Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m Weekly ¤Learn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m Weekly ¤Learn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", sykesix asked the members: "What do you do if you arrive early at movie besides go to the snack bar?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (47) |
Author: Lambo ✧✹  😊 😞
Number: of 88930 
Subject: Re: Inheriting a far more dangerous world
Date: 09/24/24 7:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 2
You are still welcome to refute anything Austin has said with support, but it seems you have none.

From your link:
SNIP Now, there are a mix of 4,500 Marines, soldiers and airmen securing the Hamid Karzai International Airport to the north of the city and assisting in processing U.S. citizens and Afghans with Special Immigrant Visas for military flights out of the country.

The White Hose authorized up to 6,000 U.S. troops to support Operation Allied Rescue – the mission to evacuate Afghans who worked with the U.S. – and the parallel non-combatant evacuation operation that has yet to be named publicly. SNIP

So you failed to mention we upped the troops from the inadequate 2500 left under Trump and authorized up to 6000 for the evacuation. This is why he said there were insufficient troops at 2500. You either misunderstood or omitted it.

So you make unsupported statements, can't refute Austin - though it should be easy, and you make ad hominum attacks (a logical fallacy) while you accuse others of logical fallacies.

Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority

Did you notice that I didn't *insist* it's true? That's why it isn't a logical fallacy also. I showed it to you and invited you to show otherwise.

You also do cavalier mocking and derision, possibly because of lack of substance. You aren't dumb Dope, you can do better.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Lambo here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 88,852 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (47) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community | Privacy