RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any...

RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 6:50:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair "We do not seek a wider war." - Lyndon B. Johnson on March, 1968 we created it already! gulf of tonkin on tape

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 6:52:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff No, you don't get to do that. I call bullshit. There have been too many who have served for you to get away with that crap. To say that you have the real story and only you is silly. To imply that we if we disagree with you we are not supportive of people who have served is also bullshit. You came here to set us straight. We don't believe YOU, that is not an indictment of every other service person. I don't get to do what? Did you even bother reading my post, or any other post that I made here? WHERE, in MY posts, do I claim that your disagreement with me constitutes not being supportive? What I say still stands. Your real issue with me is the fact that I'm providing first hand observations that destroy your perception of what's going on in Iraq. My statements leads your common sense to force you to see what you mistake as "facts" for what they really are, misconceptions. Compared to those that disagree with me, YES, I have the actual story, the real story. Here's what I say to those that disagree with me on a topic involving the Iraq War: Your lack of military experience in Iraq does not disqualify you from having an opinion on the Iraq War, it simply makes your opinion uninformed on maters dealing with the Iraq war. Whether you like it or not, my being in Iraq, and having first hand experience and observation of what goes on there, puts me on a better footing, and gives my stated observations, factual validity over the opinions of those people that disagree with me. Your disagreeing with my comments here puts you in disagreement with the majority of the troops, who happen to express a stance very similar to my own. Do realize that by your disagreeing with me on this topic, common sense dictates that you're also disagreeing with the assessments of the majority of the troops that ground deployed to Iraq. To suggest, or argue, otherwise is to insult both, people's common sense and sense of logic.

Real0ne -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 6:53:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair This war was never about oil. If we were about invading countries with plenty of oil supplies, we would've invaded Venezuela. Again, we get the majority of our oil supplies from the western hemisphere, with Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela being our biggest oil suppliers. No, we're not in Afghanistan for the drugs... otherwise our troops wouldn't be involved with destroying Afghan drug farms. Haven't been exposed to the chemicals and drugs that you claim is experimented on us. We don't work for the banks, and we do take an oath as part of enlisting, or accepting a commission. these people always show up on site where people are starting to get wise to all the bullshit. Never fails, seen it on every site I am on. prove them stoopid and then its a tag team match. The war was about money huge fucking money and hussien threatening to sell oil in euros. cant have that bullshit now can we. Of course that is vastly oversimplified but you can save your puppy chow for the tards.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 6:54:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail you've missed a couple of mine, at this point, may have been an oversight. If anything, your oversight prevented you from seeing the obvious... something you would've noticed had you simply paid attention to how I did things here. Heck, you should've remembered from the last time we argued. I address these posts, or the posts that I want to reply to, in the order, as close to the order, they come in. The other posts I was answering, while you made this comment, came before the two posts that you made. But, notice how I came around to answering your questions when I address the posts that came before your own. You should know by now that I'm a "fanatic" when it comes to counter rebuttals.

