Sub-Husker

In your case it is true.

Look at posts #88 and #100: If you missed posts #88 and #100, look at post #145: Definitely one of Carl’s more coherent posts. Definitely not one of Carl’s more coherent posts.

You have failed to read, and failed to respond to direct questions. You lost, but at leat you have a parrot.

You lost.

Next topic, let's discus one point at a time. If we can't agree on the reality of a rather simple point, then there is no sense in going further. Are you ready to acknowledge that Iran assisted us in our invasion of Afghanistan?

You did not dispute what I said. You misread the articles and claimed that yeah it was help, but not enough help.

Here you go, once again. Any person with a positive IQ would realize that Iran was helpful to us in the time leading up to our invasion in 2001. Once you acknowledge that I was correct, then we can move on to the next topic.

As I said, let's start with my first statement and go from there. If you will not read or accept the information I post, then any further attempt at discussion will be futile. You have not given me any "reasons why [my] assertions are incorrect", you had said that they weren't enough support. Yet you had not countered the info I provided with anything yourself, claiming that in the buildup to occupation they had worked against us. If you don't want to be known as simpleton, then don't bring unicorns into the discussion. Lastly, you are lying. You are not waiting patiently, you are busy ducking and obfuscating.

You mean simpleton rebuttals that ignore what you don't want to hear, then respond to something else. Let's start with my first statement, then move on from there; I said that Iran helped us with our invasion of Afghanistan. Then I provided links in posts #88 and #100. You dismissed those links, for whatever reason. You provided no contra-argument, but instead jumped to later in the conflict when there was conflict between Iran and NATO. I never stated the point you refuted, and in fact I do agree that there was conflict then and in the present. It comes down to you not accepting what you disagree with, providing no counter argument to what you disagree with, then trying to change the topic to something not in dispute that you can find some info on. I hope that's not the best you can do. I hope that's not what passes for discussion on this board. By "insurmountable argument", I have no interest in surmounting a strawman.

No matter what i post, you will not accept it. Then you changed the topic (I was talking about the onset of the war), you talked about something I was not disputing. But if you read the info I posted, it explained why that happened. Yes, I owe you some info. but it would be a waste of time for me to go on with this conversation. There is no use in talking with someone who has jammed their fingers in their ears and says they can't hear me. Look, your parrot showed up!

You have proven nothing, yet you reject information provided by nothing. In you post #133 you said you proved something, what do you think you had proved? Why had you rejected the information I provided in posts #88 and #100? . Wait... I found your proof!

Where? And you dismissed what I posted. There is no sense in going on with this.

Perhaps my security clearance is not high enough to get all the info I need. Perhaps your clearance is not high enough for me to tell you. You're right, I do have problems on this board. Generally i speak with a more informed group. Perhaps i should dumb down my argument, or just go along with the crowd. If you want I can get you some info on those other topics if you believe we can have a conversation around them. But somehow I do not believe that that will happen.

That friggin' depends what the definition of "is" is. This is similar to Karl struggling to determine what a fact is.

Unconfirmed by any other source... http://debka.com/article/22356/At-least-4-casualties-in-Al-Qaeda-attack-on-US-led-Sinai-peacekeeping-mission-

Was that initially, or after the gross mismanagement became apparent? There was some that was instant. Other stuff that the Dems used politically that was disgusting. Site please.

Do you now agree that they had been helpful? I'll have to get back to you later on the rest. Have you done any searches on Iran's outreaches to the US? Also you mentioned Iran backed attacks on British troops. have you researched US/UK support of terrorism inside Iran? If you want to do that, start with our support for MeK and PJAK.

Sometimes . . . but I certainly don't try to pass a fact-free post off as laden with factual statements. That is fair. Should you ever decide to post something with facts in it, please let us know. As you probably know, there are very few absolute universally recognized truths. It is a generally acknowledged realism that Ryan's speech was full of dishonest statements. It is a generally acknowledged realism that Ryan's budget would be bad for the poor and middle classes. And there is enough information available to reasonably speculate how Sarah Palin would have performed, and how Paul Ryan would be expected to perform. There is no proof that Ziggy likes to party, other than his one statement on that.

The USAToday article says members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard fought with Afghan rebels, and were present when US forces showed up to get them organized. This is a far cry from the Iranians helping us with the invasion - they were already on the ground when we happened upon the scene. This goes nowhere to getting us to the point that "Iran is only our enemy because we insist they be." Iran is our enemy because they choose to be. They are equal partners in the "let's be enemies" dance. I'm sure you realize how much trouble Iran could have made for us in Afghanistan. http://iranprimer.us...and-afghanistan

Was that initially, or after the gross mismanagement became apparent?

http://www.mcclatchy...l#storylink=cpy

Sorry, I thought that was common knowledge. I will have to wait till tonight to pull up some links. We had company stop by last night, so I am posting this now. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-09-iran-taliban_x.htm

Whatever Karl, your posts are fact-free too.

I was counting all three. Which do you deny is factual?

GFY, heathen.