f16 vs Crowd

[ajwps]

Pope Puis? ... what i am trying to say is... i've never heard of Pope Puis, and i'm no Flanders. Just read half the bible once. I usually follow my own morals.

Pope Pious (John) and you are certainly no Flanders. Just read half the bible once? You certainly do follow your own set of moral and ethical behavior. Anyone can see that is a fact.

was my understanding that Einstein was athiest..i could be wrong but the quote bellow is this quote is potent
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures..."

That potent statement is simply his opinion who questions the actions of G-d who creates everything. Albert Einstein, born, raised and died a Jew who simply questioned his Creator, which is expected of the Jewish people. Not to accept everything as literal but to question G-d and whether man is rewarded or punished in this life.

"G-d doesn't play dice with the universe and the half Jew, Niels Bohr said, "Albert, don't tell G-d what to do"

Attribution: Albert Einstein

 

[ajwps]

No, I'll never enlist to fight for this country, or any country for that matter. Not now or ever. War has to be the stupidest endeavor ever undertaken by a group of men. This land is stolen, and it was created to support elites. Fuck it.

Then you should be drafted to fight and ultmately die for the country on which you defecate. Who did you say the redman Indian people STOLE this land from?

Freedom and liberty don't come for free!

Your liberty to say what you said was payed for by many young men and women who gave up their existence to protect your undeserved rights to live and enjoy your freedom in this country.

If you don't like this STOLEN country, GET OUT NOW.....

 

[ajwps]

Menewa, with all due respect to your first amendment right to self expression. So fucking what? In and about the Fallujah area are approxamately 65 Marines that I either trained personally, or trained the leadership. Far as I am concerned any of those aircrews is the best friend of my friends and I will be honored to get em commode huggin - snot slingin - old corps drunk and see em safely home.

Pegwinn that is one of my problems with George W. Bush, President.

Instead of running this war of removing the Islamic threat to the world from Washington, he should simply tell his field commanders and generals to prosecute the war by the well known rules of warfare. This is what FDR and Truman did in WW2 and they finished off the enemy quickly.

The Commander in Chief has no business directing the way the American soldiers fight those who shoot at them. There would be no insurgents if the US military had been given the authority to finish the job without political considerations.

That is the President's job to handle the public and world perspective of this war against evil and leave the fighting to the armed forces.

 

[freeandfun1]

Pegwinn that is one of my problems with George W. Bush, President.

Instead of running this war of removing the Islamic threat to the world from Washington, he should simply tell his field commanders and generals to prosecute the war by the well known rules of warfare. This is what FDR and Truman did in WW2 and they finished off the enemy quickly.

The Commander in Chief has no business directing the way the American soldiers fight those who shoot at them. There would be no insurgents if the US military had been given the authority to finish the job without political considerations.

That is the President's job to handle the public and world perspective of this war against evil and leave the fighting to the armed forces.

shit, an other example of where we agree. wtf?

 

[posternutbag]

PNB - I suggest you stay out of flaming that isn't aimed at you. Some flaming is tolerated occassionally. Seeking out posters and sticking in your 2 cents where you aren't involved isn't the best way to go about things. It appears you've been nothing but antagonistic since day one here. Please mellow out.

So flaming is allowed, sometimes, but responding to a post in a public forum that involves flaming, is not? When is flaming allowed?

 

[posternutbag]

I guess you are not familiar with the rules of modern warfare. If insurgent terrorists come out of their hideouts to keep from getting killed, then maybe the US should throw flowers at them so they can kill more of their own people.

I say you are really a dolt.

No, I am familiar with the rules of modern warfare. They very clearly state that in order to bring people freedom it is neccessary to execute the brutal curfew violators on site.

 

[jimnyc]

So flaming is allowed, sometimes, but responding to a post in a public forum that involves flaming, is not? When is flaming allowed?

It was a suggestion. You either choose to listen to my advice or ignore it. Your choice.

 

[posternutbag]

It was a suggestion. You either choose to listen to my advice or ignore it. Your choice.

I was only asking for clarification. I'll be sure to not respond to flaming, unless that flaming is directed at me. But I'm still a little uncertain as to when flaming is allowed. Can you clarify that for me?

 

[jimnyc]

I was only asking for clarification. I'll be sure to not respond to flaming, unless that flaming is directed at me. But I'm still a little uncertain as to when flaming is allowed. Can you clarify that for me?

I explained in the other thread.

 

[ajwps]

No, I am familiar with the rules of modern warfare. They very clearly state that in order to bring people freedom it is neccessary to execute the brutal curfew violators on site.

Or you might say it a little bit differently.

Modern warfare states that in order to pre-emptively strike a blow at the heart of the opposing enemy who wishes to destroy your country and your people, you must fight by destroying (no executions of innocents) quickly and efficiently all those who consinder themselves martyrs and wish to die in order to destroy the world of the living.

If it means killing of those innocents the enemy hides behind then so be it. That is WAR my friend.