Real0ne -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 6:56:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Your disagreeing with my comments here puts you in disagreement with the majority of the troops, who happen to express a stance very similar to my own. Do realize that by your disagreeing with me on this topic, common sense dictates that you're also disagreeing with the assessments of the majority of the troops that ground deployed to Iraq. To suggest, or argue, otherwise is to insult both, people's common sense and sense of logic. I wanna see it in fucking writing! none of the troops I have interviewed remotely agree with your trash.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:00:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair They can't stand the fact that a service member would present information that destroys their misguided interpretation of what's going on out there... dismissing my service is much easier for them than it is for them to swallow their ego and accept the fact that they're on the wrong side of the argument. And many of the people, on their side of the argument, accuse people on my side of the argument as being "narrow minded." You missed some of the message board context leading up to the comments on this thread. About a month back, there was an inflammatory poster who claimed to be a vet, and who threatened physical violence against everyone who didn't adopt a particular slant of right-wing position. That poster, when called out to prove he served, responded in a muddled way, leading a lot of people to think he was bogus. So your claims to service, and your strong repudiation of left or center beliefs about the US role in Iraq, are combining to jerk some knees. About your topic, it's fair to say that I disagree with you, but I also disagree with most of the people who disagree with you.[;)] In any event, I hope you don't die, and I hope you don't have to kill anyone else. Attempts to cast doubts on my service goes beyond, and is independent off, the incident you talk about. Back in July of 2006, Alumbrado, EnglishDomNW and Lilmissbossy attempted to cast doubt on my claims of being in the service, and having deployed to Iraq. They did so for the same reason these people, and posters on another message boards, attempted to cast doubt... they couldn't come to terms with my experiences contradicting what they believed to be true. It's easier to try to cast doubt on my service as, by logical extension, it attempts to "reduce" my argument as one that's "not" based on my background of being in the service, and of deploying to Iraq. It's an attempt to knock my character down, and thus my argument, so that it takes on "less" or "equal" footing to their opinion... and presto, they could turn around with the, "oh well, it's just his 'opinion,'" and what not. My "repudiation" of "centrist" beliefs of the Iraq War? You're joking, right? I mean, you can't be serious about what you just said here. [:o] The majority of the posters disagreeing with me on this thread are far left. Well, far left at worse, left of left of center at best. The majority of the posters on this message board are either immediately to the left of center left to the far left. Those that are in the center, and to the right are in the minority on this message board. None of those disagreeing with me on this thread are centrist, or even center left, and to attempt to insinuate that some of them are is laughable. The posts that I'm arguing against, the beliefs that I'm arguing against, fall to the far left. I've found, though face to face discussions, that I get plenty of agreement... for the same argument that I make here... from people in the center, center right, and center left. Disagreements with me tends to come from those on the far left and far right. Mostly from the far left. Hmmm, they called that poster to prove that he served... and here I am with my challenges, with regards to my proving that I'm in the military, remaining unanswered. :rolleyes: Perhaps if you PM me a link to that thread, I could read his/her post and determine if they're a poser or not.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:07:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff To say that you have the real story and only you is silly. To imply that we if we disagree with you we are not supportive of people who have served is also bullshit. You came here to set us straight. We don't believe YOU, that is not an indictment of every other service person. I do agree with this post. Time in the military changes men. Some come out thinking like Oliver North, and others come out thinking like Ron Kovic. To speak on behalf of "all servicemen" is arrogant, or blind. It's like saying that all Catholics are conservative, or all Asian women are submissive. Large groups are diverse. First things first, yes, military service changes people... but it doesn't produce equal "Ron Kovics" to "Oliver Norths." If anything, the majority turn out as "Oliver North." I know this as, well, I'm in the military and this is what I've observed. This isn't arrogance, nor is this being blind, I'm just calling it as I observe it. Having experiences that you wouldn't have if you weren't in the military... hands on exposure to the world, etc, does influence people as they go up the ranks. Sample statements from a military dot com thread, "Military conservative or liberal?": "All you have to do is read this board to see that the military is mostly fanatical right-wingers..." "I would say that that 95 percent of the military personnel I interact with on a daily basis, and have political discussions with, are conservative." "Seriously, I personally come across more folks who are right of center," "157, from my experience I'd say about 75% were Republicans. While 25% were Democrats. Out of those 25% democrats only a few of those actually stayed in." I never said that all of us are conservative; however, the vast majority in the military range from center right to right. As a population, we're more conservative than the general public is. Second: WHERE, in MY posts, do I say I speak for every other service person? Or on behalf of all service members? WHERE, in MY posts, do I say that all people in the military are the same? Exact word quotes please. I realize that it's easier for you to simply believe what someone you agree with says about another person's posts... but you've got to do your own reading. Your addressing that topic the way you do it in the quoted post above reeks of arrogance... or lazyness... to do your own reading and come to your own conclusions, it also reeks of voluntary blindness to a topic... simply because someone said it, regardless of whether it's true or not. So, I'm waiting for you to provide me with a link to a post to where I allegedly did what you claimed I did. Please be the first person to do this, as I've yet to have someone, on any of the boards I've posted on, who actually satisfied my challenge to provide a link to a post where I said exactly what they claimed I said. The fact that you'd say this: "and your strong repudiation of left or center beliefs about the US role in Iraq," - RedMagic And this: "who threatened physical violence against everyone who didn't adopt a particular slant of right-wing position" - RedMagic Speaks volumes about where you stand, and the likelihood of you disagreeing with what I said, and agreeing with what someone on the left would say. Common sense dictates that my first hand account has more factual validity than someone disagreeing with me, who's information source is either the news or some other information site, neither providing him with first hand information. I've got a better vantage point on this discussion than everybody disagreeing with me on this thread. THAT's what the military does to you, especially when you get deployed to the area that's being argued about in this thread.

