|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 14, 2014 15:54:13 GMT -5
ISIS has an industrial base too. They're producing oil. They may be forcing others to produce, are they capable of maintaining the equipment? Looting and raping are way more fun. I suppose we'll have to see. They're also selling humans on top of the oil. There still seems to be a pretty high demand for slaves amongst their Islamic neighbors.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Sept 14, 2014 18:20:33 GMT -5
They may be forcing others to produce, are they capable of maintaining the equipment? Looting and raping are way more fun. I suppose we'll have to see. They're also selling humans on top of the oil. There still seems to be a pretty high demand for slaves amongst their Islamic neighbors. Those darn moderate Muslims love their sex slaves.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 14, 2014 20:28:03 GMT -5
Like Britain and France, both of which are becoming Muslim Caliphates? Or Ukraine, who is about to become a Russian "protectorate"? Same with Estonia? Remember, we could have stopped Hitler early, had we not had your point of view. 60 million people died because of it. Prove it. You are allowing Shari'a law to usurp British law, you arrest citizens for "offending" Muslims, and your "leaders" allowed a Muslim terrorist group to rape young girls for decades, because they were afraid of "offending" Muslims. You are part of the Caliphate. And France is in even worse shape. For now. Until Putin decides to occupy the rest of it. And so was Britain. So was France. Britain, at least, had an almost excuse. You had Chamberlain as a "leader". That was almost as bad as The Puppet.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 14, 2014 20:31:08 GMT -5
France and the U.K. did nothing when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936. It is quite possible that if those 2 countries had opposed Hitler then the history of the next 9 years would have been considerable different. My post was in response to redleg's "we". Britain and France were still trying to restock their lost generations from 18 years earlier. The US had the manpower and the money to have done the job in 1936, Britain and France did not.
Redleg is speaking for America, if the US wanted it stopped earlier, the US should have ponied up earlier. It wasn't the US's fight then. We were over here, and had already bailed Europe out once. Why should we have gotten into it earlier?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 20:35:45 GMT -5
Prove it. You are allowing Shari'a law to usurp British law, you arrest citizens for "offending" Muslims, and your "leaders" allowed a Muslim terrorist group to rape young girls for decades, because they were afraid of "offending" Muslims. You are part of the Caliphate. And France is in even worse shape. For now. Until Putin decides to occupy the rest of it. And so was Britain. So was France. Britain, at least, had an almost excuse. You had Chamberlain as a "leader". That was almost as bad as The Puppet. Learn to split quotes properly. I don't have to prove anything, I have already (elsewhere) trashed your ridiculous statement that Sharia law has usurped the British Law of the land, your continuing to make that claim is sheer and utter stupidity, it is the type of statement that only an idiot would make make. Keep up with the pack, I have already said why Britain and France were unable to do anything in the mid thirties. America was able but chose not to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2014 20:39:59 GMT -5
Note to self... Do not respond to ignorant, bigoted idiots.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Sept 15, 2014 8:18:51 GMT -5
And so was Britain. So was France. Britain, at least, had an almost excuse. You had Chamberlain as a "leader". That was almost as bad as The Puppet. Learn to split quotes properly. I don't have to prove anything, I have already (elsewhere) trashed your ridiculous statement that Sharia law has usurped the British Law of the land, your continuing to make that claim is sheer and utter stupidity, it is the type of statement that only an idiot would make make. Keep up with the pack, I have already said why Britain and France were unable to do anything in the mid thirties. America was able but chose not to. No, all you have done was respond with "nuh uh". When Shari'a is adjudicated in British courts, it's replaced British law. Period. And the US had no interest in stopping Hitler in the 30's. That was Europe's problem, and both Britain and France dropped the ball. Had Britain sent even a small force to France when Hitler reoccupied the Sudetenland, he probably would have pulled in his horns. He didn't have the force, at that time, to do a lot about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 9:08:15 GMT -5
Note to self... Do not respond to ignorant, bigoted idiots. Uh huh, I must remember this.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Sept 15, 2014 16:48:32 GMT -5
If that's all you got... stick with it... If he'd have used the correct term 'hypoxia' it might have impressed me... talking of which, do you remember Hypoxic Hobo from way back when? If you had used the correct term hypoxemic, from low blood oxygen content (e.g., in altitude sickness), it might have impressed me. Being a nitpicker is like being a gun fighter; there’s always someone out there better than you are. France and the U.K. did nothing when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936. It is quite possible that if those 2 countries had opposed Hitler then the history of the next 9 years would have been considerable different. Hindsight is 20X20... but it's still also a guess as to the turnout... we don't know... It would be a mighty dull word if our conversations were restricted to only those things that we know. France and the U.K. did nothing when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936. It is quite possible that if those 2 countries had opposed Hitler then the history of the next 9 years would have been considerable different. My post was in response to redleg's "we". Britain and France were still trying to restock their lost generations from 18 years earlier. The US had the manpower and the money to have done the job in 1936, Britain and France did not.
