- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Infanteer said:Well, with statements like these, you'll have to forgive me for confusing you with someone else:
You're not forgiven. An honorable soldier says what they mean, and means what they say.
Infanteer said:Well, with statements like these, you'll have to forgive me for confusing you with someone else:
Legless_Marine said:You're not forgiven. An honorable soldier says what they mean, and means what they say.
Infanteer said:It is the usual line taken by the anti-war crowd these days.
paracowboy said:stop. You don't ask questions any more until you've answered some. That's how it works.
MCG said:For someone so ready to suggest the inferiority of other posters, you do a good job of ignoring the solid replies to your posts. Is it that all the well crafted replies come from people that have misrepresented your position? That might suggest it is worth replying just to clarify your position.
Try living up to all you present yourself to be and give these some answers:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-468085.html#msg468085
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-468103.html#msg468103
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-468250.html#msg468250
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-470387.html#msg470387
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/49908/post-470360.html#msg470360
Why are you shy to respond?
Yet, you feel we should sink time into a discussion in which the counter opinion does not do us the service of reading the thread? We have 13 pages that disprove the trash that was dumped. givepeaceachance can make whatever argument, but why should we have to go back and re-post all of our arguments from the previous 13 pages? It seems we have to do it for you too. Why?Legless_Marine said:I have no interest in sinking time into a discussion that is not free and open
Legless_Marine said:You'll have to take your concerns up with them. As I said, it's an odd mind that makes someone accountable for the words of others.
Quote from: Koenigsegg on October 25, 2006, 18:07:32
Oh, and it is NATO, not Nato..it is an acronym. you did get ISAF right though.
Pedantry is ignorant and petty, and sullies an otherwise respectable response. Any moron can point out a spelling error, and I'm sure you have much more value to contribute to this discussion.
standard response of this sort. They never have any actual facts, so they try to imply some sort of moral or intellectual superiority. Then, when held to account, they scream censorship.Koenigsegg said:I see I am a little too late getting back here, but I was being honest. I was not necessarily trying to insult the guy...
If I wanted to insult him, I think everyone would know.
Even more unfortunate is that he couldn't see the most fundamental flaw in his own arguments--that NATO is, somehow, interested in "occupying" Afghanistan, in some sort of colonial sense...as if Brussels has somehow become the centre of a modern empire which, it appears, will be founded on the conquest of a land-locked country with no significant resources and marginal strategic importance (as has been amply demonstrated, the old saw about the Trans-Afghan Pipeline is woefully obsolete).
Legless_Marine said:An honorable soldier says what they mean, and means what they say.
he can't reply. He was banned for refusing to...well, for several reasons actually.FastEddy said:
"Legless_Marine"
Several questions,
Would any of the above area's be enhanced due to such a action, if so, how would the present Government maintain or preserve those that are in existence ?.