Take heart Tommy, look what Bush did to Afganistan and Iraq in only a few short weeks. Obama can get us out quicker than McCain can change his Depends!

ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
I don't think you can say for certain what is going to happen next in Iran. Mosul, Sadr City and Basra's headlines are quite different than 6 months ago. The Iraqi people seem to be taking a different course. An unconditional pullout in 16 months is not the answer. That IS for certain.
Really, Thomas? Why is it "for certain"? Have you been appointed some sort of military and political seer or something? Thomas the Seer?

Please post your evidence as to why it is certain. In that evidence, you should post proof that if we withdraw in 16 or 18 or whatever months, the Iraqi's will devolve into a worse situation than they are in now. You should also post proof that the timeline would not induce them to get their act together, especially since they sure seem to want some sort of timeline for us to get out anyway. You know, like how when a teacher sets a timeline for a test, it gets kids to study and prepare for said test. Well, the ones who want to pass the test, anyway.

You should also post proof that the Bush/McCain way will eventually (10 years, 20 years, 50 years, who knows) work to our satisfaction. Our satisfaction, of course, is apparently not an Iraq that can take care of itself, but an Iraq that can do that plus allow us to build bases and use those bases as launching pads for incursions into other areas of the middle east.

And while you are at it, post your proof that all the troops we have tied up in Iraq for all those years won't affect our ability to respond elsewhere if we need to on short notice.

So go ahead, Thomas. Post your proof of the "certainty" of these things. We'll all be waiting on pins and needles for your proof.

Oh, one more thing. No one has ever proposed an "unconditional" pullout in sixteen months that I am aware of. Certainly not Obama. Please present your proof of that as well.

Hold on there Kemo Sabe, before you blow a fuse.

If you're going to drink Obama's kool aid, at least know what you are drinking. Here's a direct quote from his own website:

redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010.

Now drink shug-a-lug, drink, drink, drink, drink....

Even the Iraqi government doesn't want us out for AT LEAST FIVES YEARS. Read the news, (and your own guys website) dimwit before you open your idiotic mouth.

Now let's see what else I can predict? You're going to wet yourself from all that kool aid you're drinking.
Let me make this short and succinct for you.

One. Here is what you said:

An unconditional pullout in 16 months is not the answer. That IS for certain.

Two. You presented no proof, not even any evidence, that an unconditional pullout is not the answer. Your opinion is not proof or evidence.

Three. You presented no proof that Obama said anything in his proposal was "unconditional." Nothing in the part you posted above in bold says anything about it being "unconditional", and I challenge you to post a link to anything Obama has said that says his plan is "unconditional".

So much for Thomas the Seer. Hell, so much for Thomas the Lucid Human Being.

Chug-a-lug, Tommy boy.

You're such a dweeb. Who shives a git what you think. You think unconditional surrender is the answer, go right ahead. Why don't you prove it. And if you think Obama's "plan" to pull out in 16 months by the summer of 2010, is going to make everything hunky dory in the Middle East, dream on kool aid kid. I challenge you to prove it.

Now go cool off with a nice glass of kool aid. You're getting your grundies in a heck of a bundle.
Once again, no supporting material for your statements. You could have just said "I have no proof that Obama ever said his position was unconditional, and I have no proof that pulling out is not the answer." Then you would have been an honest man, Tommy.

Instead we got just a little "Tommy Tirade."

What's a matter, haven't kicked your dog today? What kind of "conditions" do you think he can get by leaving Iraq in 16 months by the summer of 2010, as his own website states? Do you think the Iraqi's are going to be sooooo greatful we are gone that they will do his bidding? You've lost it. Not that you ever had it.

Take another drink.
Sigh. Once again, Tommy, here is what you said.

An unconditional pullout in 16 months is not the answer. That IS for certain.

You do admit to saying that, right. Well, right?

You made the statement, and the burden of proof is on you to support it with evidence. You did not say it was your opinion. You said it was "for certain." I asked you to prove it, and you have been flopping around the forum like a fish out of water ever since.

It is illogical (and dimwitted) to try to turn the tables on me and tell me to prove that it that leaving is the answer, because I never claimed that "it is for certain" that it is the answer. The truth is, there's a plethora of things that can go wrong in Iraq if we leave, and a plethora that can continue to go wrong if we stay. There is no certainty in this, either way. Any moron knows that...why are you having trouble with it?

Now why don't you just be a man and admit that you cannot support your statement above? Or do you want to flop around like a fish some more.

truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
I don't think you can say for certain what is going to happen next in Iran. Mosul, Sadr City and Basra's headlines are quite different than 6 months ago. The Iraqi people seem to be taking a different course. An unconditional pullout in 16 months is not the answer. That IS for certain.
Really, Thomas? Why is it "for certain"? Have you been appointed some sort of military and political seer or something? Thomas the Seer?

Please post your evidence as to why it is certain. In that evidence, you should post proof that if we withdraw in 16 or 18 or whatever months, the Iraqi's will devolve into a worse situation than they are in now. You should also post proof that the timeline would not induce them to get their act together, especially since they sure seem to want some sort of timeline for us to get out anyway. You know, like how when a teacher sets a timeline for a test, it gets kids to study and prepare for said test. Well, the ones who want to pass the test, anyway.

You should also post proof that the Bush/McCain way will eventually (10 years, 20 years, 50 years, who knows) work to our satisfaction. Our satisfaction, of course, is apparently not an Iraq that can take care of itself, but an Iraq that can do that plus allow us to build bases and use those bases as launching pads for incursions into other areas of the middle east.

And while you are at it, post your proof that all the troops we have tied up in Iraq for all those years won't affect our ability to respond elsewhere if we need to on short notice.

So go ahead, Thomas. Post your proof of the "certainty" of these things. We'll all be waiting on pins and needles for your proof.