Redleg is speaking for America, if the US wanted it stopped earlier, the US should have ponied up earlier. Not exactly correct. “Britain and France were still trying to restock their lost generations from 18 years earlier.”“Protecting against possible threats from major countries such as Germany and Russia took a back seat to protecting Imperial economic interests. This policy extended even through 1936 when British officials began taking a more serious look at the policies' limiting effects.” smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/british-military-decline-1919-1939#_ftn8The US had the manpower and the money to have done the job in 1936…,Manpower – No. “Like any President, FDR’s foremost responsibility was to maintain the security of the United States against possible attack. Given the threats posed by fascist Germany and Japan, the relative size of our armed forces in comparison with other states and the reluctance of an “isolationist” Congress to authorize military expenditures in peacetime, this proved to be no easy task. Indeed, in June of 1939 the roughly 180,000-man US Army ranked 19th in the world-smaller than Portugal’s!” www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/special-relationship-between-great-britain-and-united-states-began-fdrMoney – No “The Great Depression was a period of unprecedented decline in economic activity. It is generally agreed to have occurred between 1929 and 1939. Although parts of the economy had begun to recover by 1936, high unemployment persisted until the Second World War.” econ.economicshelp.org/2008/10/causes-of-great-depression.htmlTry more research next time before you post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 17:03:07 GMT -5
If he'd have used the correct term 'hypoxia' it might have impressed me... talking of which, do you remember Hypoxic Hobo from way back when? If you had used the correct term hypoxemic, from low blood oxygen content (e.g., in altitude sickness), it might have impressed me. Being a nitpicker is like being a gun fighter; there’s always someone out there better than you are. Hindsight is 20X20... but it's still also a guess as to the turnout... we don't know... It would be a mighty dull word if our conversations were restricted to only those things that we know. My post was in response to redleg's "we". Britain and France were still trying to restock their lost generations from 18 years earlier. The US had the manpower and the money to have done the job in 1936, Britain and France did not.
Redleg is speaking for America, if the US wanted it stopped earlier, the US should have ponied up earlier. Not exactly correct. “Britain and France were still trying to restock their lost generations from 18 years earlier.”“Protecting against possible threats from major countries such as Germany and Russia took a back seat to protecting Imperial economic interests. This policy extended even through 1936 when British officials began taking a more serious look at the policies' limiting effects.” smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/british-military-decline-1919-1939#_ftn8The US had the manpower and the money to have done the job in 1936…,Manpower – No. “Like any President, FDR’s foremost responsibility was to maintain the security of the United States against possible attack. Given the threats posed by fascist Germany and Japan, the relative size of our armed forces in comparison with other states and the reluctance of an “isolationist” Congress to authorize military expenditures in peacetime, this proved to be no easy task. Indeed, in June of 1939 the roughly 180,000-man US Army ranked 19th in the world-smaller than Portugal’s!” www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/special-relationship-between-great-britain-and-united-states-began-fdrMoney – No “The Great Depression was a period of unprecedented decline in economic activity. It is generally agreed to have occurred between 1929 and 1939. Although parts of the economy had begun to recover by 1936, high unemployment persisted until the Second World War.” econ.economicshelp.org/2008/10/causes-of-great-depression.htmlTry more research next time before you post. Learn to quote properly and make your posts less confusing to follow, maybe just cut and paste one item at a time.. Perhaps take a few breaths between your different points, other posters might then attempt to engage your ramblings. Me, I can't be arsed to disect it in order to respond.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2014 17:34:47 GMT -5
If he'd have used the correct term 'hypoxia' it might have impressed me... talking of which, do you remember Hypoxic Hobo from way back when? If you had used the correct term hypoxemic, from low blood oxygen content (e.g., in altitude sickness), it might have impressed me. Being a nitpicker is like being a gun fighter; there’s always someone out there better than you are. Try more research next time before you post. 'Hypoxia' is a general term for lack of adequate oxygen supply, whereas 'hypoxemia' refers more specifically to a low arterial oxygen supply. I used the term correctly, you are just arguing for the sake of it, and yet again, you are arguing incorrectly.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Sept 16, 2014 12:04:01 GMT -5
Are my posts are too complex for you to understand?