domiguy -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:07:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy Poor soldiers always want to fight the "good war." Those days are done. Now the best we can hope for is some revisionistic history to make your losses not seem like they were in vain. This isn't about wanting to fight a good war, this is about the majority of us fighting for what we believe in, this is about us understanding why we're doing what we're doing in the Middle East. Again, the fabrication that Vietnam was a complete loss is just that, revisionist history. What you argue is the product of revisionist history; we won every major battle in Vietnam. We also won every major battle in Iraq. Those are facts. WRONG. You are a simple little stupid man....You have read one book on the swiftboaters, congratulations. You are a lying hypocritical idiot. You are serving at the age of 40 because you probably have nowhere else to go. You speak only for yourself just as the swift boaters spoke only for their own political agenda. You base your facts on "ONE" man that served under John Kerry? What about the testimony of all the others who supported John Kerry that served directly under him? You are so ready to dismiss those because they don't fit in with your political ideology, right? You are small, pathetic and weak minded. You probably don't deserve to grace the uniform that you swear you are wearing. You are the type that can be convinced to do and believe anything....I bet youare comforting the enemy as I type...You are probably looking for soft targets on line right now. I don't believe you. You are a liar. You accept half truths as fact. you are a pathetic little weak minded pawn. I feel sorry for you.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:10:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair The main push behind this is that I have recent, first hand account of what's it like in Iraq, compared to the perspective by those I'm debating with. But a first hand account from a douchebag is still a first hand account from a douchebag. Typical playground mentality... call people names when one doesn't have a good argument to bring to the table. Thanks for proving Ann Coulter right when she talks about how liberals resort to name calling when presented with an argument they can't tackle.

thompsonx -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:13:03 PM)
Photograph of John Kerry meeting with Comrade Do Muoi, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, in Vietnam, July 15-18, 1993. Photo taken in the War Remnants Museum (formerly the "War Crimes Museum") in Saigon in May 2004. This is the caption under the picture from lupetti. Note that the picture of kerry was taken in 1993. The picture was taken by lupetti in 2004. For decades, the Vietnamese had a section in their war victory museum, dedicated to John Kerry and the anti war demonstrators. They might have taken his picture down as a result of the heat John Kerry received during the 2004 Elections.-herfacechair If the pic of kerry was taken in 93 and the pic by lupetti was taken 11 years later how is that decades? If the pic was taken in 2004 where does lupetti come up with the "taken it down" in 2004 if it was up when he was there.... You wish to imply one thing but the captions on the pics tell a little different story. I have noticed that you have yet to respond to my statements about ace mccain being a trator who signed a confession of war crimes and gave interviews to communist journalists...how many other officers at the "hanoi hilton" signed similar confessions?

