E90Post
 


 
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion > Soooooo... Syria. Let's hear it



View Poll Results: Should we act
No: It is not our civil war. 66 72.53%
Pending: We need further concrete evidence of chemical warfare. 6 6.59%
Yes: A couple cruise missiles are ok. That's about it though. 6 6.59%
Yes: Strike with significant impact. Hopefully it gets the job done : / 4 4.40%
Yes: Drop the hammer. Time to cripple their military and teach Syria a lesson they won't forget. 9 9.89%
Voters: 91. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-09-2013, 04:52 PM   #89
quagmire
I am Gundam
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Cadillac ATS 3.6 AWD
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 1,157
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Venom View Post
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill...ional-approval

Looks like Obama will proceed to bomb Syria without Congress' approval. Does that mean he'll be impeached by the end of this month?


He has 60 days for an unauthorized act(90 if you count the 30 day withdraw period) under the War Powers Act.
quagmire is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-09-2013, 04:58 PM   #90
M_Six
Free Thinker
 
M_Six's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 MB C300 4matic
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Foothills of Mt Level

Posts: 4,962
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Under US law. What about international law?
M_Six is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-09-2013, 05:04 PM   #91
FormerRotor
Major
 
FormerRotor's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 335d, M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: MD

Posts: 1,462
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lsmkr01 View Post
In basic liberal fashion you say a lot without saying anything of substance.

Poster boy for being mile wide and an inch deep.
Do you infer that I am Liberal or simply that my method of communication is somehow similar to that which you perceive as "liberal"? Admittedly I'm likely more liberal than you based on your comment, but this doesn't put me on the far end of any spectrum.

To be more clear, my point was simply that the article you cited was a show of mediocre journalism and the point made therein was near-moot. Most respected commodity traders believe that the US will be energy independent in the next 5-8 years. The article suggests that somehow expediting this by 2-4 years is the equivalant of an attack on the issues of the middle-east which is simply inaccurate or--at best--extremely naive.

A good example of "mile wide and inch deep" can be found in the article you referenced. As stated by previous posters, the price of oil is determined by global supply (and demand). Additional supply helps, but unless we are planning to relieve the entire world of middle eastern supply needs, the effects are positive but marginal.

Moving on, Obama is currently stuck between a rock and a hard place, one of which self-created. Kerry didn't help the matter by providing the Russians with a decent loophole good enough to create a stall tactic, but when it comes down to it any lack of action at this point will take the wind out of the sails in our threats to Iran with regards to further nuclear development. I think that most of our representatives on the hill are aware of this but the question is whether they care more about this or their approval polls.

In my mind--nationally speaking--the most ideal route at this point would be for action to be approved by Congress, but not used by the President in favor of a more "diplomatic" solution. This would damage the perception of our power the least by not giving the world the impression that our President is handcuffed by Congress and concurrently provide some relief to any global impression that we are the bullies/warmongers of the United Nations.

On a slight aside, don't forget the power of our cyber warfare community (far and away one of the best in the world). Lessons can be taught without launching missiles or even leaving direct traces to the US...look at Stuxnet. Crippling the Syrian Electronic Army and/or launching attack on the storage sites (assuming they are remote) responsible for maintaining the stability of the chemical weapons could be a start (although the latter could turn very ugly with side effects, not knowing the details of the chemicals personally).

What do you all think the President's message will be on his 6+ interviews tonight? I think trying to tow the line of involvement without involvement will prove to come across as too watery/unclear if he is looking to generate civilian buyin.
__________________

My Picture Threads (Oldest to Newest): 1 2 3
Join BMW CCA! (Use my link and I get credit )
FormerRotor is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-09-2013, 05:40 PM   #92
Bx Tpr
Lieutenant
 
Bx Tpr's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 M
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Boogie Down

Posts: 418
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
He has 60 days for an unauthorized act(90 if you count the 30 day withdraw period) under the War Powers Act.
If we are being attacked or to defend our borders.

The framers of the constitution did not model the American executive branch like the British monarchy. A king declares war whenever he wants. It's why 'Merica fought a revolutionary war. To kick out an out of control government that was doing whatever it wanted whenever it wanted.

I am just dumbfounded at how many people on this forum are actually for this war. It's absolutely pathetic.