Do you have issues with the way I quote?
Sorry, neither of those is an acceptable substitute for a decent counter argument to what I posted. You're definitely a "form over substance" man. Perhaps if you spent more time researching the subject matter instead of nitpicking inconsequential matters of style you wouldn't have to dodge so often, which is what you've done here.
As to hypoxemic:
AB mentioned being on top of a mountain. Of the various types of hypoxia, hypoxemic is the one specifically related to altitude sickness which one might suffer from if they were on top of a mountain. Naturally you would go for the more general term since specifics are always your downfall.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 17:28:20 GMT -5
Are my posts are too complex for you to understand? Complex? No. Poorly constructed and confusing yes. Do you have issues with the way I quote? Yes, you bundle too many points into one post, often quoting different posters, thusly one struggles to know just what exactly your points are. I wonder if this is a deliberate tactic of yours to obfuscate, perhaps in order to hide from further discussion. Sorry, neither of those is an acceptable substitute for a decent counter argument to what I posted. You're definitely a "form over substance" man. Perhaps if you spent more time researching the subject matter instead of nitpicking inconsequential matters of style you wouldn't have to dodge so often, which is what you've done here. Not at all sunshine, I am as straightforward as they come, if you want a question answered, just ask it, instead of your usual 'around the houses' methods of silly non sequitural arguments. Researching? Most of my postings are opinions garnered from my take on the news items I read, see and hear and from my personal experiences gained over nearly 70 years. Unlike you, I do don't resort to cut and pasting to debate minor details, if something is above my pay grade I tend to not seriously comment on it. You would be well advised to consider doing likewise. As to hypoxemic: AB mentioned being on top of a mountain. Of the various types of hypoxia, hypoxemic is the one specifically related to altitude sickness which one might suffer from if they were on top of a mountain. Naturally you would go for the more general term since specifics are always your downfall. Back to my point of non sequitur argumentation (and BTW, who is doing the "nitpicking" here?) I made a general observation and used the correct word 'hypoxia' to describe it. You, in yet another of your stalking attempted gotchers, looked up the interwebs and arrived at a false conclusion that 'hypoxemia' was more correct, simply dude, you were wrong. Are you one of those guys that relies totally on google for all your knowledge? Your excessive cut and pasting method suggests that you are. And there dude, is your downfall. Please use this post as an example of how to split a quote cleanly, and argue each point individually.
|
|
|
Post by Ravenchamp on Sept 17, 2014 15:27:54 GMT -5
Looks like boots on the ground may in fact happen, as some congressional members seem to think.
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Sept 17, 2014 15:38:22 GMT -5
Looks like boots on the ground may in fact happen, as some congressional members seem to think. What a shock!!! Obama lying again? Who could have guessed it? Well anyone who knows that whenever Obama speaks he is lying of course.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 17, 2014 16:08:07 GMT -5
Looks like boots on the ground may in fact happen, as some congressional members seem to think. What a shock!!! Obama lying again? Who could have guessed it? Well anyone who knows that whenever Obama speaks he is lying of course. I wish we had an actual president... Boots on the ground is probably unavoidable. Rather than pretending it won't happen, a real leader would be trying to prepare the country for it.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Sept 17, 2014 16:08:56 GMT -5
Are my posts are too complex for you to understand? Complex? No. Poorly constructed and confusing yes. For you, perhaps. Others don’t seem to have the same problem. Do you have issues with the way I quote? Yes, you bundle too many points into one post, often quoting different posters, thusly one struggles to know just what exactly your points are. I wonder if this is a deliberate tactic of yours to obfuscate, perhaps in order to hide from further discussion. Note what’s highlighted in red. I’ll get back to that later. Sorry, neither of those is an acceptable substitute for a decent counter argument to what I posted. You're definitely a "form over substance" man. Perhaps if you spent more time researching the subject matter instead of nitpicking inconsequential matters of style you wouldn't have to dodge so often, which is what you've done here. Not at all sunshine, I am as straightforward as they come, if you want a question answered, just ask it, instead of your usual 'around the houses' methods of silly non sequitural arguments. Researching? Most of my postings are opinions garnered from my take on the news items I read, see and hear and from my personal experiences gained over nearly 70 years. Unlike you, I do don't resort to cut and pasting to debate minor details, if something is above my pay grade I tend to not seriously comment on it. You would be well advised to consider doing likewise. So too many points in one post is “above your pay grade”. One wonders where you find a source for the news items that you read that only deals with one subject. Most new outlets; radio, TV, newspapers, magazine, etc., deal with multiple subjects. Sometimes in the same show or on the same page. After you read an article in the newspaper, do you have to take long walks to clear your mind before you can read another article?
