[Eeyore]

You haven't ranted about any Islamist terrorists recently.

Have you been unwell ?

Graham

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

You haven't ranted about any Islamist terrorists recently.

Have you been unwell ?

He's been down since the Malkinistas found the source for that AP story.

Stephen

[ScottW]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

You haven't ranted about any Islamist terrorists recently.

Have you been unwell ?

He's been down since the Malkinistas found the source for that AP story.

Stephen

Nope, they haven't found him yet. Funny that bloggers need to track
down
APs source. AP seems to ascribe to the Mary Mapes school of journalism
ethics.
Its only a lie if you can prove its a lie.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Eeyore wrote:
You haven't ranted about any Islamist terrorists recently.

Have you been unwell ?

Nah, I just decided to see if the place became more interesting on
audio if I laid off the politics. So far...it hasn't.

Anyway..you might find this interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16240565/site/newsweek/

Happy Holidays.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Eeyore wrote:
You haven't ranted about any Islamist terrorists recently.

Have you been unwell ?

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
You haven't ranted about any Islamist terrorists recently.

Have you been unwell ?

Nah, I just decided to see if the place became more interesting on
audio if I laid off the politics. So far...it hasn't.

Anyway..you might find this interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16240565/site/newsweek/

This was far more interesting to me:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16266217/

Happy Holidays.

Same to you.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
You haven't ranted about any Islamist terrorists recently.

Have you been unwell ?

Nah, I just decided to see if the place became more interesting on
audio if I laid off the politics. So far...it hasn't.

Anyway..you might find this interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16240565/site/newsweek/

This was far more interesting to me:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16266217/

Both are interesting. I'm not sure how much influence the
assembly of experts has on parliament committees who
exclude candidates from running. It would be nice to a move
toward truly free and open elections.

ScottW

[ScottW]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

You haven't ranted about any Islamist terrorists recently.

Have you been unwell ?

He's been down since the Malkinistas found the source for that AP story.

Stephen

Just to keep you current.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006579.htm

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

You haven't ranted about any Islamist terrorists recently.

Have you been unwell ?

He's been down since the Malkinistas found the source for that AP story.

Stephen

Just to keep you current.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006579.htm

Thanks. Someone probably had a bunch of burned bodies and made up a
story about them.

Stephen

[ScottW]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

You haven't ranted about any Islamist terrorists recently.

Have you been unwell ?

He's been down since the Malkinistas found the source for that AP story.

Stephen

Just to keep you current.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006579.htm

Thanks. Someone probably had a bunch of burned bodies and made up a
story about them.

Whatever happened to those bodies anyway? Maybe they had to have
Reuters return them to Hezbollah in case Israel attacks again.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

You haven't ranted about any Islamist terrorists recently.

Have you been unwell ?

He's been down since the Malkinistas found the source for that AP story.

Stephen

Just to keep you current.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006579.htm

Thanks. Someone probably had a bunch of burned bodies and made up a
story about them.

Whatever happened to those bodies anyway? Maybe they had to have
Reuters return them to Hezbollah in case Israel attacks again.

The Iraqi morgues have plenty to choose from.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

toopid, you've been doing pretty well recently keeping the OT crap off
of RAO.

Is everything OK?

[ScottW]

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.

and Merry Xmas.

But just to make you feel better....the berglar got away with one.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...Documents.html

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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. Let's talk about a few things that you've given me **** about
then:

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/

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."

Why is it the senior military officers have never agreed with you?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/....ap/index.html

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.

[ScottW]

"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?

Let's talk about a few things that you've given me **** about
then:

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.
But after seeing Murthas video, anyone can see what a slime
he is.

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.


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....
.....but it will take significant time and commitment by the nation
and we can only add about 6 to 7k per year....


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.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

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.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
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

Ooops...you didn't say what you meant? I'm shocked!

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."

Only thing you've left on my ass resembles a hickey .


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.

Yeah...it is wrong for a politician in his position to declare
guilt before trial. BTW...Murtha hasn't been proven right..yet.

And when bushie lies,
it's OK.

No... and that assertion is simply that...an assertion.


Wild 'morals' ya got there, son.

Some ass kicking so far.


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."

Delusion noted..... so when does a rant become
an ass kicking?


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.

Still no link or message ID.... why do I feel misrepresented and
taken out of context? BTW...I'm curious. How does our deployment
policy of today compare to say WWII? Compare all these readiness
policies of today to yesteryear when we could really mount a
campaign and see it through.


Once again, your 'military genius' is lying in tatters.

Getting repititious....aren't you? Assertion over substance
seems to make you happy.

