Bring It or STFU

[Gunny]

My original statement:

Then there's the fact he was tying up at least a quarter of our military and its financing for over a decade with no end in sight.

This has been purposefully misquoted as:

... and then you claimed that a quarter of our military budget was taken up in keeping Saddam in check ...

and...

Please Gunny.... explain to me how that sentence does not mean that Saddam was tying up over 25% of our military and its budget for over a decade.

both by manfrommaine.

Dirt the Cheesedick adds from another thread:

You (especially) don't need to play semantics police when you just got done tapdancing around a comment you made that 25% of our military and budgeting was tied up with Saddam.

I suggest first that both of you learn to read what's written, not what you see between the lines.

I suggest second that since I already stated I just took a quick stab at the number, that you either disprove the number or shut the fuck up. Amidst all the personal attacks, I saw nothing to refute even my guess.

[dirt mcgirt]

My original statement:



This has been purposefully misquoted as:



and...



both by manfrommaine.

Dirt the Cheesedick adds from another thread:



I suggest first that both of you learn to read what's written, not what you see between the lines.

I suggest second that since I already stated I just took a quick stab at the number, that you either disprove the number or shut the fuck up. Amidst all the personal attacks, I saw nothing to refute even my guess.

I don't need to disprove the number, fuckface, it was your outrageous claim so you deal with it. Do you know how fucking stupid you sound saying that you took a quick stab at the numbers but then telling someone to disprove it? You fucking retard. Get back to me when those monkeys stop flying out of your ass.

[retiredman]

My original statement:



This has been purposefully misquoted as:



and...



both by manfrommaine.

Dirt the Cheesedick adds from another thread:



I suggest first that both of you learn to read what's written, not what you see between the lines.

I suggest second that since I already stated I just took a quick stab at the number, that you either disprove the number or shut the fuck up. Amidst all the personal attacks, I saw nothing to refute even my guess.

is the issue that you are saying the 25% IS accurate, or is it that you are saying that my paraphrasing of your original statement is inaccurate?

I don't understand your challenge here.

you say he was "tying up a quarter of our military AND ITS FINANCING" in one breath and then claim that my paraphrasing that as "Saddam was tying up over 25% of our military and its budget for over a decade." was purposely disotorting your words. I am saying that the two sentences mean essential the exact same thing and that they are both inaccurate in that Saddam did not take up 25% of the budget or the resources or the men or the time of the US military.... not by a long shot.

So what are you bitching about? that I am assuming that your use of the word "quarter" implies 25% or that the percentage itself is accurate?

[dirt mcgirt]

is the issue that you are saying the 25% IS accurate, or is it that you are saying that my paraphrasing of your original statement is inaccurate?

I don't understand your challenge here.

you say he was "tying up a quarter of our military AND ITS FINANCING" in one breath and then claim that my paraphrasing that as "Saddam was tying up over 25% of our military and its budget for over a decade." was purposely disotorting your words. I am saying that the two sentences mean essential the exact same thing and that they are both inaccurate in that Saddam did not take up 25% of the budget or the resources or the men or the time of the US military.... not by a long shot.

So what are you bitching about? that I am assuming that your use of the word "quarter" implies 25% or that the percentage itself is accurate?

Fuckhead doesn't know what the hell he's saying. He's one of those argumentative fucks who disagrees just to disagree. He's always saying shit like I was never for invading Iraq while being the biggest war apologist on the board. He relies on selectively nitpicking from everyone else's posts and trying to engage in a debate about semantics while downplaying his own numbers and information he pulls out of his ass. Now he wants someone to refute a number he "just took a stab at."

[Gunny]

is the issue that you are saying the 25% IS accurate, or is it that you are saying that my paraphrasing of your original statement is inaccurate?

I don't understand your challenge here.

you say he was "tying up a quarter of our military AND ITS FINANCING" in one breath and then claim that my paraphrasing that as "Saddam was tying up over 25% of our military and its budget for over a decade." was purposely disotorting your words. I am saying that the two sentences mean essential the exact same thing and that they are both inaccurate in that Saddam did not take up 25% of the budget or the resources or the men or the time of the US military.... not by a long shot.

So what are you bitching about? that I am assuming that your use of the word "quarter" implies 25% or that the percentage itself is accurate?

In the post following your response to my intial post, I stated I do not know the exact percentage and that I just took a quick guess. It should have ended there.

Two, within the context of my original statement, it's pretty obvious that "and its financing" applies to the 25%, not to the entire military budget; which, was no part of the discussion.

Again, I don't know what the actual percentage was, and I have so far been unable to find anything concerning it. Which, would mean you don't know what the actual percentage is either. If by chance you have found something to the contrary of that assumption, I would like to see it.

Within the context of my argument, it is pretty clear that we spent a significant amount of money and military manpower babysitting Saddam Hussein, and I consider that one of the justifications for invading iraq.

Since you don't think anything justified the invasion of Iraq, fine. We disagree.

So, the point to carrying on about this WHAT, exactly?

