I have 2 competing conspiracy theories

[sirs]

I never claimed otherwise.  I merely referenced the notion of flawless frequently is connected with the achievement of the goals set.  I realize this need to try and argue with me, try to catch me in something I never said or even implied.  Best keep tabs on when that becomes your goal, vs debating issues

That post was not aimed at you.  It was directed to the forum as a whole

Ohhhhkaaaay, if you say so

It was a simple statement of fact.

As was mine

Get over yourself.

Stop obsessing

[BT]

Stop obsessing

You really should.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Flawless is not the same as successful. Flawless means "without flaw". Losing one of few multimillion dollar helicopters has to be at least a minor flaw.

[sirs]

Flawless is not the same as successful. Flawless means "without flaw". Losing one of few multimillion dollar helicopters has to be at least a minor flaw.

UNLESS the goals took that into consideration.  Were you or Bt privvy to the goals layed out, in the bin Laden take down??  Please, do tell

[BT]

I have been privy to military budgeting for operations.

How about you?

[sirs]

The issue is goals, not budget

[BT]

The issue is goals, not budget

Goals include budgets, and I have been privy to them. You?

[sirs]

Not necessarily.  If I have a goal of acing a person in tennis, with a slice serve in the deuce court, budget had, I'd argue, nothing to do with that goal. 

So, do you have privy to the GOALS that were set in the bin Laden take down, that included a goal of coming under budget??

[BT]

Not necessarily.  If I have a goal of acing a person in tennis, with a slice serve in the deuce court, budget had, I'd argue, nothing to do with that goal. 

So, do you have privy to the GOALS that were set in the bin Laden take down, that included a goal of coming under budget??

Judging by the story CU posted, not only was there a budget but they had to go back for further appropriations for another phase of the operation.

[sirs]

Apples & Oranges, Bt.  The issue was about referencing flawless, not whether Seal Team 6 came in under budget.  You can OPINE that budget was intergral in the goals, but again the issue was in using the term flawless.  And in that manner of speaking, it depends on what the goals were

Simple as that

[BT]

Apples & Oranges, Bt.  The issue was about referencing flawless, not whether Seal Team 6 came in under budget.  You can OPINE that budget was intergral in the goals, but again the issue was in using the term flawless.  And in that manner of speaking, it depends on what the goals were

Simple as that

Glad to know that you get to set the terms of the debate and what is relevant as to rebuttal. Must be convenient, especially when info is provided that the operation did come with a budget.

[sirs]

Nice to know that the budget process is apparently integral in every goal you set.  I myself tend to differentiate when budgets are necessary in the goal making process vs not.  Nnot to mention that flawless does not mandate a need to address budgetary concerns.  In fact, I need to go practice some serves, later today

[Kramer]

Nice to know that the budget process is apparently integral in every goal you set.  I myself tend to differentiate when budgets are necessary in the goal making process vs not.  Nnot to mention that flawless does not mandate a need to address budgetary concerns.  In fact, I need to go practice some serves, later today

what's the big deal when it comes to killing UBL? $1 million or $1 Billion we just want him dead.

[BT]

Nice to know that the budget process is apparently integral in every goal you set.  I myself tend to differentiate when budgets are necessary in the goal making process vs not.  Nnot to mention that flawless does not mandate a need to address budgetary concerns.  In fact, I need to go practice some serves, later today

Good thing we are talking about the US Government and not you. And I know you have criticized the government and their need for more stringent budgeting and cost controls.

Game, set, match, so to speak.

[sirs]

Actually we were talking about the term flawless.  Not surprising in your defensive mode, to make this about something its not

Usually, this level of deflection is left to far grander issues, especially when the supposed response was "aimed at the group" and not me personally.  To spend this much time on trying to justify a point I never disagreed with, merely referencing the age old point of "it depends", when trying to claim an act was flawless or not, is quite illuminating