 

[pegwinn]

Pegwinn that is one of my problems with George W. Bush, President.

Instead of running this war of removing the Islamic threat to the world from Washington, he should simply tell his field commanders and generals to prosecute the war by the well known rules of warfare. This is what FDR and Truman did in WW2 and they finished off the enemy quickly.

The Commander in Chief has no business directing the way the American soldiers fight those who shoot at them. There would be no insurgents if the US military had been given the authority to finish the job without political considerations.

That is the President's job to handle the public and world perspective of this war against evil and leave the fighting to the armed forces.

AJ, Are you on drugs this morning? Exactly what did I say that makes you think I support not killing off the insurgents/terrorists/label of the week?

As to the prez, well like it or not, his title is Commander In Chief. All presidents from Washington to today have exercised as much control of the battlefield as communications allowed.

Now let that sink in. Question for you. Which President in which war made sure that one of his most fightin generals had to stop and come to a halt because of political considerations? Hint it sounds like FDR / WW2 / Patton.
In order to understand the context, look at Ike/Monty and the "get to the rhine" mentality in relation to the overall war effort of the time.

 

[ajwps]

AJ, Are you on drugs this morning? Exactly what did I say that makes you think I support not killing off the insurgents/terrorists/label of the week?

Pegwinn there was nothing said that related to your previous post about destroying the enemy before they destroy you. What are you referencing?

As to the prez, well like it or not, his title is Commander In Chief. All presidents from Washington to today have exercised as much control of the battlefield as communications allowed.

The COMMANDER IN CHIEF does not mean that he has any idea of what the frontline commanders are facing. Did you ever hear of 'delegating responsibilities' by the Commander in Chief. It is ultimately the President's responsibility for the results or actions of his generals but George Bush nor the Congress has the expertise to make decisions involving tactics or controlling the lives of American soldiers.

That very mistake was made in the both the Korean and Vietnam wars by the several Commander in Chiefs. We stalemated one and lost the other. In WW1 and WW2 and earlier wars, unless the President led his men onward to charge into the cannons, they haven't the right to tell young men and women to die needlessly.

Now let that sink in. Question for you. Which President in which war made sure that one of his most fightin generals had to stop and come to a halt because of political considerations? Hint it sounds like FDR / WW2 / Patton.

You have sunken in! Do have even the vaguest idea or knowledge of why Patton came to a stop in WW2? He was moving his men forward so fast that their supply lines could not catch up with them thus leaving them without gas for their tanks and trucks and with little to no ammunition. Patton was never ordered to stop the war for any political reasons.

Roosevelt did decide to allow the Russians to fight for Berlin but not for political considerations. Both FDR and Churchill decided to let the Russians fight and die in the last ditch stand for the Nazi capital. Thousands upon thousands of Russian soldiers died in that fight but the Americans sat back and lived. Nothing political about it. Does that ring a neuron in your brain? Now with time, who has Germany and its capital Berlin? The Russians who lost thousands to get it from the Nazis or the western European world?

In order to understand the context, look at Ike/Monty and the "get to the rhine" mentality in relation to the overall war effort of the time.

WHAT are you talking about????

Generals prosecute wars authorized by our President and Congress. Communications have no relationship to playing war with toy soldiers on a cardboard square.

One of the main reasons that Hitler lost his war against the world was because not one general could make any battlefront decisions but everything had to come from Hitler himself.

While Hitler slept, not one of his generals dared wake him and his panzer tank and reserve divisions could not be moved up to clean the allies from the beaches of Normandy. Hitler made all the decisions for his eastern divisions fighting in Russia. Get the picture, Hitler lost the war......

 

[pegwinn]

AJ, I am not going to attempt to enter the quote and counterquote game with you. Your first mistake is in presuming to know how a president fights a war. The President rarely points a finger and says "blow it up". He has military and civilian advisors who present options. He has to balance them. And then select them. All presidents do this. If you don't believe that, well, theres nothing for you.

You need to go back and look at the conduct of every war we have ever been involved in better. EVery president had controlled the battleground, and the political realities, up to the limits of the communication technology at the time.

Then there is Patton. He ran out of fuel because he overextended his supply lines. Duhhhhh. Patton was subordinate to who, was the nemisis of who, and Pattons superior was subordinate to whom? C'mon you cannot be this dumb. Go look again at the OPORD for Overlord. Research the rivalries between Patton and Montgomery and who had to step in to stop it. Patton ran out of fuel because FDR ordered Eisenhour to enforce Overlord. This was done for political reasons as well as Strategic.

This next quote proves that you really are not well versed in any form or subform of Military / Political operations except for maybe answering multiple guess questions in college.

"Communications have no relationship to playing war with toy soldiers on a cardboard square." Remember my point about technology? He who can talk to the generals gives orders. Less Comm, more freedom of action.

Now, I am not saying it is right for politicians to get involved in the fight. That means Congress needs to stay out of a wartime military. But it is right and proper for the Commander in Chief to Command. That's also one reason it is important to examine his fitness during the elections.