lol u should cop a feel and post when u do it

10/3/2007 10:46:23 PM

I'm going to go back to Sun Tzu on this one:

Quote :

"Therefore, I have seen operations that were swift but clumsy, but I have never seen one which was slow and skillful."

The fact that 4 1/2 years after the initial invasion, we're still trying to determine if we're winning or not is a defeat in and of itself.

War is not math, you define your own objectives and measures thereof, but as Duke said, winning is getting what you want. If you don't even know what you want, you're not winning. If you know what you want but aren't getting it, you're not winning.

10/3/2007 11:27:19 PM

Quote :

"ten dollars and 3 aliases (this one because I just wanted a new one)"

3 aliases? do you honestly believe that ANYBODY believes your underestimating faggot ass self? give everyone on TWW a fucking break...you're addicted to TWW like you're addicted to cock...come correct you closet faggot....3 aliases? who in the fuck do you think you're fooling?

10/4/2007 12:41:55 AM

so, like.... have you guys fucked yet?

regardless, I'm voting the Twista/BlindHate pairing as Best T-Dub Love Affair 2007.

10/4/2007 1:26:35 AM

^That literally might be the worst trolling Soap Box post in my 6 year history on TWW...but just to play along with your homoerotic hypotheticals...

Not me...I'm casting my vote for joe_schmoe and Chance/State409c/TypeA/PartisanHack/Blind Hate

One of you loves role playing, and the other loves wearing womens panties...clearly great representatives of our country's liberals...a couple hippie douchebags that refuse to grow up

I obviously wouldnt have included joe_schmoe in this faggot love affair with Bald Hate, but he chose to show his true faggot colors

btw my vote for best TWW love affair is joe_schmoe and common sense...they've been divorced for quite a long time (probably about 20 years) but he really wants to get back together because he is very lost without her

10/4/2007 1:30:53 AM

look man, i only wear my wife's panties when I'm out of clean skivvies. its not real comfortable, the shits too tight

and i wind up spending the whole day paranoid I'm going to get hit by a bus and have to go to the ER, or have my pants stolen by a mugger.

anyhow...

there aint one of you motherfuckers here who have lived with a gal for a significant time and NOT tried on her goddamned panties at least onceass.

If you say you havent, youre a damn liar, i mean unless you got some petite ballerina chick with no ass or something.

Now, twista, its not my fault youre so goddamned chronic that you cant get it up for a gal anyhow, that you've never had the pleasure of trying to shower/shit/shave with nylons hanging on the shower rod, and associated shit like that.

10/4/2007 1:39:23 AM

Quote :

"there aint one of you motherfuckers here who have lived with a gal for a significant time and NOT tried on her goddamned panties at least onceass"

no actually its just you...i'm not a homosexual faggot like you...sorry to burst your bubble...not everyone is a crossdressing faggot...you're the minority

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 1:50 AM. Reason : ]

10/4/2007 1:42:22 AM

^^ You duct tape your dick back, too, don't you?

10/4/2007 2:26:14 AM

look here, hooksaw, how many times to i have to tell you:

-- stop thinking about my dick.

-- stop looking at my cock every time i sit down and stand up at the library. You think I dont see you, but I do.

How much clearer do i have to make it? you're not gonna get any of this cock... even if I WASN'T married.

so just ... stop it.

please.

you're embarrassing yourself.






[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 2:50 AM. Reason : ]

10/4/2007 2:46:27 AM

^ You wear women's panties.

10/4/2007 3:38:47 AM

Quote :

"One of you loves role playing, and the other loves wearing womens panties...clearly great representatives of our country's liberals"

loves soliciting bathroom buttsecks...clearly great representatives of our country's conservatives

10/4/2007 7:18:10 AM

Take this shit elsewhere: /message_topic.aspx?topic=496725

10/4/2007 7:40:05 AM

Attn ChronicTwister

Can you refute this with a rational argument? If not, then please stop posting in this thread.

Quote :

"I'm going to go back to Sun Tzu on this one: Quote : "Therefore, I have seen operations that were swift but clumsy, but I have never seen one which was slow and skillful." The fact that 4 1/2 years after the initial invasion, we're still trying to determine if we're winning or not is a defeat in and of itself. War is not math, you define your own objectives and measures thereof, but as Duke said, winning is getting what you want. If you don't even know what you want, you're not winning. If you know what you want but aren't getting it, you're not winning."

10/4/2007 8:26:15 AM

Twista Is advocating what happens in TSB pretty much every day.

1) Make loud proclamation based largely on ideology
2) Argue
3) Lose
4) Re-define winning
5) Refuse to admit that any metric you disagree with has any merit whatsoever
6) Degenerate into name calling.