Let Ron Paul cure your apathy

Last edited by Bx Tpr; 09-09-2013 at 05:46 PM.
Bx Tpr is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-09-2013, 07:05 PM   #93
quagmire
I am Gundam
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Cadillac ATS 3.6 AWD
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 1,157
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by M_Six View Post
Under US law. What about international law?
Not sure. I was just responding to the impeachment issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bx Tpr View Post
If we are being attacked or to defend our borders.
That's an ideal, and not in the War Powers Act. Don't get me wrong, it's an ideal I believe we should abide by( with a few exceptions), but Obama isn't doing anything wrong legally by bombing Syria without Congress authorization as long as he operates within that 60-90 day window. He did it in Libya. So there is precedent.
quagmire is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-09-2013, 07:24 PM   #94
M_Six
Free Thinker
 
M_Six's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 MB C300 4matic
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Foothills of Mt Level

Posts: 4,962
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
Not sure. I was just responding to the impeachment issue.



That's an ideal, and not in the War Powers Act. Don't get me wrong, it's an ideal I believe we should abide by( with a few exceptions), but Obama isn't doing anything wrong legally by bombing Syria without Congress authorization as long as he operates within that 60-90 day window. He did it in Libya. So there is precedent.
Libya was a NATO mission and was legal by international law. The US acting on its own would not be, if my understanding of the rules is correct.

Quote:
Indeed, the legal argument for attacking Syria on humanitarian grounds comes down to the claim that, by doing so, the U.S. will be helping to bring about a new customary norm of international law that does not yet exist. The paradoxes involved in this argument are considerable, as it requires asserting that we are violating international law to punish Syria for violating international law, but we are doing so in such a way so as to — eventually — change international law so that our violation won’t be a violation in the future.
__________________
Mark
Flickr

"The $0.99 menu was put on this Earth for a good damn reason." -Weebl
M_Six is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-09-2013, 07:28 PM   #95
Bx Tpr
Lieutenant
 
Bx Tpr's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 M
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Boogie Down

Posts: 418
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
That's an ideal, and not in the War Powers Act. Don't get me wrong, it's an ideal I believe we should abide by( with a few exceptions), but Obama isn't doing anything wrong legally by bombing Syria without Congress authorization as long as he operates within that 60-90 day window. He did it in Libya. So there is precedent.
War Powers Act was passed to circumvent the constitution. Roosevelt wasn't minding his business, picking sides and got Pearl Harbor. So they pass laws to give the executive branch powers it was never intended to have. The founders of this country told everyone that picking sides was dangerous and that we should embrace new democracies and promote free trade with EVERYONE. EVERYONE.

We lost tens of thousands of Americans in Vietnam and today we buy products made there. Really? War is a racket and if it isn't in defense of your country then it's immoral.
Bx Tpr is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-09-2013, 07:56 PM   #96
quagmire
I am Gundam
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Cadillac ATS 3.6 AWD
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 1,157
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bx Tpr View Post
War Powers Act was passed to circumvent the constitution. Roosevelt wasn't minding his business, picking sides and got Pearl Harbor. So they pass laws to give the executive branch powers it was never intended to have. The founders of this country told everyone that picking sides was dangerous and that we should embrace new democracies and promote free trade with EVERYONE. EVERYONE.

We lost tens of thousands of Americans in Vietnam and today we buy products made there. Really? War is a racket and if it isn't in defense of your country then it's immoral.
War Powers Act was in response to the Vietnam War and intended to LIMIT the executive branch ability to send our military somewhere without congress approval.

And WWII was a war we should have gotten involved with due to the holocaust.

We lost tens of thousands of Americans in WWII. This forum wouldn't exist or at least have a big US presence if we didn't buy from countries we went to war with.....
quagmire is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-09-2013, 08:04 PM   #97
Bx Tpr
Lieutenant
 
Bx Tpr's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 M
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Boogie Down

Posts: 418
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
War Powers Act was in response to the Vietnam War and intended to LIMIT the executive branch ability to send our military somewhere without congress approval.

We lost tens of thousands of Americans in WWII. This forum wouldn't exist or at least have a big US presence if we didn't buy from countries we went to war with.....
So they pass legislation to reign in executive war powers and they totally disregard them? Racket racket racket.

So according to you the only way we start trading with other nations is after we declare war on them? If it wasn't for WW2 we wouldn't be driving BMW's?
Bx Tpr is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-09-2013, 08:10 PM   #98
quagmire
I am Gundam
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Cadillac ATS 3.6 AWD
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 1,157
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bx Tpr View Post
So they pass legislation to reign in executive war powers and they totally disregard them? Racket racket racket.