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:13:06 PM)
mnottertail: and in that light (copy and paste of things you have said) So far, the only statements in your posts that are accurate... no wait... those are my statements. mnottertail: and the "strawman" asswipe you pulled on me: The only person pulling stawman arguments between the two of us is you. "Just think, our failure to go into Iraq would have had Iran with a nuclear program, Saddam developing his, North Korea detonating a bomb. Iran detonating one later and Iraq detonating one much later. Throw a bunch of radical regimes into the mix. Not going into Iraq would have been a long term DISASTER for us." Which is still accurate mnottertail: You said that. That was your assessment. Why now should we believe your current assessment to be accurate in view of that statement? REPEAT POINT Because like that old comment, my current assessment is accurate. I based that statement on my research, which included listening to the words of the very people we're fighting against, and it's still valid. My projections of what countries will, or won't, do have been accurate. I do that by studying the history, and current events, of the regions we're debating about. Each of the countries I mentioned, with regards to a nuclear program, would've done what I predicted they'd do. All of them to try to tell the west that they're somebody that should be taken seriously, and all of them making a statement to each other. The Iraqis, under Saddam, wouldn't dare let Iran get a strategic upper hand over them. The radicals that wanted to get into the mix? That's a fact, just ask Al-Qaeda, who are still looking to get their hands on WMD. This isn't spin, but fact based on researching the very people that we deal with... research that involves hearing/reading their own words. Sitting there, rambling about my assessments being "wrong" without your advancing anything that qualifies as a logical argument against it, speaks volumes about your integrity, and doesn't subsequently make that assessment "wrong." You've miserably failed to prove it "wrong" when we argued about it the last time, you've miserably failed to prove it "wrong" now. mnottertail: Hey, apple pie, mom, wave the flag, america, democracy, kill the different colored bastards and all that shit, been there done that for my country, but in the fullness of time.......and seeing what I saw......I have reached (as I believe huntie has) some conclusions that may not square with the worldview you hold, simple as that. This is an example of what I'm talking about when people have a negative reaction to a first hand account causing their misconceived notions of what's going on in Iraq to come crushing down like a house of cards. The above comment is the result of someone setting stress shields up to protect him from the stresses of dealing with something that... ahem, common sense is trying to tell him is valid, and is contradicting his beliefs... by logical extension, the very good chance that he's wrong. Instead of offering up a logical argument, or having the integrity to see that I have a point, you go generate a juvenile comment. mnottertail: So, without rancor, I am asking that question. And I've answered it, like I did before. How about taking the time to read, and understand, what I'm saying instead of skipping over it and asking me the same questions over and over again? Or, better yet, go back and read the posts I made when we debated last time, the posts dealing with asymmetrical warfare.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:16:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well that one fucks ya, even the staunchest neo-cons out here have repeatedly said that Fox News is entertainment only, time and time again. Actually, your comment here fucks ya. The "staunchest neo-cons" happen to be the "right wingers" that your side likes to verbally attack. If the "right wingers" would say that, then it speaks volumes about who Fox New's audience are... hint hint, both conservatives and liberals watch it. Second, that's a piss poor come back to an article that contained the fact that sarin gas was used against our troops via a surface laid IED. Nope, no attempt on your part to try to address those facts... just pull crap out from behind about what some fictional "neocon" has allegedly has said about Fox News. No, using that article didn't fuck me over, as even MSNBC used it. The article contained facts, facts you ignored in your zeal to dodge supporting evidence.