As to hypoxemic: AB mentioned being on top of a mountain. Of the various types of hypoxia, hypoxemic is the one specifically related to altitude sickness which one might suffer from if they were on top of a mountain. Naturally you would go for the more general term since specifics are always your downfall. Back to my point of non sequitur argumentation (and BTW, who is doing the "nitpicking" here?) I made a general observation and used the correct word 'hypoxia' to describe it. You, in yet another of your stalking attempted gotchers, looked up the interwebs and arrived at a false conclusion that 'hypoxemia' was more correct, simply dude, you were wrong. “Hypoxemia” is more correct, more specific. The English language is a multi-purpose tool. You choose to use it like a sledgehammer. I choose to use it like a scalpel. Are you one of those guys that relies totally on google for all your knowledge? Your excessive cut and pasting method suggests that you are. And there dude, is your downfall. The answer to your question is “No”. I use it because the folks here are always asking that opinions be validated with some kind of proof/link. Google, and the sources it points to, provide a quick, easy accurate way to meet that demand. It’s not my fault you’re too lazy to do any research to substantiate your points…that is when you have any.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2014 17:40:29 GMT -5
Complex? No. Poorly constructed and confusing yes. For you, perhaps. Others don’t seem to have the same problem. Yes, you bundle too many points into one post, often quoting different posters, thusly one struggles to know just what exactly your points are. I wonder if this is a deliberate tactic of yours to obfuscate, perhaps in order to hide from further discussion. Note what’s highlighted in red. I’ll get back to that later. Not at all sunshine, I am as straightforward as they come, if you want a question answered, just ask it, instead of your usual 'around the houses' methods of silly non sequitural arguments. Researching? Most of my postings are opinions garnered from my take on the news items I read, see and hear and from my personal experiences gained over nearly 70 years. Unlike you, I do don't resort to cut and pasting to debate minor details, if something is above my pay grade I tend to not seriously comment on it. You would be well advised to consider doing likewise. So too many points in one post is “above your pay grade”. One wonders where you find a source for the news items that you read that only deals with one subject. Most new outlets; radio, TV, newspapers, magazine, etc., deal with multiple subjects. Sometimes in the same show or on the same page. After you read an article in the newspaper, do you have to take long walks to clear your mind before you can read another article?
Back to my point of non sequitur argumentation (and BTW, who is doing the "nitpicking" here?) I made a general observation and used the correct word 'hypoxia' to describe it. You, in yet another of your stalking attempted gotchers, looked up the interwebs and arrived at a false conclusion that 'hypoxemia' was more correct, simply dude, you were wrong. “Hypoxemia” is more correct, more specific. The English language is a multi-purpose tool. You choose to use it like a sledgehammer. I choose to use it like a scalpel. Are you one of those guys that relies totally on google for all your knowledge? Your excessive cut and pasting method suggests that you are. And there dude, is your downfall. The answer to your question is “No”. I use it because the folks here are always asking that opinions be validated with some kind of proof/link. Google, and the sources it points to, provide a quick, easy accurate way to meet that demand. It’s not my fault you’re too lazy to do any research to substantiate your points…that is when you have any. Do you really, as your post suggests, pick up a newspaper and read every article? Personally I only read the ones that interest me. You "use the English language like a scalpel"... LOL, thank you for that belly laugh, no, really I did get a belly laugh, thanks a lot. Oh, and you were wrong with challenging my correct usage of the word hypoxia in the general sense in my quote, sledgehammer or no sledgehammer. And quite frankly dude, I'd put my English up against yours any day and without the aid if the interwebs. Only an idiot would read my lengthy responses to your posts and then call me "lazy", moderation prevents me from using some English words that would describe you exactly. Tell me, if someone stops you on the street to ask you the time, do you whip out your smart phone, do a quick Google and then tell them how to build a clock?
