New Iraqi Government - A puppet of the US government?

Iul, would you say, then, that countries the US took back after the Nazi invasion, and then protected against re-invasion were not independent then? And if so, why?

 

No, that is the case and that was the second time. I don't take responsibility for your inability to comprehend what I clearly stated.

No one is suggesting otherwise. Who are you arguing with over that point? Mr. Strawman?

It was clarified twice. That you fail to comprehend is not my problem. Personally, I believe you were just being absent minded on purpose.

 

If what you said was stated clearly, then why does Ablaye seem to misunderstand above, and argue that we didn't go into Iraqi because we were invited?

Nope. I was simply stating, bottom line, a summary of what happened. That the reason we went in, and the reason we are there now, while linked, are different, and stating them each separately.

 

Josh,

Now you're just being dishonest to save face. That's really a shame too. You've done nothing by cry the last few posts and demonstrated you have no reading comprehension skills at all.

"those people," the ones with the purple fingers. Was quite clear about who I was referencing and whose government we are there at the request of. Again, I cannot take responsibility for your inability to comprehend.

Once again, it is clear who I was referencing. Josh, you help me out this time. Don't be afraid, just spit the answer out when you know it.

In the above quote, I said:

We (not you) are there at the request of the Iraqi government.

Now Josh, it's your turn. Please quote the next line. Here's a hint, part of it is in red:

Shall we have a sayonce and ask Ray Charles to point this one out?

Shall we call Helen Keller for this one?

Numb nuts!

 

And you kept saying "We are there because of". The clarification that I tried to get you to make was to say that this is our reason for continuing presence because people kept replying to your post talking about the reasons we went there originally and then you keep talking about reasons for continuing presence.

 

In addition, I also said "who" we are there because of. If you are color blind (some people really are), that would explain why you willfully ignored the bolded red comments above. Otherwise, I can only concluded dishonesty.

 

Actually, as we both agreed in the past, bold red comments are generally hurtful to the eyes to read based solely on the fact that they are bold, and red, and so I generally skip any part of a post that contain them, as I have said in the past.

And since you're so incredibly focused on it, I freely and willingly admit that in many of your posts you mention the current Iraqi government.

However there are two types of reasons for "Why we are there" there are reasons pertaining to "why we originally came" and "why we haven't yet left."

 

Yet you still made all this fuss? The bold red was necessary in this case. You left me no other choice to do such because you were being dishonest about what I said.

You can have the last word. My point has been made...time and time and time and time again.

What a shame.

 

That's it.

I've tried using logic. I've tried quoting earlier posts to show what -part- of your posts I was referring to. Yet the fact that I was doing so to bring focus to what I was talking about was lost on you. Because what was important to -you- wasn't quoted, you suddenly assume Dishonesty.

I have made every effort thought my life and career to be honest, and forthright. When I find evidence that undermines my position, and it looks like it comes from a reputable source, I generally post it, and often will reverse my opinion on a matter due to the new evidence. I try to make sure I give the other guy a fair shake in what he's talking about.

I even conceded a point further up, specifically because it was important to you, and because in that point you were fairly well correct.

I can take arrogance. I can take people belittling my intelligence, one of my other qualities which I hold in great esteem. But for two posts in a row now, you have insulted my honesty, and my integrity. I stood by and let you do it once, because I hoped that we could settle this in a relatively civil fassion.

However, a second insult to my integrity in as many posts is something that I will not brook. You, sir, have just dropped incredibly in my esteem.

 

It's not an insult when it's true. Save your self-victimization for another time. You were dishonest. You pretended as if I had not disclosed information in order to try an make an argument against me. At each turn, I pointed this out. You even went so far as to quote a number of my posts, but specifically avoid those in which your original fake question had been previously answered.

After I pointed these out, even in RED BOLD, you still pretended (or maybe intentionally) as if not to see them, THEN went so far as to admit you had seen them.

I dismiss the notion anyone could be so dumb. Yet you continue to prove me wrong.

 

GTech, at this point, you have lost so much of your credibility in an effort to attack mine that it is laughable.

For me to have been dishonest, I would have had to intentionally attempted to deceive others. Unless you can see into my mind and read my intentions, any claim that I have been dishonest on your part is pure inference, and one that I find insulting.

I am not a victim, and I am refusing to let your attacks on me make me one. I am honest. I am relatively intelligent (I won't claim to be even close to being on par with some of our Geniuses like Steven Hawking), and your attacks will not change those facts, though they may influence the opinion that some others have of me.

I asked you to separate talking about why we initially went into Iraq from why we have a continuing presence there. You are the one who focused on previous government vrs present government.

It is obvious that we could not have gone in to Iraq at the request of the current government. However there was a huge argument earlier in the thread over why we were there. Some people posted about why we were there originally, but all you focused on is why, since the new Iraqi government came into being, we have not left. For some reason the distinction between past, and present, seems to be lost upon you. Perhaps you think that the past is never relevant to anything. I'm not sure. I can't read your mind.

I went back and read the original posts that I quoted, and you asked me, not in red text, to extend. I stand by my decision to chop out all but the portions I quoted. I had a reason for doing so. That reason was not dishonest, as you insinuate, but rather to cut down on the amount of text I had in my post (It was getting to the point I thought people would complain I had quoted to much), as well as because those pieces of information were completely extraneous to what I tried, unsuccessfully, to discuss.

Did I hide my reasons for asking you certain questions? YES. Is this dishonest? NO. The Socratic method relies on very similar techniques, and is very valid for discussion. Unfortunately, it sometimes insults those who demand that every single question and answer in a discussion must fit -their- idea of what is relevant to the current discussion. I had thought you someone more suited to logical discussion than to take offense at such a discussion technique. I now see the error in that.

 

Josh, I really don't care how you attempt to cover up your dishonesty or what method you believe you are using.

You asked me a specific question, of which I had previously addressed. I clarified it for you. You then proceeded to ask again. Then after twice answering, proceeded to ask an additional time, calling it "crystal clear."

I gave you more opportunity and leeway than I usually do most over something like this. Yet you still persisted by dishonestly avoiding quoting where I had answered such.

I then went back and pulled out my own posts to show where you had dishonestly skipped over them and highlighted them in bold/red.

I'm not interested in your cheesy games. I don't care what terms you use to call it or how you want to present yourself as a victim. When you stick your dick in a hornet's nest, you're bound to get stung.

My suggestion to you is, if you do not want to be called for being dishonest, then stop being dishonest. This is out of character for you, which is exactly why I gave you more room then I would someone else before escalating it to the point of highlighting what I believe you were doing.

You should know if you push me, especially in a dishonest way, I will push back. If you bite me, I will bite back. If you are wrong (and you were), I will correct something, especially when someone spends as much effort as you did to dishonestly portray such.

You might want to go back and review. You asked, I answered. You asked again, I answered. You asked a third time, I answered. As I pointed out, no matter how you dress the question, it's pretty much going to be the same answer.

Potraying yourself as a victim after the fact isn't fooling anyone. Suggesting that you chose to highlight everything I had said, except where I had honestly answered your repeated questions, to cut down on the amount of text is laughable! It's dishonest! You know it, I know it and anyone following your diatribe can see it.

 

Edit: I've removed my lengthy post. I've already made my case. I'll let your post be the last one to stand dealing with this particular matter. We've gone far, FAR off topic, and this is devolving into nothing more than an attack brawl, and I don't really think we should be discussing it any more. I'm going to ask a mod to close the thread.