BDS

Donaldkilroy: "What's so ridiculous about it (objecting to a president with no military experience)?"

Well, for one thing, it would rule out Jefferson and Lincoln as potential presidents, and for another it would increase the risk of military dominance of politics. for another thing (and even far worse) it would rule out me.

As far as this being a "moot" argument, of course it is. What's wrong with moot arguments? Moot MEANS: "open for discussion".

donaldkilroy

You sure do have a knack for arguing in circles, don't you!

Would and Could mean virtually the same thing (Expresses conditionality or possibility)!!!

You've made no such request. Regardless, you are the one making the affirmative argument that there are other methods in which they would/could have used in capturing the men alive. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to detail these alleged "all sorts of methods" they would/could have worked and under what circumstances.

In any case, you can go to CNN, Foxnews or half-a-dozen other news reporting websites and read to your hearts content on what the circumstances were.

Quote me saying you personally were infamous and not your alleged 'list of methods' you claim you posted.

donaldkilroy

Ahhh shucks...you got me there!

Arken

No. Would signifies that something will happen if XXX occurs. Could signifies that something might happen if XXX occurs. It is a subtle but important difference you don't seem capable of grasping.

Yes I have. Twice in this thread at least. I suggest you check back.

I have talked about the methods more than once. Again, I suggest you actually read what I wrote rather than this ridiculous aggressiveness.

Yes, I can and I have... but then I wasn't the one who started lobbing insults and innuendos when someone questioned the whole thing... you're the one who is making a big deal about my daring to question methods used by the military (as if there were no precedent for doing so)...

You didn't. It was merely implied... just as you never directly said I was an idiot but you continue to imply it, something I don't appreciate.

donaldkilroy

You're the one who has a problem grasping simple concepts. Take 'syntax' or 'in context' for example. The meaning of would and could in the context they have been given are synonymous. Both terms expressing a 'possibility' that A might result if circumstance B happens.

No, you made the affirmative claim you posted it. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to produce it.

Not since we've engaged one another you have not talked about it (the list of "all sorts of methods")! Again, you've made the affirmative claim that you've posted it so it's up to you to prove it! Either link to it or cut-n-paste what you said with the date/time of your original posting to prove it.

[qoute]Yes, I can and I have... but then I wasn't the one who started lobbing insults and innuendos when someone questioned the whole thing... [/qoute]

Oh...poor baby. Did I hurt your feelings with my innuendos and your unsubstantiated alleged insults?

And you're the one avoiding my simple request for you to prove your assertion by listing these "all sorts of methods" and what circumstances they'd work in. I mean after all, you've read books and (likely) seen documentaries on the history channel. So, you must know a lot more (as you insinuated) than the professional soldiers trained to do this job, enough that you feel compelled to question their performance with suggestions of "all sorts of methods" that could/would have been used to take those men alive. Methods for which you've yet to outline but repeatedly say exist as options. Well?

Of course I didn't.

Really? Where?

Again, where?



You'd obviously never be able to hold your own in a formidable debate.

Arken

I may not be able to hold my own in a 'formidable' debate, but in a formal debate people don't lob ridiculous comments like 'poor baby' and continually use rolleyes smileys. I'm tired of this so I'm going to just stop discussing it.

This is generally the point when your type says 'HA HA! I WIN!!!!' so go ahead if that's what floats your boat.

donaldkilroy

Let me guess, as with your earlier confusion over what would and could means in the contexts they were given you are also confused on what 'formidable' means in the context in which it is given, right!

As for the ridiculous comments like 'poor baby,' I'd love to see how you would/could react to someone who lobs vulgarities and other obscene actual insults as I've seen some users around here use. If you want to have some fun and enjoy the debates that go on I suggest you grow a little thicker skin than what you have now. You're too sensitive and take things far too personally.

Hmmm...but if I didn't know any better I'd say that was your attempt at a disparaging remark directed at little old me. Could it be? I think it is...and all within a few posts where you criticize me for making alleged insults directed at you. Why, how very hypocritical of you Arken

PS. What is it with people whining about the use of icons? They are there for a reason you know! Use it or lose it I say!

donaldkilroy

If memory serves, I do believe someone asked me to prove something along the lines of my comments regarding the mere appearance of the brothers and Sadam being 'religious' and the sons intent on dying as martyrs for their cause. Well, here it is:

'Saddam' Mourns Sons in New Audiotape

CALDONIA

donaldkilroy cites the words of Saddam Hussein as evidence for his argument that the "Saddam boys" were religious fanatics.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

That's about as credible as quoting Adolf Hitler to argue that Benito Mussolini was an Italian statesman.

:banghead:

donaldkilroy

What part of "...regarding the mere appearance of the brothers and Sadam being 'religious' and the sons intent on dying as martyrs for their cause." did you fail to comprehend?