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?

Yup.


....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.

How close? He does not say.

BTW, more frequent RC
mobilizations will end up breaking the RC as well.

Seems to be a contradiction in play here.
Safe the AD by breaking the RC......
But thats you....your life is a contradiction.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

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.

Gosh, that was hard, toopid. I'm not surprised that you do not even
know what you've said.

That's a sure sign of stupidity... again.

Message-ID:

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.

The quote:

**************************************
Me:
I wonder what GEN Abazaid would say about opening up another front or
two. My guess? His staff would return with, "Sir, we cannot support
that mission."

toopid:
Stop playing police men and go back to what your armies are trained
for General....

Me:
You mean like cut-and-run from Iraq and go into combat operation on
your right and left flank without controlling your center?

toopid:
How many troops would it take to prevent the insurgents
from being able mount military operations impacting
harrassment?

[i.e. According to bushie's prevailing view, many more than we have
there now.]

You seem to think we would have to keep policing Baghdad
and Anbar if we were forced to mount a campaign against Iran.

Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
Can't do this..can't do that...can't do anything.
Just the kind of guy our military didn't need, good riddance.
*******************************

We'd apparently better get rid of the Army Chief of Staff, too, eh,
toopid?

Like Shinseki, Schoomaker has his head up his ass, eh, toopid?

LOL! What a moron.

Still no link or message ID.... why do I feel misrepresented and
taken out of context? BTW...I'm curious. How does our deployment
policy of today compare to say WWII? Compare all these readiness
policies of today to yesteryear when we could really mount a
campaign and see it through.

Are there any differences between now and WWII, Mr. Military Genius?
Can you name even one?;-)

Once again, your 'military genius' is lying in tatters.

Getting repititious....aren't you? Assertion over substance
seems to make you happy.

LOL! You cannot even remember what *you've* said, moron.

Let's see how you spin this one (without getting dizzy).

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?

Yup.

LOL! Now toopid knows more than the highest-ranking General in the US
Army!

LMAO!

....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.

How close? He does not say.

Precisely 12.7 months, six hours and 23 minutes.

Moron.

BTW, more frequent RC
mobilizations will end up breaking the RC as well.

Seems to be a contradiction in play here.
Safe the AD by breaking the RC......
But thats you....your life is a contradiction.

No contradiction, toopid. Think "short-term" vs. "long-term" (if you
can. There is little very evidence that you can 'think' at all.).

You can save the AD short-term with more RC deployments and break the
RC long-term in the process. But you knew that: you're a Military
Genius, Mr. you wouldn't even know how to assemble an M-16 or do a
proper right face (day two of basic training...).

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
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

Ooops...you didn't say what you meant? I'm shocked!

No, you couldn't glean the meaning from what was said. I am not
shocked.

Let's try that again:

"toopid, you've been doing pretty well recently keeping the OT crap off
of RAO.

Is everything OK?"

Note that this was in response to a post you made with more of your
unintelligent OT crap.

Still too stupid to get it? I am not surprised.

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."

Only thing you've left on my ass resembles a hickey .

That's because you are too stupid to know when you're out-gunned.

Let's talk about a few things that you've given me **** about
then:

See, toopid? You need to keep reading, moron.

See, toopid? Read in conetxt, what I said was this:

"Well, OK. Let's talk about a few things that you've given me ****
about then:"

See, toopid? (Probably not.)

So even when Murtha tells the truth, he's wrong.

Yeah...it is wrong for a politician in his position to declare
guilt before trial. BTW...Murtha hasn't been proven right..yet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/

So if Murtha quotes someone from the military that contradicts what was
oficially said, it is wrong, but if an anonymous military source
discredits an AP source, stop the presses.

And you say I am full of contradictions.

I'd say exposing a possible cover-up is appropriate, even ignoring the
fact that highly placed military officials confirmed the story.

But you go, girl.

And when bushie lies,
it's OK.

No... and that assertion is simply that...an assertion.


Wild 'morals' ya got there, son.

Some ass kicking so far.

Still too dense to see it. No surprise. LOL!

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."

Delusion noted..... so when does a rant become
an ass kicking?

When you are capable of rational thought, toopid. Therefore, in your
eyes maybe never.

Speaking of BS cases...this one sucks.
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4141562

I wasn't on the jury. Since you apparently were, what was wrong with
the case?

One one hand, justice isn't served by discussing a case before trial.
On the other hand, one that goes before a full jury isn't satisfactory.

You have a pretty high opinion of yourself, yes?

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.

