The Axis of IDIOTS

no fuckhead, over a period of time the weight of the oil shuts off the gas and must be pumped off, which I get paid for but had the hole been perfectly dry of oil would have been less expensive and les maintaince on the hole
 
and so is this 1/2 breed idiot in the new kremlin for mudering kids in afghan.

You think kids weren't killed in Afghanistan before Obama took office?

they were fighting for freedom NOT socialism

You mean like the freedom to have universal healthcare in Iraq?

Many US lawmakers opposing health care reform need to be asked why it's OK for Iraqis but not Americans, Mark Dorlester writes for the Huffington Post. Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution—made possible by the war, and hailed as a victory by the Bush administration—guarantees every Iraqi state-funded health care, a provision Dorlester thinks would be slammed as out-of-control socialism by right-wingers if it applied to Americans.

Universal Health Care: We Already Gave it to Iraq - Politics News Summaries | Newser
 
Pale Rider;

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the runner-in-chief..

,..............................................................................................................

The Shah's cruelty and corruption doomed him from the start. Not only that, the Iranians had a just greviance with our government as we financed the overthrow of a legitimate government by the Shaw for the benefit of our oil companies.
 
Pale Rider;

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the runner-in-chief..

,..............................................................................................................

The Shah's cruelty and corruption doomed him from the start. Not only that, the Iranians had a just greviance with our government as we financed the overthrow of a legitimate government by the Shaw for the benefit of our oil companies.

Cruelty, corruption of the Shah.... In door plumbing, Toilet Paper, Higher Education, Westernization.... Westernization..... Westernization..... Modernization, better health care, better transportation. What a dirt bag the Shah was!!!
 
Pale Rider;

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.
.........................................................................................

Dumb fuck, it was Bush Sr. that put us into that hopeless position in Somolia. Clinton did the only reasonable thing, he pulled out after determining there was nothing to win, and only ways to lose in that shithole. You might remember that Reagan got us into Lebenon, left our Marines undefended, over 200 of them killed, then he pulled out.

When the first attack was done on the WTC, Clinton caught all but one of the people involved, brought them back here, and successfully prosecuted them. They are all spending the rest of their natural live in prison.

After the Embassy bombings, he found out where Bin Laden was, and fired Tomohawks at that location, failing to get Bin Laden only because Bin Laden left earlier than expected. We had an attack on 9-11 that killed 3000 Americans, on American soil. And Bin Laden is still alive and free. And within six months, Bush was claiming that Bin Laden was not a concern of his. An American President unconcerned about an attack on American soil that killed 3000 Americans. And that is the man that you support.

The Cole bombing occured at the end of the Clinton Predidency, he started the investigation, and left the response up to the incoming President.

Clinton warned Bush that terrorism would be his primary problem. The Bush Administrations response was a sneering referance to "Clinton's fixation about Bin Laden". Well, we found out the reasons for that fixation on 9-11.

Bush had over fifty warnings concerning something big going down in the fall. Some of the warning were specific enough to speak of commercial airplanes, and major buildings in US cities, one specific to the WTC.

Far from being a failure fighting the terrorists, President Clinton had many notable successes.
 
Pale Rider;

You are America's "AXIS OF IDIOTS." Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam . If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.
................................................................................................

This is the same stupidity that we saw in the early fifties from ol' Tailgunner Joe.
 
Pale Rider;

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the runner-in-chief..

,..............................................................................................................

The Shah's cruelty and corruption doomed him from the start. Not only that, the Iranians had a just greviance with our government as we financed the overthrow of a legitimate government by the Shaw for the benefit of our oil companies.

Cruelty, corruption of the Shah.... In door plumbing, Toilet Paper, Higher Education, Westernization.... Westernization..... Westernization..... Modernization, better health care, better transportation. What a dirt bag the Shah was!!!