As it applies to Iraq:
1) Make known false statements to the world, hope that if you repeat it enough, people will believe you. Base your righteousness no on the facts, but on neo-conservative ideology
2) Invade
3) Lose momentum based on complete lack of post-war planning
4) Re-define winning
5) Refuse to admit that any metric you disagree with has any merit whatsoever
6) Call everyone "turrists" or the even more meaningless term: "Islamo-Fascist"

I humbly present this to you as JCASHFAN's Law.

10/4/2007 8:48:25 AM

Hahahah

I could never quite understand what it was about Bush and the Iraq War that rang so true with Twista.

It's now clear. Thank you.

10/4/2007 9:06:17 AM

Quote :

"Can you refute this with a rational argument?"

i find it pretty amazing that this half dozen alias loser somehow has more credibility here than me...he pretty much trolls any thread he posts in, yet i'm always the bad guy cause i don't bash bush's stupidity, or the unjustness of the iraq war as frequently as TSB requires

oh and also its obvious that most of you still don't have a CLUE as to what it means if something is quantifiable

Quote :

"1) Make loud proclamation based largely on ideology you can't quantify winning a guerilla war...i dont know how dumb you'd have to be to consider that "based...on ideology"...its based on simple math which you clearly need to re-visit 2) Argue *explains difficulties in assigning numerical values to abstract concepts* 3) Lose *accidentally explains these difficulties to hardheaded TSB morons* 4) Re-define winning *repeats the difficulties if not impossibilities of placing definite numerical values on abstract concepts* 5) Refuse to admit that any metric you disagree with has any merit whatsoever *continues to realize you guys are really stupid* 6) Degenerate into name calling. *like every single other person in TSB, you hypocrite* "

while your law has some merit in day-to-day TSB threads, my point in this thread has not been along the guidelines of your law

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 10:28 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 10:10:37 AM

My "law," as are most all laws, is a generalization not tailored to specific denizens but the the population as a while. It applies to a large number of posters across this board, so don't take it so personally.

Either way the fact your entire argument is "we really have no idea and I reject any attempt you make at having an idea." and your rebuttal consisted of saying "you guys are too dumb to understand my genius" is weak even by the standards of this board. You would have no credibility in any serious discussion outside of this twisted world. You're like the guy who runs away from a fight and claims victory because you didn't get hit.

Quote :

"*like every single other person in TSB, you hypocrite*"

I've never called anyone in TSB much more than an idiot and it was usually with good cause for a specific post. I challenge you to find even a half dozen instances of me insulting someone personally and any instances of it being my primary argument.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 10:31 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 10:32 AM. Reason : ChitChat doesn't count.]

10/4/2007 10:30:06 AM

^^And once again you're falling back on the same, flawed argument you use for so many other debates.

Our knowledge on the subject is not perfect, and it never will be. That doesn't mean we lack enough information to make effective policy decisions.


And whether or not it is quantifiable is moot. You found a red herring that Chance couldn't identify as such, and since that point all but maybe two of your posts have featured that word. Give it up. It's dumb. We're not achieving our objectives by any measure, quantifiable or not.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 10:31 AM. Reason : ^]

10/4/2007 10:31:10 AM

Quote :

"your entire argument is "we really have no idea and I reject any attempt you make at having an idea." "

your problem is you still don't understand my entire argument even though you falsely think you do

do this for me...assign some quantitative values to abstract non-mathematical concepts like quality of life in iraq compared to quality of life during saddam's

i'd love to see what you come up with since its apparently possible and thats been my argument all along

or you could certainly cite a specific post of mine that you believes argues a different point

Quote :

"We're not achieving our objectives by any measure, quantifiable or not"

see this is the ultimate problem...i realize we're on a board full of anti-war liberals...i don't try to claim we're winning the war...i simply take a lower profile and point out the difficulties of measuring success OR failure...but people like boone come with they're pre-defeatist attitude "we're not achieving our objectives by any measure"...and then he gets mad when people tell him he's a defeatist

hence why your posts in this thread are 100x more meaningless than mine...i point out difficulties in assessing the question of the thread (Is the surge working)...you just come in and say no its not working

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 10:33:04 AM

Here's a perfect example of quality of life, quantified:

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf

Now could we please move on?

10/4/2007 10:36:01 AM

interesting...Singapore has a better quality of life than the United States? Iran has a better quality of life than 23 countries?

but more importantly, Iraq is not listed there...i wonder why? maybe because its difficult to quantify quality of life during a country's rebuilding process? hey i think i recall somebody making that point earlier....

