Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Time For A Reality Check
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tieguy" data-source="post: 73511" data-attributes="member: 1912"><p>"I didn’t say, imply or even think anything of the sort. Once again, President Bush is the one who claimed the Iraqis led the battle using US forces as support. I guess you are calling him a liar."</p><p> </p><p>You challenged his remarks by posting the slanted less than truthfull remarks of "someone who was there" as a rebuttal. By doing so you challenged Bushs statement that the Iraqi's led the charge by quoting this someone who was there who gave a description of what is essentially an operation combining Iraqi troops working with army special forces and 5 battalions of US troops in a support position working under US command and control. By posting this persons rebuttal you therefore challenged the concept of the 9 Iraqi battalions leading the charge in the aforementioned offensive. </p><p> </p><p>In order to validate your point I believe you have to address what option was available that would have shown the Iraqi's were leading the charge based on this "someone who was there's" and your criteria. The only two are very undesirable options for us. </p><p> </p><p>The first would require that the US support the Iraqi offensive working under Iraqi command and control. This the US does not do.</p><p> </p><p>The second would be the US supporting the offensive while operating under their own autonomous command and control completely seperate from the Iraqis own command and control structure. This I believe would be disastorous. </p><p> </p><p>You have to address this vital issue to prove your case. </p><p> </p><p>If you cannot address this vital detail to prove your case then you have to conceed the point that your post was in error and that the news source who made this case clearly misrepresented the facts of this military offensive. </p><p> </p><p>My point is directly on thread and directly addressed all points of your post that started this thread. You are now obligated to defend your attack on the presidents credibility and prove your case.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tieguy, post: 73511, member: 1912"] "I didn’t say, imply or even think anything of the sort. Once again, President Bush is the one who claimed the Iraqis led the battle using US forces as support. I guess you are calling him a liar." You challenged his remarks by posting the slanted less than truthfull remarks of "someone who was there" as a rebuttal. By doing so you challenged Bushs statement that the Iraqi's led the charge by quoting this someone who was there who gave a description of what is essentially an operation combining Iraqi troops working with army special forces and 5 battalions of US troops in a support position working under US command and control. By posting this persons rebuttal you therefore challenged the concept of the 9 Iraqi battalions leading the charge in the aforementioned offensive. In order to validate your point I believe you have to address what option was available that would have shown the Iraqi's were leading the charge based on this "someone who was there's" and your criteria. The only two are very undesirable options for us. The first would require that the US support the Iraqi offensive working under Iraqi command and control. This the US does not do. The second would be the US supporting the offensive while operating under their own autonomous command and control completely seperate from the Iraqis own command and control structure. This I believe would be disastorous. You have to address this vital issue to prove your case. If you cannot address this vital detail to prove your case then you have to conceed the point that your post was in error and that the news source who made this case clearly misrepresented the facts of this military offensive. My point is directly on thread and directly addressed all points of your post that started this thread. You are now obligated to defend your attack on the presidents credibility and prove your case. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Time For A Reality Check
Top