With Iran's great oil wealth, Mohammad Reza Shah became the pre-eminent leader of the Middle East, and self-styled "Guardian" of the Persian Gulf. He became increasingly despotic during the last years of his regime. In the words of a US Embassy dispatch, “The Shah’s picture is everywhere. The beginning of all film showings in public theaters presents the Shah in various regal poses accompanied by the strains of the National anthem... The monarch also actively extends his influence to all phases of social affairs...there is hardly any activity or vocation which the Shah or members of his family or his closest friends do not have a direct or at least a symbolic involvement. In the past, he had claimed to take a two party-system seriously and declared “If I were a dictator rather than a constitutional monarch, then I might be tempted to sponsor a single dominant party such as Hitler organized”.[24]

However, by 1975, he abolished the multi-party system of government so that he could rule through a one-party state under the Rastakhiz (Resurrection) Party in autocratic fashion. All Iranians were pressured to join in. The Shah’s own words on its justification was; “We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy, the constitution and the Six Bahman Revolution and those who don’t.... A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words a traitor. Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law”.[25] In addition, the Shah had decreed that all Iranian citizens and the few remaining political parties must become part of Rastakhiz.[26]


Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
no fuckhead, over a period of time the weight of the oil shuts off the gas and must be pumped off, which I get paid for but had the hole been perfectly dry of oil would have been less expensive and les maintaince on the hole

What about that hole in your head...what's the maintenace cost on that?
 
Last edited:
no fuckhead, over a period of time the weight of the oil shuts off the gas and must be pumped off, which I get paid for but had the hole been perfectly dry of oil would have been less expensive and les maintaince on the hole

no need to post your last name on here. this went right over your head anyway. just forget it.
 
It's a widely circulated email (thanks for emptying for junk folder on us once again) that orginated with an essay by Command Sergeant Major J.D. Pendry who served in the U.S. Army (not Marine Corps- as incorrectly posted in the spam).

Many other inaccuracies appear in the edited-for-spam version.

Please feel free to point out any "inaccuracies" in this one, since I received it neither as spam or in my junk folder.

Wherever you got it - it has obviously been through the ringer before it got to you. Obviously not Pendry's original work, because he certainly would not have identified himself as USMC as I am pretty sure that HE is aware that he served in the Army - NOT the Marines.
 
The American military at the end of the Cold War was a formidable force, large in
size, very well equipped, and quite capable of meeting any conceivable Soviet
warfare challenge, nuclear or conventional. Its recovery from Vietnam was total. The
Reagan Build-up, a major infusion of funds and technology that occurred in the
1980s, had allowed the military to modernize its weapons, doctrine, and training. It
had learned to recruit and motivate effectively an all-volunteer force, a no small feat
for a military long used to the cheap labor of conscription. Thoughts of honing its
fast fading counter-insurgency skills or of a search to discover how best to
participate in peace-keeping and nation-building ventures were far from its doctrinal
priorities. Instead, the American military rejoiced in its smashingly fast and near
cost-free defeat of Iraqi forces in Kuwait and planned to implement further
improvements in its conventional war-fighting capabilities.

These improvements, often referred to as the Precision Revolution, were based on
advances in sensor, radar masking, robotic, and targeting technologies and were
intended to allow American forces to detect, classify, and destroy targets precisely
with low risk and at expanding distances. The high casualty rate of Vietnam is
unsustainable with an all volunteer force. And absent a serious threat to its own
security, the American public's tolerance for civilian casualties inflicted by American
forces-collateral damage-is very limited. The rapid and seemingly decisive victories
in the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq featured such advances, the
product of a decade long effort by the military to implement the operational lessons
of the Gulf War while trimming force structure to adjust to the Soviet Union's demise.
www.e-ir.info/?p=1136&article2pdf=1

The issue is not the war-fighting capabilities of the US Military but rather it is rooted in current doctrine. With a lack of of a clear objective, and a clear mission, and once again doctrine that implies the military engage in nation building rather than war-fighting we will find ourselves mired in conflict for sometime to come. The US Military if it is committted to battle should engage with a clear objective, do so with massive strike capability and leave no doubt as to the outcome and one achieved exit. If this nation does not plan to commit to battle in Afghanistan or does so using the current doctrine, or engages in a half-ass manner, it would serve the nation and expecially the young men and women fighting it to just exit the conflict.
 
Pale Rider;

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the runner-in-chief..

,..............................................................................................................

The Shah's cruelty and corruption doomed him from the start. Not only that, the Iranians had a just greviance with our government as we financed the overthrow of a legitimate government by the Shaw for the benefit of our oil companies.

Cruelty, corruption of the Shah.... In door plumbing, Toilet Paper, Higher Education, Westernization.... Westernization..... Westernization..... Modernization, better health care, better transportation. What a dirt bag the Shah was!!!

