...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Politics
»
Obama fans...
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] :D Grumman, I just could not stop laughing through your replies, because they just lack a modicum of rational thinking. You said that your claim about "aggressive combat operations ending" is a fact, because Obama said so, yet you turn around and say that the same standard doesn't hold for Bush. This is obviously not objective thinking by any stretch. It is cult-like party-line thinking. On the "aggressive combat" issue, you are even hilarious. Even if we took your qualification of this term seriously, which is to suggest that Americans just sit around like idiots when their colleagues are being killed left and right by Iraqi insurgents, that scenario would still qualify as an "aggressive combat" operation. It doesn't necessarily have to be up to U.S. soldiers to start every fire fight on the ground. Regardless of whether they like it or not, Iraqi counter-aggression is going drag them into "aggressive combat operation". If as you say, that [i]"Sitting in a fuel truck at a base a few miles from the ''hot zone'' to deliver fuel to a combat zone/hot zone when a sniper strikes from several hundred yards away: combat related; cleaning a weapon for combat operations later in the week when a mortar round strikes the compound you are sitting in and you die from your wounds: combat related"[/i], etc, all only constituted "combat related" and not "aggressive combat operations", as if both terms are mutually exclusive, then one could simply say that they were killed in "Iraqi attacks", and drop the usage of "combat related" altogether. It makes no sense for something to be "combat related" when no "combat" supposedly had taken place. "Sitting around and cleaning a gun" is not a "combat", Grumman. :D [b]BUT[/b], an insurgent killing an occupying soldier "sitting and cleaning a gun for future use" is "combat related", as it involves "combat", even if the "aggression" comes from the insurgents' side...and as for "aggression", that part is pretty self explanatory, as it would pertain to "aggression" of the attackers/insurgents in the presented scenario. However, any "retaliatory" action by the occupying soldiers thereof, too would constitute "aggressive combat operation", because then they would have to use "aggression" to combat their adversaries. Basically, you're insinuating that American soldiers just die in Iraqi attacks and they do nothing about it. How realistic is that?...for any "retaliatory" attack by American soldiers would have to come from an "aggressive" angle. It doesn't matter who "instigates" it [as if occupying someones' land against their will is not instigation enough], when there is fighting going on, both parties will become "combatants" and both will be drawn to "aggression"...unless one of the parties just decides to be a lifeless punching bag, and adopts a non-aggressive policy, LOL. It simply doesn't make any sense, Grumman, for a "combat related" situation in armed conflict to be absent of "combat", and like wise, for "combat" to be devoid of "aggression". It is not that I'm struggling to understand, it is just that you simply have not presented yourself adequately in upholding the objectivity of your claim. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3