Oh, one more thing. No one has ever proposed an "unconditional" pullout in sixteen months that I am aware of. Certainly not Obama. Please present your proof of that as well.

Hold on there Kemo Sabe, before you blow a fuse.

If you're going to drink Obama's kool aid, at least know what you are drinking. Here's a direct quote from his own website:

redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010.

Now drink shug-a-lug, drink, drink, drink, drink....

Even the Iraqi government doesn't want us out for AT LEAST FIVES YEARS. Read the news, (and your own guys website) dimwit before you open your idiotic mouth.

Now let's see what else I can predict? You're going to wet yourself from all that kool aid you're drinking.
Let me make this short and succinct for you.

One. Here is what you said:

An unconditional pullout in 16 months is not the answer. That IS for certain.

Two. You presented no proof, not even any evidence, that an unconditional pullout is not the answer. Your opinion is not proof or evidence.

Three. You presented no proof that Obama said anything in his proposal was "unconditional." Nothing in the part you posted above in bold says anything about it being "unconditional", and I challenge you to post a link to anything Obama has said that says his plan is "unconditional".

So much for Thomas the Seer. Hell, so much for Thomas the Lucid Human Being.

Chug-a-lug, Tommy boy.

You're such a dweeb. Who shives a git what you think. You think unconditional surrender is the answer, go right ahead. Why don't you prove it. And if you think Obama's "plan" to pull out in 16 months by the summer of 2010, is going to make everything hunky dory in the Middle East, dream on kool aid kid. I challenge you to prove it.

Now go cool off with a nice glass of kool aid. You're getting your grundies in a heck of a bundle.
Once again, no supporting material for your statements. You could have just said "I have no proof that Obama ever said his position was unconditional, and I have no proof that pulling out is not the answer." Then you would have been an honest man, Tommy.

Instead we got just a little "Tommy Tirade."

What's a matter, haven't kicked your dog today? What kind of "conditions" do you think he can get by leaving Iraq in 16 months by the summer of 2010, as his own website states? Do you think the Iraqi's are going to be sooooo greatful we are gone that they will do his bidding? You've lost it. Not that you ever had it.

Take another drink.
Sigh. Once again, Tommy, here is what you said.

An unconditional pullout in 16 months is not the answer. That IS for certain.

You do admit to saying that, right. Well, right?

You made the statement, and the burden of proof is on you to support it with evidence. You did not say it was your opinion. You said it was "for certain." I asked you to prove it, and you have been flopping around the forum like a fish out of water ever since.

It is illogical (and dimwitted) to try to turn the tables on me and tell me to prove that it that leaving is the answer, because I never claimed that "it is for certain" that it is the answer. The truth is, there's a plethora of things that can go wrong in Iraq if we leave, and a plethora that can continue to go wrong if we stay. There is no certainty in this, either way. Any moron knows that...why are you having trouble with it?

Now why don't you just be a man and admit that you cannot support your statement above? Or do you want to flop around like a fish some more.

A plethora, I'm impressed. I agree there are a plethora of "things" that will happen. Maybe Obama needs to amend his website once in awhile. According to it, he's backed himself in another corner. Some change. He can't even figure out how to change his website and you think he's going to change the world!

DRINK, DRINK, DRINK.....

ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
Sigh. Once again, Tommy, here is what you said.

"An unconditional pullout in 16 months is not the answer. That IS for certain."

You do admit to saying that, right. Well, right?

You made the statement, and the burden of proof is on you to support it with evidence. You did not say it was your opinion. You said it was "for certain." I asked you to prove it, and you have been flopping around the forum like a fish out of water ever since.

It is illogical (and dimwitted) to try to turn the tables on me and tell me to prove that it that leaving is the answer, because I never claimed that "it is for certain" that it is the answer. The truth is, there's a plethora of things that can go wrong in Iraq if we leave, and a plethora that can continue to go wrong if we stay. There is no certainty in this, either way. Any moron knows that...why are you having trouble with it?

Now why don't you just be a man and admit that you cannot support your statement above? Or do you want to flop around like a fish some more.
A plethora, I'm impressed. I agree there are a plethora of "things" that will happen. Maybe Obama needs to amend his website once in awhile. According to it, he's backed himself in another corner. Some change. He can't even figure out how to change his website and you think he's going to change the world!

DRINK, DRINK, DRINK.....
You still fail to admit the obvious. You won't even admit that you said what you said. Is this another one of those loopy things of yours where you meant something other than what you said?

Once again, it's time for me to reel the flopping fish (that's you) back in. Can you support your statement above with actual evidence, or not? Can you provide evidence that withdrawing combat troops in not the answer, and can you present proof that Obama has said his timetable was "unconditional"

Yes or No? If Yes, present the proof.

Or will be seeing more of those weak "DRINK, DRINK, DRINK" comments that only show the forum how pitiful your reasoning abilities are?

truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
An unconditional pullout in 16 months is not the answer. That IS for certain.


You do admit to saying that, right. Well, right?

You made the statement, and the burden of proof is on you to support it with evidence. You did not say it was your opinion. You said it was "for certain." I asked you to prove it.

OK, OK, I am certain that was my opinion. Does that help your boner? If it doesn't, in 4 hours you should take appropriate steps. I wouldn't want you to be unable to get another hard on with one of my posts.

ThomasK wrote:
truthhurts wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
An unconditional pullout in 16 months is not the answer. That IS for certain.


You do admit to saying that, right. Well, right?

You made the statement, and the burden of proof is on you to support it with evidence. You did not say it was your opinion. You said it was "for certain." I asked you to prove it.

OK, OK, I am certain that was my opinion.
I see. You are certain it was your opinion and unable to present any supporting evidence. Got it.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it?