With Iran's great oil wealth, Mohammad Reza Shah became the pre-eminent leader of the Middle East, and self-styled "Guardian" of the Persian Gulf. He became increasingly despotic during the last years of his regime. In the words of a US Embassy dispatch, “The Shah’s picture is everywhere. The beginning of all film showings in public theaters presents the Shah in various regal poses accompanied by the strains of the National anthem... The monarch also actively extends his influence to all phases of social affairs...there is hardly any activity or vocation which the Shah or members of his family or his closest friends do not have a direct or at least a symbolic involvement. In the past, he had claimed to take a two party-system seriously and declared “If I were a dictator rather than a constitutional monarch, then I might be tempted to sponsor a single dominant party such as Hitler organized”.[24]

However, by 1975, he abolished the multi-party system of government so that he could rule through a one-party state under the Rastakhiz (Resurrection) Party in autocratic fashion. All Iranians were pressured to join in. The Shah’s own words on its justification was; “We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy, the constitution and the Six Bahman Revolution and those who don’t.... A person who does not enter the new political party and does not believe in the three cardinal principles will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words a traitor. Such an individual belongs to an Iranian prison, or if he desires he can leave the country tomorrow, without even paying exit fees; he can go anywhere he likes, because he is not Iranian, he has no nation, and his activities are illegal and punishable according to the law”.[25] In addition, the Shah had decreed that all Iranian citizens and the few remaining political parties must become part of Rastakhiz.[26]


Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow, Sort of reminds Me of where The DNC wants to take the USA.... Huh.

Madison had it right, Hamilton was fucked. We should take back Our Country from Big Government, before Obama pulls a Shah on us.

The Shah was a Transformer Old Rocks. We had influence We could have used. Carter fucked up big time, in Iran, that makes him the sorriest President in Our Time, considering what came from his bumbling. Wasn't He a recipient of the Idiot (Nobel) Prize?
 
The American military at the end of the Cold War was a formidable force, large in
size, very well equipped, and quite capable of meeting any conceivable Soviet
warfare challenge, nuclear or conventional. Its recovery from Vietnam was total. The
Reagan Build-up, a major infusion of funds and technology that occurred in the
1980s, had allowed the military to modernize its weapons, doctrine, and training. It
had learned to recruit and motivate effectively an all-volunteer force, a no small feat
for a military long used to the cheap labor of conscription. Thoughts of honing its
fast fading counter-insurgency skills or of a search to discover how best to
participate in peace-keeping and nation-building ventures were far from its doctrinal
priorities. Instead, the American military rejoiced in its smashingly fast and near
cost-free defeat of Iraqi forces in Kuwait and planned to implement further
improvements in its conventional war-fighting capabilities.

These improvements, often referred to as the Precision Revolution, were based on
advances in sensor, radar masking, robotic, and targeting technologies and were
intended to allow American forces to detect, classify, and destroy targets precisely
with low risk and at expanding distances. The high casualty rate of Vietnam is
unsustainable with an all volunteer force. And absent a serious threat to its own
security, the American public's tolerance for civilian casualties inflicted by American
forces-collateral damage-is very limited. The rapid and seemingly decisive victories
in the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq featured such advances, the
product of a decade long effort by the military to implement the operational lessons
of the Gulf War while trimming force structure to adjust to the Soviet Union's demise.
www.e-ir.info/?p=1136&article2pdf=1

The issue is not the war-fighting capabilities of the US Military but rather it is rooted in current doctrine. With a lack of of a clear objective, and a clear mission, and once again doctrine that implies the military engage in nation building rather than war-fighting we will find ourselves mired in conflict for sometime to come. The US Military if it is committted to battle should engage with a clear objective, do so with massive strike capability and leave no doubt as to the outcome and one achieved exit. If this nation does not plan to commit to battle in Afghanistan or does so using the current doctrine, or engages in a half-ass manner, it would serve the nation and expecially the young men and women fighting it to just exit the conflict.

What was it in Iraq, after the initial Success that left such a void, for so long, rudderless? Where was The State Department during all of that? Dare I ask, Who's side were They on?
Way what happened Totally unforeseen? Be it devastation from War or Natural Disaster, We All benefit from Foresight, Planning, and Preparedness.
 