[Gunny]

I don't need to disprove the number, fuckface, it was your outrageous claim so you deal with it. Do you know how fucking stupid you sound saying that you took a quick stab at the numbers but then telling someone to disprove it? You fucking retard. Get back to me when those monkeys stop flying out of your ass.

Yeah, no one ever guesses at anything or makes estimates. Unheard of. Who'd of thunk it?

Didn't take you long to show your true colors. Guess you don't know how stupid you made yourself look when your responses in an unrelated thread were nothing but personal attacks since you couldn't make a legitimate argument on your own. Next time I'll use the big fat crayons and the little words just for you.

[dirt mcgirt]

Yeah, no one ever guesses at anything or makes estimates. Unheard of. Who'd of thunk it?

People make guesses and assumptions all the time. I've just never seen anyone state something, then get called out on it, then say that they were just taking a stab at it, but then going back and providing links to try and support it. LOL.

Didn't take you long to show your true colors. Guess you don't know how stupid you made yourself look when your responses in an unrelated thread were nothing but personal attacks since you couldn't make a legitimate argument on your own. Next time I'll use the big fat crayons and the little words just for you.

True colors? WTF are you talking about? You implied something that wasn't in my post, called me jackass and other personal attacks, started some stupid steel cage thread, and now you're acting all surprised because I flamed you back. If people are upset because I returned the favor then so be it. I'd rather discuss with facts and figures too but the minute you go personal, I do the same.

[retiredman]

In the post following your response to my intial post, I stated I do not know the exact percentage and that I just took a quick guess. It should have ended there.

The point is...it is not even close. THAT WAS my original point. That the quick guess was ridiculous...it would be like me saying..."I am not sure how long my penis is...I've never actually measured it, but, I am going to take a quick guess and say it is 35 feet long."

Two, within the context of my original statement, it's pretty obvious that "and its financing" applies to the 25%, not to the entire military budget; which, was no part of the discussion.
That sentence makes absolutely ZERO sense...you need to go back and reread it and come back with something better. YOur initial post talked about him "tying up a quarter of our military and it's financing" that is talking about tying up a quarter of the military and a quarter of the military's budget.... which is as crazy as my 35 foot long johnson

Again, I don't know what the actual percentage was, and I have so far been unable to find anything concerning it. Which, would mean you don't know what the actual percentage is either. If by chance you have found something to the contrary of that assumption, I would like to see it.

I am not going to take the time to do your research for you.... go look at the defense department budget.... look at all the billions spent on ship construction and new aircraft and all that training and all those bases all over the world and all those bases at home and all those soldiers sailors and marines in all those bases with all those tanks and artillery pieces and helicopters ...

and then imagine the detachments in the middle east... and the relative handful of ships that patrol the arabian sea and persian gulf and the squadron of airforce CAP aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones.

As I said before, 25% is not just A guess, it is a superbly ridiculous guess that indicates that you have zero knowledge about the incredible complexity of the defense department or its budget. I would be surprised if the actual number were greater than 2%.

Within the context of my argument, it is pretty clear that we spent a significant amount of money and military manpower babysitting Saddam Hussein, and I consider that one of the justifications for invading iraq.

And I really find the entire premise that some percentage of prior defense spending becomes a justification for flushing a half a trillion MORE dollars down the shitter and suffering 25THOUSAND dead and wounded....
to be barbaric and idiotic.

Since you don't think anything justified the invasion of Iraq, fine. We disagree.
no shit

So, the point to carrying on about this WHAT, exactly?

why...to kick your ass in this steel cage match that YOU set up, of course.

[Gunny]

People make guesses and assumptions all the time. I've just never seen anyone state something, then get called out on it, then say that they were just taking a stab at it, but then going back and providing links to try and support it. LOL.

Wow. Another incorrect assumption on your part. I seriously doubt that the percentage comes out to an exact 25%. I can guarantee you it doesn't come out to zero. Whatever the exact percentage is/was, it's above and beyond anything babysitting Saddam for 13 years was worth; which, was the intent of my statement. The numbers in the links are what they are, and I did not try to present them as anything more or less than that.

True colors? WTF are you talking about? You implied something that wasn't in my post, called me jackass and other personal attacks, started some stupid steel cage thread, and now you're acting all surprised because I flamed you back. If people are upset because I returned the favor then so be it. I'd rather discuss with facts and figures too but the minute you go personal, I do the same.

I'd suggest you go re-read the thread and your first response to me before you go accusing me of tossing out the first insult. Regardless that, your flame was WAY over the top. I will bear in mind that you cannot differentiate between the severity of insults.

It may not have crossed your mind, but this is a new board and its success depends on attracting new members. A single pissing contest in multiple threads does not accomplish that.

You want to play in the mud with me, no problem. But let's be courteous enough to do it in the proper place.

[Gunny]

In the post following your response to my intial post, I stated I do not know the exact percentage and that I just took a quick guess. It should have ended there.