10/4/2007 10:40:24 AM

What do you know about Singapore? And is it really that difficult to believe that there are 23 countries in Africa and Central Asia are worse off than (oil-rich) Iran?

And are we now entering Phase II of the Treetard Doctrine?

The move from "We don't know enough" to "can we really know anything for sure, man?"

10/4/2007 10:45:45 AM

i figure some of those countries in the bottom 23 might actually have some womens rights, unlike oil-rich iran...i'm sure iran has great quality of life for homosexuals too

but like i said earlier, which you coincidentally forgot to address in your last post, iraq isnt even on that list...why do you think that is?

i guess you'd rather call me "Treetard" instead of trying to figure out why Iraq's quality of life isn't in your link

Quote :

"assign some quantitative values to abstract non-mathematical concepts like quality of life in iraq compared to quality of life during saddam's "

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 10:49 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 10:47:24 AM

A) The study was made in 2005.

B) It apparently didn't include any nation at war. The Sudan is also missing from the list. Why would you include nations at war in a quality of life index?


[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 10:51:25 AM

but since this entire thread is about iraq...a nation at war...and i ask for something defining quality of life saddam and post-saddam...IN IRAQ...dont you think that would be pretty relevant to this thread's question of whether or not the surge is working? or maybe you just didnt look at the link before you posted it

10/4/2007 10:53:00 AM

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20061220.htm

30 seconds on Google brought me this. Its from December of last year, but it demonstrates that it is quite possible to find quantifiable metrics that determine the quality of life in Iraq.

Quote :

" ....................................................Nov 03..........Nov 04..........Nov 05........Nov 06 Iraqi Civilian Fatalities.......................1,250............2,900............1,800..........4,000 Multiple-Fatality Bombings..................6.................11................41..............65 Iraqi Refugees Since April 2003...........100,000.........350,000........900,000.......1,800,000 Iraqi Doctors Killed / Abducted / Fled...100/1,000......250/2,000.....1,000/5,000..2,250/12,000 Household Fuel Avail (% of est need)...76................77...............88...............54 Oil Production (Mil BPD; prewar: 2.5)....2.1...............2.0..............2.0..............2.1 Electricity (in mW; prewar: 4,000).......3,600............3,200...........3,700..........3,700 ISF Technically Proficient...................0..................10,000.........35,000........115,000 ISF Politically Dependable...................0..................0................5,000..........10,000 ISF = Iraqi Security Forces"

I couldn't find pre-war numbers, but I'm sure they're out there, I've just got othe things to cover down on today. I think the point still stands, however that reliable metrics exist and both Twista and this administration would rather ignore them than admit error.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 10:58 AM. Reason : fixed]

10/4/2007 10:53:05 AM

But Tree will still argue that quantification is impossible. Iraq is a black hole of data, so powerful that numbers are not able to escape its borders.

This is stupid, Tree. You're only clinging to it because it's the one argument you've been able to formulate in this whole thread so stupid that most of us don't know where to begin.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 10:56 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 10:54:09 AM

Quote :

"reliable metrics exist"

like the ones i mentioned about "number of casualties" etc 5 pages ago in this thread

but neither of those ^,^^ try to "add up all the metrics" to truly assess the situation...its more raw data (and estimates)...how can you answer the question "is the surge working" with any of that?

"Is the surge working" is still the question here

Your problem (and I'm assuming it goes much deeper in your life than just arguing about the Iraq war) is you think everything is so simple...everything is so easy to understand and define and everything is so black and white...I'm seriously going to send my kids to private school

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 10:56:18 AM

Well then we're full circle.

The Bush Administration set out goals for the surge.

We failed to meet most of them.



But now you're going to argue that those goals are impossible to quantify.

Because, as we all know... numbers can't exist in Iraq.

10/4/2007 10:58:58 AM

I thought your most recent question was quality of life.

Keep backpedaling.

10/4/2007 10:59:36 AM

^^yeah cause thats exactly what i said

BooneTard Doctrine: put words in peoples mouthes when its convenient

^

Quote :

"but neither of those ^,^^ try to "add up all the metrics" to truly assess the situation...its more raw data (and estimates)...how can you answer the question "is the surge working" with any of that? "

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 11:00 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 11:00:00 AM

Quote :

"do this for me...assign some quantitative values to abstract non-mathematical concepts like quality of life in iraq compared to quality of life during saddam's"

your words.

Quote :

"Bone-tard"

Name calling index: Twista:1 JCASHFAN: 0

In other words:

Quote :

"4) Re-define winning 5) Refuse to admit that any metric you disagree with has any merit whatsoever 6) Degenerate into name calling."