Aylee -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:19:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy But a first hand account from a douchebag is still a first hand account from a douchebag. Typical playground mentality... call people names when one doesn't have a good argument to bring to the table. Thanks for proving Ann Coulter right when she talks about how liberals resort to name calling when presented with an argument they can't tackle. Oh NOES!!!!!!!!! You are not supposed to say "Ann Coulter" on this site. She freaks them all out.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:19:58 PM)
In my previous posts, I deliberately left some facts out, with regards to Halliburton and its association with Iraq. I did this because of the Halliburton views held by leftwing posters. You, thompsonx, responded exactly as I expected you to respond. Not to advance the facts I deliberately held back with regards to Halliburton. thompsonx Funny companies that do the same sort of work but are not in the sand box are eating shit right now. Are you saying that they are not making more now than they would have if there had been no war? What I actually said: "The above companies would've made money during peace time as they would've during war time." - herfacechair It's still a factual statement. If they're around for this war, and I recognize them from before the war, obviously they were making money before the war. Whether you make 5 dollars now, 10 dollars tomorrow, as opposed to 1 dollar yesterday is beside the point, you made money yesterday, today, and will make it tomorrow in this example. Earning money is earning money, regardless of the size of your earnings. Now, you claim that we're making you money via your Halliburton stocks. Well, According to Halliburton, they're not involved with providing logistics services in Iraq. In other words, we're NOT making you money as you claimed. I mean, as a stockholder, you should've already been tracking that... but apparently not. Second, Halliburton is still making money despite not being in Iraq. Take it away thumpsonx: "As a stock holder in Halliburton, Ratheon,Olin Matheson and Winchester Western I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to you and your comrads in arms for helping with the black ink on the bottom line. Happy stockholder" -thompsonx What's this? I think I'm hearing disagreement: "Funny companies that do the same sort of work but are not in the sand box are eating shit right now." -thumpsonx Again, per Halliburton's website, Halliburton isn't involved with providing logistics services in Iraq. It's the logistics services that are responsible for the bidding process. Winchester still makes military equipment, war or not. They've been around for decades. During this deployment, I've yet to see new M4s arrive. If anything, they'd issue out an old M16 to someone when the arms room runs out of M4s. Given this scenario, I don't see how we're making you money there high speed. I've also dealt with Ratheon prior to the War on Terror, so they made money before the war. thompsonx : It has been pretty widely reported that Haliburton has a ton of "no bid" contracts. What's actually been widely reported is that their THEN subsidiary, Kellog Brown & Root, aka KBR, has the contracts. They've since parted paths, so it's just KBR providing the services/holding the contracts, not Halliburton. thompsonx : What are you smoking crack?... It takes allot of crack smoking for you to assume that Halliburton is in charge of contracts in Iraq, then to turn around and try to insinuate that your "Halliburton stocks" are doing well on account of these phantom contracts. I wonder how much crack it took for you to dismiss, as a money loser, a company that's in the sandbox and, by your own definition, is doing well because of it. thompsonx : I said thank you... Considering that you obviously don't know what you're talking about, and that you intend your thanks sarcastically, your "thank you" is something that I'm not accepting... it'll diminish the gratitude of the people here, and outside, that actually meant it. thompsonx : I have no argument with you making me money. Actually, you have no argument proving that I'm making you money. Your own comments contradict your claims. thompsonx : There are other issues with KBR...loss carry overs ...it could pose a tax problem so I will just avoid them till things blow over. KBR was working for Halliburton when they carried out logistics services for Iraq in the beginning of the war. Since then, Halliburton and KBR split, with KBR continuing with the services for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Halliburton not being involved with Iraq or Afghanistan. So, if you're a stockholder with Halliburton, and they're not involved with Iraq today, then you're not doing what you insinuate you're doing. By your own statement: "Funny companies that do the same sort of work but are not in the sand box are eating shit right now." -thompsonx If you took your own statement seriously, you'd be avoiding Halliburton, not KBR, who's actually in Iraq doing the things you claim Halliburton is doing, if you're the investor you claim to be. thompsonx : You have to look at the bigger picture....They are all "floored inventory" so abandoning them is a dollar for dollar write down. I'm going to put my military hat aside for a moment, and put my MBA hat on. Do you even know what a floor inventory is? This is where a business, like a car dealership, doesn't have to pay for inventory until it's sold. It just sits as inventory until it's purchased. Until it's sold, it represents an asset in another form... aka inventory. What business, in its right mind, would abandon something that it could convert to cash in the future? Once inventory is sold, it's converted from inventory to accounts receivable, or cash. This has absolutely nothing to do with abandoning generator maintenance