The point is...it is not even close. THAT WAS my original point. That the quick guess was ridiculous...it would be like me saying..."I am not sure how long my penis is...I've never actually measured it, but, I am going to take a quick guess and say it is 35 feet long."

How do you know it isn't even close? We had a lot of military assets in the ME during the 90s. Say it's 5% or 10% or 15% -- whatever -- how much is "enough" for you?

Two, within the context of my original statement, it's pretty obvious that "and its financing" applies to the 25%, not to the entire military budget; which, was no part of the discussion.
That sentence makes absolutely ZERO sense...you need to go back and reread it and come back with something better. YOur initial post talked about him "tying up a quarter of our military and it's financing" that is talking about tying up a quarter of the military and a quarter of the military's budget.... which is as crazy as my 35 foot long johnson

Nope. You read it wrong.

Again, I don't know what the actual percentage was, and I have so far been unable to find anything concerning it. Which, would mean you don't know what the actual percentage is either. If by chance you have found something to the contrary of that assumption, I would like to see it.

I am not going to take the time to do your research for you.... go look at the defense department budget.... look at all the billions spent on ship construction and new aircraft and all that training and all those bases all over the world and all those bases at home and all those soldiers sailors and marines in all those bases with all those tanks and artillery pieces and helicopters ...

I didn't ask you to do anything for me, did I?

and then imagine the detachments in the middle east... and the relative handful of ships that patrol the arabian sea and persian gulf and the squadron of airforce CAP aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones.

Handful? Yeah, okay.

As I said before, 25% is not just A guess, it is a superbly ridiculous guess that indicates that you have zero knowledge about the incredible complexity of the defense department or its budget. I would be surprised if the actual number were greater than 2%.

And I think it was significantly larger than 2%.

Within the context of my argument, it is pretty clear that we spent a significant amount of money and military manpower babysitting Saddam Hussein, and I consider that one of the justifications for invading iraq.

And I really find the entire premise that some percentage of prior defense spending becomes a justification for flushing a half a trillion MORE dollars down the shitter and suffering 25THOUSAND dead and wounded....
to be barbaric and idiotic.

So just how long do think we should have spent our time and money and tied up our military personnel, REGARDLESS PERCENTAGE. babysitting a genocidal maniac?

Since you don't think anything justified the invasion of Iraq, fine. We disagree.
no shit

So, the point to carrying on about this WHAT, exactly?

why...to kick your ass in this steel cage match that YOU set up, of course.

Good luck.

[Missileman]

That sentence makes absolutely ZERO sense...you need to go back and reread it and come back with something better. YOur initial post talked about him "tying up a quarter of our military and it's financing" that is talking about tying up a quarter of the military and a quarter of the military's budget.... which is as crazy as my 35 foot long johnson

Actually, the financing for x percent of the military is not necessarily linear to x percent of the budget. Compare the cost of one pilot and one F-15 to the cost of one soldier and one Humvee (sp).

[Gaffer]

Actually, the financing for x percent of the military is not necessarily linear to x percent of the budget. Compare the cost of one pilot and one F-15 to the cost of one soldier and one Humvee (sp).

Not to mention the cost of every carrier group kept on station in the area for 13 years.

[retiredman]

Not to mention the cost of every carrier group kept on station in the area for 13 years.

are you suggesting that the only reason we would have a carrier group in the northern arabian sea was to keep tabs on Saddam? HAHAHAHAHA

that's hilarious!

[retiredman]

Actually, the financing for x percent of the military is not necessarily linear to x percent of the budget. Compare the cost of one pilot and one F-15 to the cost of one soldier and one Humvee (sp).

no argument here...the POINT was...his idiotic statement at the beginning of this whole mess was that keeping an eye on Saddam with the squadron of airforce CAP aircraft, the ground forces in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the Naval Assets in the gulf and arabian sea who were only partially dedicated to Saddam babysitting took up over a quarter of our military and its financing.....

like I said....then my penis is 35 feet long.

It is an idiotic and overblown guesstimate, and when he was called on it, he has done nothing but tap dance ever since.

[Gunny]

are you suggesting that the only reason we would have a carrier group in the northern arabian sea was to keep tabs on Saddam? HAHAHAHAHA

that's hilarious!

Is it? Every time we entered the Gulf, we went straight to Kuwait. We sat on the Kuwait-Iraq border while the ARG provided air support for Operation Southern Watch.

Matter of fact, the last time I deployed, Saddam rattled his saber and got our liberty in Phuket cut short by two days so we could rush off to flex for him.

You could say the ARGs were a regional show of force. But then, WHO was the only troublemaker in the region at the time? We didn't spend ten minutes even looking in the direction of Iran. We weren't there to impress Saudi Arabia, Qatar or the UAE.

There were approx 4,500 military personnel and an undisclosed amount of aircraft at Prince Sultan Air Force Base in Saudi Arabia from 1990 to 2003, when they transfered to Qatar.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...nce-sultan.htm

In short, we were there to project US force within the region while looking directly at Iraq.