So according to you the only way we start trading with other nations is after we declare war on them? If it wasn't for WW2 we wouldn't be driving BMW's?
Obama hasn't violated the War Powers Act yet. Though I believe there have been instances of Presidents exceeding that 60-90 day window and Congress didn't do anything.

Maybe there has been miscommunication. To me it sounded like you are disgusted that we trade with Vietnam because of the Vietnam War....
quagmire is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-09-2013, 08:16 PM   #99
Bx Tpr
Lieutenant
 
Bx Tpr's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 M
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Boogie Down

Posts: 418
iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
Maybe there has been miscommunication. To me it sounded like you are disgusted that we trade with Vietnam because of the Vietnam War....
Absolutely not against trade brother. IMO we have accomplished more as a society trading with one another than bombing one another. Corrupt politicians make us despise a whole religion, people, whole parts of the world just to garner support for war. It's disgusting.
Bx Tpr is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-10-2013, 09:23 AM   #100
pt
Private
 
Drives: I miss my E12
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NY

Posts: 79
iTrader: (0)

All the kabuki theater around this is getting me down...

- First, we have a president make threats if a "red line" is crossed.
- Then, the red line gets crossed.
- The president sends his secretary of state out to make an impassioned case for a military attack.
- Then the president cuts his guy off at the knees and punts to congress. (Imagine how embarrassing this is is for Kerry?)
- The president's advisors are making strong statements about the need to get involved.
- The president starts waffling. 'This will only be a small surgical strike.' Or, 'this will only be a shot across the bow' etc.

All this stuff has got to be one of the worst examples of incompetence at the leadership level that I've ever experienced in my lifetime. As bad as Bush V. Katrina; just with the dead people stinking up another country. Seriously, if you can't sell a military intervention to your country after some tyrant gasses women and children, what is really left of your career?

Just as bad, house and senate leadership promise the president support for the action he needs to take, but are unable to rally Congress behind them.

And now, after Kerry makes an off-the-cuff remark about Assad giving up his chemical weapons, the State Department dismisses the comment, only to pick it back up after the Russians and Syrians latch on and offer to give up the weapons! And Obama is taking them seriously!

Scarborough is right: it's amateur hour in DC for sure.
pt is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-10-2013, 09:38 AM   #101
quagmire
I am Gundam
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Cadillac ATS 3.6 AWD
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 1,157
iTrader: (0)

I don't think it's because the American public doesn't take Obama seriously or think he lacks credibility as the reason why Obama can't sell military intervention.

It's because Americans are tired of wars, etc. We just got out of Iraq and in the middle of leaving Afghanistan. I don't think Americans think it is our business to go into Syria( which its not). Add to that we don't know who is using the chemical weapons makes it even harder for Americans to be convinced we need to get involved.

Americans are wary on getting into another armed conflict. Even if you take the most credible person in the US, I bet that person would have a hard time convincing Americans right now.

This poll is interesting....

http://www.gallup.com/poll/164282/su...conflicts.aspx

Last edited by quagmire; 09-10-2013 at 09:56 AM.
quagmire is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-10-2013, 10:10 AM   #102
M_Six
Free Thinker
 
M_Six's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 MB C300 4matic
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Foothills of Mt Level

Posts: 4,962
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Romney would be facing the same tough choices. This was and still is a no-win situation no matter who is in charge. Maybe Romney would have handled the PR part better, but we'll never know. I think the current situation vis-a-vis the Russians is something that came about, although inadvertently, through a sort of brainstorming session. Kerry thinks out loud (a dangerous thing) about the only way Assad can avoid an attack and the Russians say, "Hey! Good idea." Now Kerry/Obama are stuck with having to take the Russians at face value. (As an aside, I wonder if the Russians weren't quick to step up with this offer because it's their nerve gas that someone used, but I digress.)

The part of this that bugs me, and it's not just with Syria but with any revolution, is that some in the U.S. just expect Assad to say to the rebels, "Oh, ok. You guys can run the country now" and step down. Same in Libya and Egypt. Like those in power would EVER do that? Assad is fighting for his life and way of life. And unlike the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, the rebels here are nasty folks who pull no punches. They hit hard, Assad hits them back just as hard. If a large group of malcontents raised an army in the U.S. and attempted to overthrow the gov't using violent means, do you not think Washington would use the military to put down the uprising with all the force needed to do so? Or do you think the gov't would just step aside? Obviously we'd be in the same boat as Syria, with battles raging in some cities. There wouldn't be set-piece battles on the midwest plains; there would be urban warfare in the cities with many innocents killed by both sides, just as in Syria. And what if Russia came to the aid of the rebels here? Do you think the gov't wouldn't look upon that as an act of war?

