Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to I would count that as a definite point for you.

re: I would count that as a definite point for you.
Pissed-as-hell Yeti! — (archived)

" If you had mentioned bombs buried in roads"

Oh, well! Now you want me to predict tactical implementation details! Would you require me to tell you the names and addresses of the prospective insurgents as a pre-requisite for 'knowing what I was talking about' when I posted here, over and over and over, that this war was Folly, would land us in a horrible spot geopolitically, and end with us embroiled in a goddamn civil war?

Now, I know you are conceeding a point to me, and I do appreciate it, despite the tone I am taking here.

But the problem is not too long ago you wrote a post about how us 'political psuedoscientists' were about as hard to explain stuff to as 'Johannes'. Now, what I want you to see is that at least some of us gave you clear predictions and details about what was wrong with this war in its conception its planning. What I want you to see is how people like yourself are persisting in philosophies, ideologies and beliefs that were WRONG, flat out and undeniably, at that time... and ('wait for it', as you say...)... WRONG now.

So here, on my side, we have predictions based on facts that came to pass. On your side, we have absurd projections, factually incorrect statements, and absolutely failed objectives.

So, Tom, what I want you to see is: just who in the hell is the head-up-the-ass psuedoscientist in this context, and who looks like the person explaining the basic facts of reality to that pseudoscientist.

I recognize your frustration with dialogue here. But, after all the things you have been wrong about, to throw up your hands and complain about OUR irrational intransigence is bullshit. If ever you were a rational scientist and engineer, that should be clear to you!

DL

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (126 posts)