No comment necessary

Posts : 289

KarenT wrote:: Three pages of comments on the topic "No comment necessary"! Anyone else see the humor in that?

:woot:

Posts : 9728

KarenT wrote:: Three pages of comments on the topic "No comment necessary"! Anyone else see the humor in that?

No comment.

Posts : 6988

KarenT wrote:: Three pages of comments on the topic "No comment necessary"! Anyone else see the humor in that?

Your comment is completely unnecessary.

Posts : 1328

So -- it fits right in, right! Teehee!

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:: Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.
And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

Wow! You might want to think about getting a new crystal ball. Dead wrong on every level! No lives lost,no troops on the ground,and Ghadafi out of power. Mission Accomplished President Obama! cheers

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.
And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

Wow! You might want to think about getting a new crystal ball. Dead wrong on every level! No lives lost,no troops on the ground,and Ghadafi out of power. Mission Accomplished President Obama! cheers

Why would I need a crystal ball, and what was I wrong about?
My point in starting this thread was clear - to lay out the difference in perception and spin by the media and the Democrats concerning an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.
Pay attention.

happy jack wrote:: …. to attack or not to attack wasn't my purpose in starting this thread. The purpose was to illuminate the vast difference in outrage over two morally indistinguishable international incidents.

happy jack wrote:: Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.

happy jack wrote:: Why are they attacking Libya?
Libya poses no credible threat whatsoever to the United States, does it?

Posts : 9728

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.
And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

Wow! You might want to think about getting a new crystal ball. Dead wrong on every level! No lives lost,no troops on the ground,and Ghadafi out of power. Mission Accomplished President Obama! cheers

Why would I need a crystal ball, and what was I wrong about?
My point in starting this thread was clear - to lay out the difference in perception and spin by the media and the Democrats concerning an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.
Pay attention.

I'm referring to your remark that I quoted. It's clear that you believed that we were laying the groundwork for a possible invasion when it's obvious that we weren't. Just admit that were dead wrong and we can move on. Thanks.

Posts : 6988

[quote="Artie60438"]

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Wow! You might want to think about getting a new crystal ball. Dead wrong on every level! No lives lost,no troops on the ground,and Ghadafi out of power. Mission Accomplished President Obama!

Why would I need a crystal ball, and what was I wrong about?
My point in starting this thread was clear - to lay out the difference in perception and spin by the media and the Democrats concerning an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.
Pay attention.

I'm referring to your remark that I quoted. It's clear that you believed that we were laying the groundwork for a possible invasion when it's obvious that we weren't. Just admit that were dead wrong and we can move on. Thanks.

I will admit that I am wrong when you can point out anything in my quote that is false.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:: [b]I will admit that I am wrong when you can point out anything in my quote that is false.

Quote :: Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.

Looks to me that you think that an invasion is just a matter of time.

Quote :: And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.

Show me where we were laying the groundwork for an invasion.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: I will admit that I am wrong when you can point out anything in my quote that is false.

Quote :

Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.
So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.

Looks to me that you think that an invasion is just a matter of time.

Quote :

And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.

Show me where we were laying the groundwork for an invasion.

happy jack wrote:

Any modern-day invasion is nearly always prefaced by a softening-up bombardment and the dismantling of the air, and other defenses, of the ‘invadees’.

Indisputably true.

happy jack wrote:: So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.

Indisputably true.

happy jack wrote:: And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

Indisputably true.

Artie60438 wrote:: Show me where we were laying the groundwork for an invasion.

Do you seriously believe that the military takes on any mission without planning for every conceivable contingency, regardless of whether or not that contingency becomes necessary?
Please.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Show me where we were laying the groundwork for an invasion.

Do you seriously believe that the military takes on any mission without planning for every conceivable contingency, regardless of whether or not that contingency becomes necessary?

So no actual evidence of such, then...

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Show me where we were laying the groundwork for an invasion.

Do you seriously believe that the military takes on any mission without planning for every conceivable contingency, regardless of whether or not that contingency becomes necessary?

So no actual evidence of such, then...

Is my statement false?

Posts : 3520

Have any evidence?

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: Have any evidence?

Evidence that the military takes into consideration every contingency when undertaking a mission?
No, no evidence. I just kind of assumed that everyone realized that intuitively. Guess I overestimated you and Artie.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Show me where we were laying the groundwork for an invasion.

[b]Do you seriously believe that the military takes on any mission without planning for every conceivable contingency, regardless of whether or not that contingency becomes necessary?
Please.

Show me where our troops were being positioned for a possible invasion? That includes our ships at sea which would also have to be repositioned. It takes a lot of time to get everything into position. When Chimpy decided it was a good idea to invade Iraq he couldn't do it at a drop of a hat. You were speculating on an invasion when there clearly wasn't any evidence.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:: Have any evidence?

