ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
ScottW wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:
toopid, you've been doing pretty well recently keeping the OT crap off
of RAO.
Is everything OK?
For christ's sake. There has been a blissful several days without a lot
of OT political ****.
Why would you want to **** that up? Are you unwell?
Don't be a dick.
I meant that it looked like you were slipping and bringing more OT crap
to RAO. And you are...
and Merry Xmas.
Please have a Blessed Holiday, Celebrating the Birth of Our (and all
the rest of the sheep on Earth's) Lord.
But just to make you feel better....the berglar got away with one.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...Documents.html
Well, OK.
What do you mean OK? Thats it? Berglar paid his due and its ok?
"Well, OK: you're wanting to open up more OT crap and get your ass
kicked... again."
Let's talk about a few things that you've given me **** about
then:
See, toopid? You need to keep reading, moron.
You called Murtha and I both names over this one, even though senior
Pentagon officials had been quoted as saying it was pretty bad:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12342625/
It doesn't look good, but unlike you and Murtha...I don't convict
prematurely which at the time was was I opposed Murtha doing.
Even when it was true, using this incident for political purposes
as Murtha did was truly slimy.
So even when Murtha tells the truth, he's wrong. And when bushie lies,
it's OK.
Wild 'morals' ya got there, son.
But after seeing Murthas video, anyone can see what a slime
he is.
"I was proven wrong... again. I will now shift to what a slime that I
think Murtha is to avoid admitting that I was wrong... again."
Speaking of BS cases...this one sucks.
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4141562
And you told me I had no idea what I was talking about on this one. I
think that you said I had to "get out of the box."
You need to provide a link as the context of this article
and that comment don't seem to connect.
The AD Army is breaking. You told me to to "think outside of the box"
regarding adding another mission, which we could not currently do.
Once again, your 'military genius' is lying in tatters.
Why is it the senior military officers have never agreed with you?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/....ap/index.html
His statements are bizarre.... The army will break if we don't get
more troops implying a dire situation....
It is a dire situation. Which is what I said months ago. And you seem
to think that we could add new missions to an already overtaxed
military.
Schoomaker better start "thinking outside of the box," eh?
....but it will take significant time and commitment by the nation
and we can only add about 6 to 7k per year....
The point he made is this: If we are to stay in Iraq and Afghanistan,
we need more AD troops AND more access to more frequent RC
mobilizations. The AD Army is close to breaking. BTW, more frequent RC
mobilizations will end up breaking the RC as well.
Needing to add a couple of AD brigades per year, on top of the
70-80,000 recruits needed annually to just maintain current strength,
will take time (unless you go to a draft). His assessment is realistic.
So once again, please celebrate the most Holy of All Days in Bliss and
Contentment.
And have an "I told you so" new year, as well.
You think you told me...but you didn't New year.
Of course not: you're simply too dumb to see it.
LOL!
Moron.
_______________________________________
"In view of the prevalent opinion in America that soldiers are, of all
persons, the least capable of discussing military matters and that
their years of special training is nil compared to the innate military
knowledge of lawyers, doctors, and preachers, I am probably guilty of a
great heresy in daring to discuss tanks from the viewpoint of a tank
officer." -- GEN George S. Patton, Jr.