|
|
|
Post by cyclegeek on Sept 18, 2014 5:56:31 GMT -5
What a shock!!! Obama lying again? Who could have guessed it? Well anyone who knows that whenever Obama speaks he is lying of course. I wish we had an actual president... Boots on the ground is probably unavoidable. Rather than pretending it won't happen, a real leader would be trying to prepare the country for it. But politics trumps EVERYTHING!!! IMHO Bush hosed us when he just didn't do what had to be done to take care of the problem initially. And now Obama is doing the same thing. This "counter terrorism" action is going to last way to long, just like the wars under Bush, because we refuse to go in there and kick a$$ and take names!
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 18, 2014 6:36:24 GMT -5
Anybody who thinks we are going anywhere and take care of all the terrorists... needs to set their alarm clocks louder... and make them afraid?... even louder... it ain't gonna happen... even if you nuke 'em...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 18, 2014 6:38:55 GMT -5
What a shock!!! Obama lying again? Who could have guessed it? Well anyone who knows that whenever Obama speaks he is lying of course. I wish we had an actual president... Boots on the ground is probably unavoidable. Rather than pretending it won't happen, a real leader would be trying to prepare the country for it. "Boots on the ground" would be another waste of American lives... haven't we sacrificed enough already?...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2014 6:46:40 GMT -5
I wish we had an actual president... Boots on the ground is probably unavoidable. Rather than pretending it won't happen, a real leader would be trying to prepare the country for it. "Boots on the ground" would be another waste of American lives... haven't we sacrificed enough already?... For some, apparently not.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on Sept 18, 2014 9:46:52 GMT -5
For you, perhaps. Others don’t seem to have the same problem. Note what’s highlighted in red. I’ll get back to that later. So too many points in one post is “above your pay grade”. One wonders where you find a source for the news items that you read that only deals with one subject. Most new outlets; radio, TV, newspapers, magazine, etc., deal with multiple subjects. Sometimes in the same show or on the same page. After you read an article in the newspaper, do you have to take long walks to clear your mind before you can read another article?
“Hypoxemia” is more correct, more specific. The English language is a multi-purpose tool. You choose to use it like a sledgehammer. I choose to use it like a scalpel. The answer to your question is “No”. I use it because the folks here are always asking that opinions be validated with some kind of proof/link. Google, and the sources it points to, provide a quick, easy accurate way to meet that demand. It’s not my fault you’re too lazy to do any research to substantiate your points…that is when you have any. Do you really, as your post suggests, pick up a newspaper and read every article? Personally I only read the ones that interest me. You "use the English language like a scalpel"... LOL, thank you for that belly laugh, no, really I did get a belly laugh, thanks a lot. Oh, and you were wrong with challenging my correct usage of the word hypoxia in the general sense in my quote, sledgehammer or no sledgehammer. And quite frankly dude, I'd put my English up against yours any day and without the aid if the interwebs. Only an idiot would read my lengthy responses to your posts and then call me "lazy", moderation prevents me from using some English words that would describe you exactly. Tell me, if someone stops you on the street to ask you the time, do you whip out your smart phone, do a quick Google and then tell them how to build a clock?No. I do hope that response is not too long and confusing for you.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Sept 18, 2014 10:08:41 GMT -5
I wish we had an actual president... Boots on the ground is probably unavoidable. Rather than pretending it won't happen, a real leader would be trying to prepare the country for it. "Boots on the ground" would be another waste of American lives... haven't we sacrificed enough already?... Not doing everything we can to confront these groups will also be a waste of American lives. Our only options are to confront these people with armed and trained soldiers, or do nothing to prevent the loss of unarmed and innocent civilians.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Sept 18, 2014 11:22:29 GMT -5
"Boots on the ground" would be another waste of American lives... haven't we sacrificed enough already?... Not doing everything we can to confront these groups will also be a waste of American lives. Our only options are to confront these people with armed and trained soldiers, or do nothing to prevent the loss of unarmed and innocent civilians. Yeah... and it's as bad now as it was years ago... as expected... no matter when we leave... insurgents... (now we call 'em terrorists)... fighting against their own government... just like it was in 2003... so, what good did that 4,000+ lives lost there over the last 10 years accomplish?... not a damn thing... You can bomb 'em to hell and back and they'll still be crawling out of the cracks... you ain't gonna kill 'em all...
|
|