Evidence that the military takes into consideration every contingency when undertaking a mission?
No, no evidence. I just kind of assumed that everyone realized that intuitively. Guess I overestimated you and Artie.

Everyone else here knows I was referring to evidence for an invasion of Libya, something slightly more impressive that "I bet somebody wrote something down once". I thought it was obvious, but I forgot what I was talking to. Thanks for at least confirming your just talking out of your ass.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:: Have any evidence?

Evidence that the military takes into consideration every contingency when undertaking a mission?
No, no evidence. I just kind of assumed that everyone realized that intuitively. Guess I overestimated you and Artie.

Everyone else here knows I was referring to evidence for an invasion of Libya, something slightly more impressive that "I bet somebody wrote something down once". I thought it was obvious, but I forgot what I was talking to. Thanks for at least confirming your just talking out of your ass.

My, my.
You certainly get upset when you can't manage to prove your point, don't you?
All I was asking was: if you are going to claim my statements are false, then please point out why they are false.
Just because you can't is no reason to resort to name-calling.
You know how sensitive I am.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: Show me where our troops were being positioned for a possible invasion? That includes our ships at sea which would also have to be repositioned.

I never said any such thing.
Why do you feel the need to make stuff up?

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: All I was asking was: if you are going to claim my statements are false, then please point out why they are false.
Just because you can't is no reason to resort to name-calling.
You know how sensitive I am.

Reread my posts, out loud if need be. I wasn't claiming your statements are false. I couldn't care less about your useless prediction semantics mastered by disappointed Christians millenia ago ("Jesus has not not returned..."). Boring and unoriginal. I was interested in discussing the evidence of a possible invasion of Libya, especially if it was more than just conjecture on your part, which is exactly what I asked about...

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Show me where our troops were being positioned for a possible invasion? That includes our ships at sea which would also have to be repositioned.

[b]I never said any such thing.
Why do you feel the need to make stuff up?

I never claimed you said those things so please stop lying. You clearly were insinuating that we were preparing for an invasion. My point is that there is no evidence of that and I mentioned those points as examples. We lobbed missiles at Libya several times in the past and those instances were never followed up with an invasion.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: I was interested in discussing the evidence of a possible invasion of Libya, especially if it was more than just conjecture on your part, which is exactly what I asked about...

I never said that there was evidence of a possible invasion of Libya. I said that bombardment is nearly always a precursor to any invasion. What is unclear about that?

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:: I was interested in discussing the evidence of a possible invasion of Libya, especially if it was more than just conjecture on your part, which is exactly what I asked about...

[b]I never said that there was evidence of a possible invasion of Libya. I said that bombardment is nearly always a precursor to any invasion. What is unclear about that?

Quote :: So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.

Then why the use of the word "yet"?

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: You clearly were insinuating that we were preparing for an invasion. My point is that there is no evidence of that and I mentioned those points as examples.

I "clearly insinuated" no such thing. You may have erroneously inferred that, however, and there is not much I can do about that. And as I just explained to Heretic in my previous post: I never said that there was evidence of a possible invasion of Libya. I said that bombardment is nearly always a precursor to any invasion. What is unclear about that?

At any rate, let's get back to the original topic of this thread, a topic which you and Heretic have studiously avoided addressing.

To attack or not to attack wasn't my purpose in starting this thread. The purpose was to illuminate the vast difference in outrage over two morally indistinguishable international incidents.
Iraq and Libya are both countries whose leaders were killing their own citizens en masse; they are also countries which allegedly posed no threat to the U.S. but which were nevertheless attacked by the U.S..
Hence, morally indistinguishable.
Libya poses no credible threat whatsoever to the United States, does it?

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

Both situations involved attacks on sovereign nations which were purportedly no threat to the United States. (You may call one situation “the imposition of a no-fly zone” and the other an “invasion” – fine. But hopefully you will, at the very least, be honest enough to admit that the United States is attacking Libya, a sovereign nation that poses no threat to the United States.)
There are no differences – none – in the above justifications set forth for these attacks, justifications which were not taken out of context.
Which U.S. interests are affected, and are the interests sufficiently crucial to justify a military attack on a sovereign nation which poses no military threat to the U.S.?

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: Then why the use of the word "yet"?

Because I have no foreknowledge of the future, and don't pretend to.

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: I never said that there was evidence of a possible invasion of Libya.

You said:

Quote :: So, no, we’re not ‘invading’ Libya – yet.
And we are not not invading Libya, either, but we are most definitely laying the groundwork for such a contingency.
It remains to be seen.

I was simply trying to figure out if you had any actual proof of "such a contingency" or actual planning thereof. All this talk of "laying groundwork" made me think I missed a news story. Glad to know I didn't.