My point is that getting involved in another country's civil war by supporting the opposition is an act of war, and the consequences of that should be fully explored and understood before we decide to get involved.
__________________
Mark
Flickr

"The $0.99 menu was put on this Earth for a good damn reason." -Weebl
M_Six is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-10-2013, 10:12 AM   #103
grimlock
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: F10 N52B30@255PS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hong Kong

Posts: 1,806
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pt View Post
All the kabuki theater around this is getting me down...

- First, we have a president make threats if a "red line" is crossed.
- Then, the red line gets crossed.
- The president sends his secretary of state out to make an impassioned case for a military attack.
- Then the president cuts his guy off at the knees and punts to congress. (Imagine how embarrassing this is is for Kerry?)
- The president's advisors are making strong statements about the need to get involved.
- The president starts waffling. 'This will only be a small surgical strike.' Or, 'this will only be a shot across the bow' etc.

All this stuff has got to be one of the worst examples of incompetence at the leadership level that I've ever experienced in my lifetime. As bad as Bush V. Katrina; just with the dead people stinking up another country. Seriously, if you can't sell a military intervention to your country after some tyrant gasses women and children, what is really left of your career?

Just as bad, house and senate leadership promise the president support for the action he needs to take, but are unable to rally Congress behind them.

And now, after Kerry makes an off-the-cuff remark about Assad giving up his chemical weapons, the State Department dismisses the comment, only to pick it back up after the Russians and Syrians latch on and offer to give up the weapons! And Obama is taking them seriously!

Scarborough is right: it's amateur hour in DC for sure.
You're assuming Kabuki theatre is not the point.
Ok, they may not be that intelligent to have planned/anticipated all the moves up to this.. but what makes you think anyone was serious about actually going through with it, instead of staged sabre rattling that the other side more or less anticipates and gives their feigned outrage - that it is all for public consumption?
Why would BO actually want to start a war, rather than head off any accusations of being 'weak' and ignoring atrocties?
Everything is staged, albeit the U.S. WAS looking for a reason to push out Assad for geo-political reasons, but they know they cannot actually commit to using any substantial force; this is the perfect compromise, draw the proverbial line in the sand that Assad can see, let him know that he can't invite the Russians in willy nilly. Everybody wins and looks good.. except the children who supposedly died - but who said geo politics was a child's game.
grimlock is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-10-2013, 10:16 AM   #104
M_Six
Free Thinker
 
M_Six's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 MB C300 4matic
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Foothills of Mt Level

Posts: 4,962
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
The whole idea of Russian involvement did come on the heels (or during) Obama's recent meeting with Putin. Maybe you have a point and this is all good theatre.
__________________
Mark
Flickr

"The $0.99 menu was put on this Earth for a good damn reason." -Weebl
M_Six is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-10-2013, 10:43 AM   #105
quagmire
I am Gundam
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Cadillac ATS 3.6 AWD
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 1,157
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by M_Six View Post
Romney would be facing the same tough choices. This was and still is a no-win situation no matter who is in charge. Maybe Romney would have handled the PR part better, but we'll never know. I think the current situation vis-a-vis the Russians is something that came about, although inadvertently, through a sort of brainstorming session. Kerry thinks out loud (a dangerous thing) about the only way Assad can avoid an attack and the Russians say, "Hey! Good idea." Now Kerry/Obama are stuck with having to take the Russians at face value. (As an aside, I wonder if the Russians weren't quick to step up with this offer because it's their nerve gas that someone used, but I digress.)
My point with my Romney comment( before I edited it out because I didn't want to sound like I was being partisan) was if the results of that poll would switch in relation to Democrats being opposed and Republicans for it.

That's the political cynic in me.... Obama likes dogs so Republicans would say they prefer cats. Given the state of our politics, it's not that far off. Going back to the Libya conflict, the GOP was against it claiming Obama was abusing his powers, going against the constitution, etc. Then with Syria, they were lambasting him for not getting involved.

