buzzsaw wrote:

mitchejw wrote:

That’s fine if that’s how you interpreted my posts but in this case i asked the original poster if i had misinterpreted his original question...i don’t know what else you want from me. I have him a chance to tell me if i has made any sort of mistakes in interpreting his OP. He expressed that i had not.

You weren't responding to his original question mitch.  You were responding to my post that had nothing to do with you and very little to do with the original question. 

Why do you not understand how obtuse you are?  You try to change the discussion, argue for 3 pages that you didn't, and when forced to see you did, you changed it to the you were just answering the original question and not the one you actually replied to like you're just getting beaten on for nothing.  No, you're getting beaten on for doing what you always do.

This is exactly what you do.  Stop.

We’re going in circles on this...i asked him if i was still addressing his OP. He said yes.

End of story.

buzzsaw wrote:

mitchejw wrote:

Go back and look...Irish asked specifically about Iraq and trusting the government. It has nothing to do with you.

Go back and look at the conversation I was having with Irish.  Tell me where I said anything to him about why we got into Iraq.  I'll be waiting...

Why does it matter...you can dismiss it mattering or not...the conversation was flowing in several direction. You can think that it doesn’t matter all you want. I do think it matters in the context of Irish’ original question.

buzzsaw wrote:

mitchejw wrote:

Please explain how this applies to Iraq. Those aren’t the reasons we originally went there.

This is you wanting to make it about why we got into Iraq.

Go back and look...Irish asked specifically about Iraq and trusting the government. It has nothing to do with you.

buzzsaw wrote:

Listen, I'd be thrilled to stay out of most of the international conflicts that we get into, so I'm certainly not an advocate of any of this.  But the reality is we are the free world's police force whether we like it or not.  That's why many of those countries don't spend like we do.  If we didn't, they'd have no choice but to spend more. 

People globally may view us negatively, but we get the first call from anyone facing issues they don't know how to solve regardless of what that issue is.  You cannot expect us to bail countries out when they are in trouble then expect us to walk away allowing whatever it was to happen again.  We're going to protect our interests.  You can't have one without the other.  Not the way things are now or have been since WWI.  Regardless of why we were in the Middle East, just leaving wasn't an option.  Obama wanted to do it and knew he couldn't.  If we're going to be everybody's big brother, there's a cost that goes along with it.

Please explain how this applies to Iraq. Those aren’t the reasons we originally went there.