on a generator that's obviously already ben SOLD! Stay with me now, here's what I said: "By the way, you forgot to mention KBR, as they're providing a large segment of the services that we utilize out there. Perhaps it's time for you to purchase stocks in that company if you haven't done so yet. :rolleyes: If they come up to you to solicit your inputs, complain about their abandoning their generators (failing to do maintenance) that are out in the outlaying outposts." -herfacechair Heh, this was a clue for you to hone your con, "Halliburton Investor" game. It was also designed to test the sincerity of your, "I'm thanking you" claims. A real investor, supporting the troops, would've contacted their company to speak on the troop's behalf. They'd do this out of "troop support" sense, and out of "wanting the company to succeed," sense. After all, if the military, the biggest customer, abandons them, then a chain of reactions could happen that'd lower the value of their stocks. Something an investor wouldn't want. thompsonx : Besides it is taxpayers money not mine. Since you're a tax payer, then you're paying for alleged KBR loses as a taxpayer. Since you obviously are going to stay away from KBR until things "blow over," the money they earn, while in the sand box, isn't yours as a non KBR "stockholder." Starting to see why I didn't take your "thank you" claims seriously? You're lacking in basic knowledge for someone that's trying to insinuate that he's an investor.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:22:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Just think, our failure to go into Iraq would have had Iran with a nuclear program, (uh, they got one, maybe you aint been getting the news, they did that to us too) Hey fuckstick, how about quoting my entire statement to get what I was actually saying? "Just think, our failure to go into Iraq would have had Iran with a nuclear program, Saddam developing his, North Korea detonating a bomb. Iran detonating one later and Iraq detonating one much later. Throw a bunch of radical regimes into the mix." - herfacechair Anybody, with at least a 5th grader's reading comprehension ability, would've been able to see that I wasn't hinging Iran's and North Korea's nuclear program existence to our failure to go into Iraq. It's obvious that I'm painting a picture of what'll happen if we didn't stop Saddam. My statement already recognized that those two countries already had their programs. Not only would we have had Iran and North Korea with their different states of a nuclear program, we also would've had Iraq with one... HENCE, us being in a worse situation if we didn't go into Iraq. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail North Korea detonating a bomb. (they have a nuke program and are getting help from the russkies, and they are not light years away from the bomb. again maybe because of the news being censored by the liberal left wing military over there, you haven't heard about any of this) This is an example of what I meant by you utilizing straw man arguments, and of taking people out of context and addressing what you hope they'd say rather than what they actually said, or actually meant. In that same post where I made that comment, here's what I said: "The North Koreans have been working on their nuclear program throughout the 90's. Thanks to Slick Willie's incompetence in that area. Senator John McCain raised the alarm bells about this happening. It was back in 1994. Historical facts don't support your trying to pin this on Bush." - herfacechair In other words, no shit Sherlock!!!!!! How about having the integrity to quote what I actually said, and the entirety of my message, instead of cherry picking it in order to take it out of context? I know, I know, you can't take me on with what I actually said, so you're going to take me out of context, make my posts say something completely different, cut out the rest of what I said, so that the debate would be easier on you. That's a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I tell you that you're using strawman arguments. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail REPEAT POINT --------------------------- NO, what have we done asymmetrically and what asmmetric operations are we performing, nothing in your posts on this thread speak to that. REPEAT POINT WRONG. Go back to every thread on this message board containing my posts on asymmetrical warfare. The concepts I talked about then are still very applicable today. They're more than enough to answer your questions. What part of, "Still applicable today," don't you get? mnottertail: I am a military guy, I want to know what. Then ACT like a military guy/veteran. Don't say "NO" to my telling you to do something someone in the military would've done in a heartbeat. It's common sense. You want to know what asymmetrical warfare operations we're involved with. I told you to go back to the posts that I've made in the past involving asymmetrical warfare. In one of those posts, I leave a link to an entire book that scratches the surface of asymmetrical warfare. Reading my asymmetrical warfare posts, as well as that link, would give you the tools you'd need to recognize the basics of unrestricted warfare, and how it applies to what's going on in the world today. You'd be able to spot it when you watch the news. By extension, you'd be able to picture what asymmetrical warfare operations we're doing today. What I said still stands, what I said back then is still applicable today. You just have to learn the concepts, be able to apply those concepts, so that you could recognize those concepts in play. Don't pull shit out of your azz about my asymmetrical warfare topic posts "not" answering the question. Next time, quote me in entirety, and address what I actually said... or have the integrity to admit that you have no point/argument. As a military man, that should be obvious to you.