The American military at the end of the Cold War was a formidable force, large in
size, very well equipped, and quite capable of meeting any conceivable Soviet
warfare challenge, nuclear or conventional. Its recovery from Vietnam was total. The
Reagan Build-up, a major infusion of funds and technology that occurred in the
1980s, had allowed the military to modernize its weapons, doctrine, and training. It
had learned to recruit and motivate effectively an all-volunteer force, a no small feat
for a military long used to the cheap labor of conscription. Thoughts of honing its
fast fading counter-insurgency skills or of a search to discover how best to
participate in peace-keeping and nation-building ventures were far from its doctrinal
priorities. Instead, the American military rejoiced in its smashingly fast and near
cost-free defeat of Iraqi forces in Kuwait and planned to implement further
improvements in its conventional war-fighting capabilities.

These improvements, often referred to as the Precision Revolution, were based on
advances in sensor, radar masking, robotic, and targeting technologies and were
intended to allow American forces to detect, classify, and destroy targets precisely
with low risk and at expanding distances. The high casualty rate of Vietnam is
unsustainable with an all volunteer force. And absent a serious threat to its own
security, the American public's tolerance for civilian casualties inflicted by American
forces-collateral damage-is very limited. The rapid and seemingly decisive victories
in the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq featured such advances, the
product of a decade long effort by the military to implement the operational lessons
of the Gulf War while trimming force structure to adjust to the Soviet Union's demise.
www.e-ir.info/?p=1136&article2pdf=1

The issue is not the war-fighting capabilities of the US Military but rather it is rooted in current doctrine. With a lack of of a clear objective, and a clear mission, and once again doctrine that implies the military engage in nation building rather than war-fighting we will find ourselves mired in conflict for sometime to come. The US Military if it is committted to battle should engage with a clear objective, do so with massive strike capability and leave no doubt as to the outcome and one achieved exit. If this nation does not plan to commit to battle in Afghanistan or does so using the current doctrine, or engages in a half-ass manner, it would serve the nation and expecially the young men and women fighting it to just exit the conflict.

What was it in Iraq, after the initial Success that left such a void, for so long, rudderless? Where was The State Department during all of that? Dare I ask, Who's side were They on?
Way what happened Totally unforeseen? Be it devastation from War or Natural Disaster, We All benefit from Foresight, Planning, and Preparedness.

Well to answer your question we went from this;

AirLand Battle was the overall conceptual framework that formed the basis of the US Army's European warfighting doctrine from 1982 into the late 1990s. AirLand Battle emphasized close coordination between land forces acting as an aggressively maneuvering defense, and air forces attacking rear-echelon forces feeding those front line enemy forces. AirLand Battle replaced 1976's "Active Defense" doctrine, and was itself replaced by the modern
AirLand Battle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and by the time the War in Iraq rolled around we went to this;

Network centric warfare can trace its immediate origins to 1996 when Admiral William Owens introduced the concept of a 'system of systems' in a paper of the same name published by the Institute National Security Studies. Owens described the serendipitous evolution of a system of intelligence sensors, command and control systems, and precision weapons that enabled enhanced situational awareness, rapid target assessment, and distributed weapon assignment.

Also in 1996, the Joint Chiefs of Staff released Joint Vision 2010, which introduced the military concept of full-spectrum dominance. Full Spectrum Dominance described the ability of the US military to dominate the battlespace from peace operations through to the outright application of military power that stemmed from the advantages of information superiority.

The problem is that when look at a conflict like the first Gulf War where ALB was in place and massive force was applied, including Air,Sea, and Land assests in a large destructive manner and after the enemy has been totally destroyed you leave the building of the nation to those best equipped to handle it and thats not the US Military. It was a lesson that many learned from Vietnam that you apply massive firepower achieve your objectives and leave the peacekeeping and nation building to those best equipped to handle it. When Iraq2 came around and Don Rumsfeld was at DoD to all of our chagrin by this time the US military had tossed aside this doctrine in favor of one that also included networking and peacekeeping as was being moved to address small conflicts as well as provide services that are not traditionally military in nature, building roads, water plants, electricial facilities etc. in other words a step back if you will to the failed vietnam policy of "winning hearts and minds" While this may work on a local level or even a regiional level in the end conflict will never end as long as the US Military is there as a force not engaged in comabt operations but rather one of police operations. As you can tell im not a fan of the current doctrine and have always believed that the US Military should apply massive assets with a clear objective, and once achieved, exit the battlefield and leave the infrastructure building to civilian authority.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top