Quote:
The part of this that bugs me, and it's not just with Syria but with any revolution, is that some in the U.S. just expect Assad to say to the rebels, "Oh, ok. You guys can run the country now" and step down. Same in Libya and Egypt. Like those in power would EVER do that? Assad is fighting for his life and way of life. And unlike the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, the rebels here are nasty folks who pull no punches. They hit hard, Assad hits them back just as hard. If a large group of malcontents raised an army in the U.S. and attempted to overthrow the gov't using violent means, do you not think Washington would use the military to put down the uprising with all the force needed to do so? Or do you think the gov't would just step aside? Obviously we'd be in the same boat as Syria, with battles raging in some cities. There wouldn't be set-piece battles on the midwest plains; there would be urban warfare in the cities with many innocents killed by both sides, just as in Syria. And what if Russia came to the aid of the rebels here? Do you think the gov't wouldn't look upon that as an act of war?
No doubt the US will react the same way if there was an uprising here. Though maybe naive, but I would hope both sides would be a bit more conscious in not involving innocent bystanders where Assad just seems to be doing things indiscriminately.

Quote:
My point is that getting involved in another country's civil war by supporting the opposition is an act of war, and the consequences of that should be fully explored and understood before we decide to get involved.
But, has a country ever went to war with another because of one getting involved by backing the opposition? France and England didn't go to war because the French helped us in the Revolutionary War. Germany didn't declare war on us for helping the British in WWI( they just sunk our supply ships).
quagmire is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-10-2013, 10:50 AM   #106
grimlock
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: F10 N52B30@255PS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hong Kong

Posts: 1,806
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
But, has a country ever went to war with another because of one getting involved by backing the opposition? France and England didn't go to war because the French helped us in the Revolutionary War. Germany didn't declare war on us for helping the British in WWI( they just sunk our supply ships).
Pearl Harbor

The only thing that matters is the will to fight country to country - finding excuses is easy, ie. Japan annexation of Asia
grimlock is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-10-2013, 10:59 AM   #107
quagmire
I am Gundam
 
quagmire's Avatar
 
Drives: 2014 Cadillac ATS 3.6 AWD
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 1,157
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimlock View Post
Pearl Harbor

The only thing that matters is the will to fight country to country - finding excuses is easy, ie. Japan annexation of Asia
Japan attacked us because we refused to supply them with oil due to disapproving of their actions and they needed oil to continue to wage war. Not because we aided the other side.

Though Pearl Harbor wasn't meant to be a full on war with us. It was meant to get us to lift our embargo. They knew they would lose the war against us. Or at least Yamamoto did.
quagmire is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-10-2013, 11:10 AM   #108
grimlock
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: F10 N52B30@255PS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hong Kong

Posts: 1,806
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
Japan attacked us because we refused to supply them with oil due to disapproving of their actions and they needed oil to continue to wage war. Not because we aided the other side.

Though Pearl Harbor wasn't meant to be a full on war with us. It was meant to get us to lift our embargo. They knew they would lose the war against us. Or at least Yamamoto did.
Isn't hindering them even less reason than helping the other side?

I'm no historian, but the attack was to destroy the U.S. ability to interfere with their plans in Asia.. whether this constitutes 'war' - who cares at this point?

The original point being.. damnit you got me .. I knew there was a reason I never argued with you!
grimlock is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      09-10-2013, 11:16 AM   #109
M_Six
Free Thinker
 
M_Six's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 MB C300 4matic
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Foothills of Mt Level

Posts: 4,962
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
\


But, has a country ever went to war with another because of one getting involved by backing the opposition? France and England didn't go to war because the French helped us in the Revolutionary War. Germany didn't declare war on us for helping the British in WWI( they just sunk our supply ships).
Well France entered the Revolutionary War as a participant on our side, it wasn't really aid, per se. And WWI wasn't a civil war, it was a war between countries. A closer analogy would have been for a foreign country to aid the Confederate Army during our Civil War. The Confederates sought, but never really got, recognition as a sovereign nation, and they got some minor support in the form of supplies from France and/or England, but that's as far as any real aid attempt went.

Still, your point has validity. I can't think of any instance where a country involved in a civil war has declared war on an intervening country.
__________________
Mark
Flickr

"The $0.99 menu was put on this Earth for a good damn reason." -Weebl
M_Six is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      09-10-2013, 11:18 AM   #110
grimlock
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: F10 N52B30@255PS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hong Kong

Posts: 1,806
iTrader: (0)

Right, my point is, at the risk of biting off more than I can chew, that you never have a point, or you make it your MO to never be caught in a certain position, prefering to spout 'facts' (accurate, if I may say) so anyone trying to engage you in debate is like trying to catch an eel because you refuse to take a stand on anything and always weasel your way out denying you ever said it.
Apologies for the directness.
grimlock is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:08 AM.




e90post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST