upper hand in a debate, but let me assure you, you don't. You look like an assclown when you do these things.
But (to paraphrase you) assert whatever you want and debate anyway you want because you will anyway- and personally I could give a shite less what you think... If you can't see how poorly prepared you are before you flap your lips- I can't help you as you are beyond help... :wink