JCASHFAN's law!

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 11:02 AM. Reason : you've had enough spanking for today, I'm going to get back to work.]

10/4/2007 11:00:37 AM

^i like how boone is exempt from his namecalling (Tree-tard)

so is the surge working or not? you seem to know a lot about it

since thats the question of the thread...apparently its easy to figure out...anything that needs to be quantified can be...so you should have no trouble answering the thread's main question...i'll be waiting for your answer...apparently i'm just backpeddling and changing my arguments, whereas you have a good understanding of the situation...so, is the surge working or not

oh what a coincidence...i guess i've had enough spanking, conveniently right before i ask you if the surge is working


-----------

JCASHFAN's law!

Focus on minutia. Don't address the bigger picture. Take small victories and leave without answering the main question of the thread.

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 11:02:09 AM

Quote :

"so, is the surge working or not"

Not really:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071222t.pdf


But here's where you're going to argue about quantification.

10/4/2007 11:18:53 AM

so Petraeus was lying?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSSYD20420070831?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews


(Here's where, in a Boone post, he would try to guess the followup post's response, usually incorrectly)

10/4/2007 11:26:37 AM

It's easy to say you're winning when you're allowed to move the goalposts.

Bush clearly defined the surge's objectives early on. We failed to meet them.

There's a period at the end of that sentence.

10/4/2007 11:34:20 AM

Quote :

"Bush clearly defined the surge's objectives early on"

oh NOW you give bush the benefit of the doubt...he screws up everything all the time, but in this case, since it fits your argument, you're jut fine with his clearly defined objectives, regardless of what General Petraeus says

10/4/2007 11:36:11 AM

I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I'm stating facts.

1) He declared the surge.
2) He set goals for the surge.
3) Those goals were not met.
4) Therefore, the surge did not meet its objectives.

Are there any points you'd like to debate?

10/4/2007 11:42:42 AM

Well anybody could argue #3 since some goals were met

also i like your last post...its a good example of what i was saying about you earlier...how you think everything is so simple and cut and dry even though it seldom is

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 11:44:42 AM

Under what circumstances is <50% not a failure?

Quote :

"how you think everything is so simple and cut and dry even though it seldom is"

"Can we really know anything, man? Can anything be truly quantified?"

10/4/2007 11:53:56 AM

Quote :

"Those goals were not met"

except for the goals that WERE met

"war is bad man, its like...peace is good dude...violence isnt the way"

[Edited on October 4, 2007 at 11:56 AM. Reason : .]

10/4/2007 11:54:51 AM

But we're talking about the "The Surge"

The Surge was an initiative with clearly defined goals.

>50% of those goals were not met.


You can argue about Iraq in general all you want, but The Surge, as defined by Bush himself, did not work.

10/4/2007 11:58:46 AM

thats fine...but I'll take the General's word over yours when he says that "The Surge" is in fact working

since he's spent a lot longer in Iraq seeing things first hand than you or I

10/4/2007 12:05:15 PM

He never denied that they failed to meet the original goals of The Surge.

He just backpedaled and claimed that things in Iraq were going great despite the failure to meet the goals of The Surge.

You do that type of thing so often I understand why it would seem ok, though.

10/4/2007 12:09:42 PM

like i said, if it isnt cut and dry, black and white, you cant understand it...apparently a war is such a strictly defined "process" that its impossible for anything to change

and I'll continue to take the General's word over someone like you who hasn't spent months and months in Iraq

10/4/2007 12:10:58 PM

who remembers flyboy flying on the aircraft carrier in his pretty little jump suit under the banner...

"Mission Accomplished"

10/4/2007 12:13:19 PM

who remembers that we're still fighting Al Queda in Afghanistan?

10/4/2007 12:14:38 PM

Excellent we agree on something

10/4/2007 12:23:59 PM

Quote :

"like i said, if it isnt cut and dry, black and white, you cant understand it...apparently a war is such a strictly defined "process" that its impossible for anything to change and I'll continue to take the General's word over someone like you who hasn't spent months and months in Iraq"

Fortunately the Surge was made very cut and dry. Here it is, once again:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071222t.pdf

But since you've lost this, you're trying to blend the Surge and the War in order to hide behind murky data.

10/4/2007 12:31:52 PM

Quote :

"Fortunately the Surge was made very cut and dry"

way to continue acting like a massive scale nation building project in a violent region with tons of external and internal factors is simply "very cut and dry"

its like you read my assumed stereotypes about you, and then you make a post that confirms those assumptions

Good thing General Petraeus is capable of adapting to the constant and inevitable changes of such a diverse landscape

10/4/2007 12:37:58 PM