Real0ne -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:23:39 PM)
geeeezus got an army of writers working for ya huh

pahunkboy -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:27:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne geeeezus got an army of writers working for ya huh Don't forget 2.3 trillion $ was missing on 9-10-01. It was never found. The mil serves the banks- not us.

herfacechair -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:27:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Dude... you are wasting your time with RO.... sorry, that's just how it is...:) you are right but I am not going to waste my time with him. I dont dance with bullshit very well. Everything that tard says wreaks of gi joe here we go. Good sounding bullshit but bullshit nonetheless. He just repeated everything he said last time. No need to blast it again. "You are wasting your time WITH RO" -Jeffff "You are right but I am not going to waste my time with him." -RO Who's the tard now? I'm taking it that those hours you spent sitting on the crapper made you speechless when you came back here. [8\|] However, your post here indicates that the intellectual/common sense side of you is seeing that I have an argument, that I have a valid point, and that what I say is factual. Your ego, on the other hand, is overruling what common sense and intellect is telling you, by dismissing what you subconsciously see as a fact as "good sounding bullshit." Nope, your ego is refusing to give up the belief that you've consistently held over the past few years. It's ironic that you claim that I said the same things again, while ignoring the fact that you made the same comments, which caused me to provide a very similar rebuttal.

pahunkboy -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:28:21 PM)
MNtail-- is not generally known for his manners here. He is an alpha male.

domiguy -> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... (5/8/2010 7:30:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair The main push behind this is that I have recent, first hand account of what's it like in Iraq, compared to the perspective by those I'm debating with. But a first hand account from a douchebag is still a first hand account from a douchebag. Typical playground mentality... call people names when one doesn't have a good argument to bring to the table. Thanks for proving Ann Coulter right when she talks about how liberals resort to name calling when presented with an argument they can't tackle. Asshat, You say that you read the one swift boaters book ...You already typed that you based your opinion on the testimony of Steve Gardner.... quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair One of the Swift Boat Veterans, Steve Gardner, served on John Kerry's boat, with John Kerry, as one of his gunners. Based on his first hand accounts, John Kerry did things like... deploying his boat AWAY from a firefight that a sister patrol boat was engaged in. He didn't go in to assist, to suppress, to support, or even attempt to flank had that been feasible. He ordered the boat away from the fight. http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp .....only one of them, Steve Gardner, actually served under Lt. Kerry's command on a swift boat. The other men who served under Kerry's command continue to speak positively of him: "In 1969, I was Sen Kerry's gun mate atop of the swift boat in Vietnam. And I just wanted to let everu=yone know that, contrary to all the rumors that you might have hear from the other side, Sen. Kerry's blood is red, not blue. I know, Ive seen it. If it weren't for Sen. John Kerry, on the 28th of February 1969, the day he won the Silver star...you and I would not be having this conversation. My name would be on a long, black wall in Washington, D.C. I saw this mansave my life." ----Fred Short it goes on and on....... ----David Alston ----James Wasser -------------------------- You are so easily duped.....This is why I am confident you are a traitor here to gain intel from the intelligent members of CM that probably not only out rank you but have proven are much more intelligent than you could ever hope to be. Go listen to Ann Coulter...you expose yourself for what you are with every post. You are am embarrassment to anyone who has ever served.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625