No timeline in Libya???? WTF???

Onceler said:
3 threads in 3 days? Really?

You know most lefties are pissed about Libya, right?
Click to expand...

You do realize that there is nowhere near the level of 'outrage' and 'protests'?

You also realize that I am simply mocking them? Or do I need to draw a diagram explaining sarcasm to you?

I can't help but notice there aren't the same level of 'Obama is a warmonger' threads... in fact, I don't recall seeing ANY.... though I could be wrong.
 
Side note Lorax.... if you would actually bother to READ.... I was in part mocking the whole timeline chant from Iraq and in part mocking the idiot that brought it up again in this case.
 
Superfreak said:
You do realize that there is nowhere near the level of 'outrage' and 'protests'?

You also realize that I am simply mocking them? Or do I need to draw a diagram explaining sarcasm to you?

I can't help but notice there aren't the same level of 'Obama is a warmonger' threads... in fact, I don't recall seeing ANY.... though I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

I know it was sarcasm; that's what I'm commenting on.

A) You're trying to compare 7 years worth of outrage to 5 days worth, and make a linear comparison to what is here a military intervention, and what w/ Iraq was military intervention combined with duplicity and a campaign of misinformation.
B) You're trying to compare a NFZ with 250,000 troops hitting the ground after a campaign of shock & awe, occupying Iraq, disabling the infrastructure, removing the gov't and rebuilding the entire country.
C) You're trying to compare an action that relies on immediacy to prevent further slaughter, as you have stated, with a pre-emptive action designed to nullify a "potential" threat (when inspections, which could have verified that threat, were working, btw)

In general, the comparisons that all of you idiots have made over the past few days have defied reason; I have had to suspend disbelief to even entertain them. The height of it was Yurt's inane implication that the aviators who crashed represented "boots on the ground," and thus a real invasion, but any post like this is a reflection of that kind of reasoning....
 
Onceler said:
I know it was sarcasm; that's what I'm commenting on.

A) You're trying to compare 7 years worth of outrage to 5 days worth, and make a linear comparison to what is here a military intervention, and what w/ Iraq was military intervention combined with duplicity and a campaign of misinformation.
B) You're trying to compare a NFZ with 250,000 troops hitting the ground after a campaign of shock & awe, occupying Iraq, disabling the infrastructure, removing the gov't and rebuilding the entire country.
C) You're trying to compare an action that relies on immediacy to prevent further slaughter, as you have stated, with a pre-emptive action designed to nullify a "potential" threat (when inspections, which could have verified that threat, were working, btw)

In general, the comparisons that all of you idiots have made over the past few days have defied reason; I have had to suspend disbelief to even entertain them. The height of it was Yurt's inane implication that the aviators who crashed represented "boots on the ground," and thus a real invasion, but any post like this is a reflection of that kind of reasoning....
Click to expand...

there was outrage from the beginning in iraq....the very beginning...nice try cupcake

also, why is it you feel the need to dishonestly portray what people, despite being told repeatedly that your claims are simply not true. i never implied that boots on the ground was an invasion....i asked (to make fun of those who think this is not an invasion) if you would now consider it an invasion...if you were honest, you not claim i implied. in fact, in one post i expressly said that i did not consider the fallen aviators to be an invasion. yet, here you are still claiming i implied it.

seriously, why do you constantly lie about what people say? is compensation for some short coming in your life?
 
Yurt said:
there was outrage from the beginning in iraq....the very beginning...nice try cupcake

also, why is it you feel the need to dishonestly portray what people, despite being told repeatedly that your claims are simply not true. i never implied that boots on the ground was an invasion....i asked (to make fun of those who think this is not an invasion) if you would now consider it an invasion...if you were honest, you not claim i implied. in fact, in one post i expressly said that i did not consider the fallen aviators to be an invasion. yet, here you are still claiming i implied it.

seriously, why do you constantly lie about what people say? is compensation for some short coming in your life?
Click to expand...

There's that reading thing again. I know there was outrage from day 1 with Iraq - see points "B" and "C".

Your boots on the ground thread was embarassing, even by your standards. It's good to see that you at least have the sense to run away from what you were trying to imply now....
 
Onceler said:
There's that reading thing again. I know there was outrage from day 1 with Iraq - see points "B" and "C".

Your boots on the ground thread was embarassing, even by your standards. It's good to see that you at least have the sense to run away from what you were trying to imply now....
Click to expand...

so expressly saying the falling aviators were not a boots on the ground invasion, is implying it is....yeah...who has the reading problem...actually in this case, you're just flat out lying because you got busted in your first post by stating i claimed it was an invasion, when i never said anything such thing...so you then dishonestly moved your goal posts to "implied" despite my express words to the opposite

B) You're trying to compare a NFZ with 250,000 troops hitting the ground after a campaign of shock & awe, occupying Iraq, disabling the infrastructure, removing the gov't and rebuilding the entire country.
C) You're trying to compare an action that relies on immediacy to prevent further slaughter, as you have stated, with a pre-emptive action designed to nullify a "potential" threat (when inspections, which could have verified that threat, were working, btw)
Click to expand...

and you say i have a reading problem, impossible as those points say absolutely nothing about any outrage on day 1. lmao...its weird how you will lie about something you just said in writing.
 
Onceler said:
There's that reading thing again. I know there was outrage from day 1 with Iraq - see points "B" and "C".

Your boots on the ground thread was embarassing, even by your standards. It's good to see that you at least have the sense to run away from what you were trying to imply now....
Click to expand...

so expressly saying the fallen aviators were not a boots on the ground invasion, is implying it is....yeah...who has the reading problem...actually in this case, you're just flat out lying because you got busted in your first post by stating i claimed it was an invasion, when i never said anything such thing...so you then dishonestly moved your goal posts to "implied" despite my express words to the opposite

B) You're trying to compare a NFZ with 250,000 troops hitting the ground after a campaign of shock & awe, occupying Iraq, disabling the infrastructure, removing the gov't and rebuilding the entire country.
C) You're trying to compare an action that relies on immediacy to prevent further slaughter, as you have stated, with a pre-emptive action designed to nullify a "potential" threat (when inspections, which could have verified that threat, were working, btw)
Click to expand...

and you say i have a reading problem, impossible as those points say absolutely nothing about any outrage on day 1. lmao...its weird how you will lie about something you just said in writing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top