Still no link or message ID.... why do I feel misrepresented and
taken out of context? BTW...I'm curious. How does our deployment
policy of today compare to say WWII? Compare all these readiness
policies of today to yesteryear when we could really mount a
campaign and see it through.

Once again, your 'military genius' is lying in tatters.

Getting repititious....aren't you? Assertion over substance
seems to make you happy.

Too dumb to see the sunstance. Oh well.

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?

Yup.

LOL! Why face reality when you can just make **** up based on... based
on... Hm. What experience do you have again, exactly?

That still cracks me up, toopid.

________________________________________

toopid (n. Woefully Dense): a pitiful, bigoted, unsuccessful little man
with fatal mental and cognitive issues who is prone to emotional
meltdowns. He cannot distinguish between illogic and emotional appeal.
He tries ever-so-hard to play with the big boys but is unsuccessful in
that, too.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

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.

Gosh, that was hard, toopid. I'm not surprised that you do not even
know what you've said.

That's a sure sign of stupidity... again.

Message-ID:

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.

The quote:

**************************************
Me:
I wonder what GEN Abazaid would say about opening up another front or
two. My guess? His staff would return with, "Sir, we cannot support
that mission."

toopid:
Stop playing police men and go back to what your armies are trained
for General....

Me:
You mean like cut-and-run from Iraq and go into combat operation on
your right and left flank without controlling your center?

toopid:
How many troops would it take to prevent the insurgents
from being able mount military operations impacting
harrassment?

[i.e. According to bushie's prevailing view, many more than we have
there now.]

You seem to think we would have to keep policing Baghdad
and Anbar if we were forced to mount a campaign against Iran.

Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
Can't do this..can't do that...can't do anything.
Just the kind of guy our military didn't need, good riddance.
*******************************

We'd apparently better get rid of the Army Chief of Staff, too, eh,
toopid?

Like Shinseki, Schoomaker has his head up his ass, eh, toopid?

LOL! What a moron.

Only thing moronic is your claims his statements in this article
actually address how the army might deal with a current crisis.
You're idea that priorities cannot change and some things
in the works (like policing Baghdad) cannot get left to others
is a real hoot. If we really got into a shooting war with Iraq,
would or should we really care about Sadr militias death squads?
They're impotent against our military and would have little impact
on real army combat operations which wouldn't be in Baghdad
if we're fighting in Iran.
We were talking about dealing with very current possibilities
and he's talking about long term force levels.

When are you going to realize that your childish insults aren't
a substitution for rational cogent arguments?

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ps.com...

"Well, OK. Let's talk about a few things that you've given me ****
about then:"

See, toopid? (Probably not.)

So even when Murtha tells the truth, he's wrong.

Yeah...it is wrong for a politician in his position to declare
guilt before trial. BTW...Murtha hasn't been proven right..yet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12838343/

So if Murtha quotes someone from the military that contradicts what was
oficially said, it is wrong,

Yes...it was wrong for Murtha to divulge to the media the results
of the investigation and declare guilt prior to trial for political
purposes.
Sorry you can't see the obvious.

but if an anonymous military source
discredits an AP source, stop the presses.

If you paid attention....you'd realize the military sources
aren't anonymous...it was the only AP source that wasn't
anonymous that was discredited and is yet to be located.

Don't let a little thing like the truth hold you back.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

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.

Gosh, that was hard, toopid. I'm not surprised that you do not even
know what you've said.

That's a sure sign of stupidity... again.

Message-ID:

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.

The quote:

**************************************
Me:
I wonder what GEN Abazaid would say about opening up another front or
two. My guess? His staff would return with, "Sir, we cannot support
that mission."

toopid:
Stop playing police men and go back to what your armies are trained
for General....

Me:
You mean like cut-and-run from Iraq and go into combat operation on
your right and left flank without controlling your center?

toopid:
How many troops would it take to prevent the insurgents
from being able mount military operations impacting
harrassment?

[i.e. According to bushie's prevailing view, many more than we have
there now.]

You seem to think we would have to keep policing Baghdad
and Anbar if we were forced to mount a campaign against Iran.

Your thinking seems very be very "stuck in a box".
Can't do this..can't do that...can't do anything.
Just the kind of guy our military didn't need, good riddance.
*******************************

We'd apparently better get rid of the Army Chief of Staff, too, eh,
toopid?

Like Shinseki, Schoomaker has his head up his ass, eh, toopid?

LOL! What a moron.

Only thing moronic is your claims his statements in this article
actually address how the army might deal with a current crisis.

Probably by creating a permanent military class, much like the Roman
legions. People who joined the RC will become deployed for a year or
more every year. But that won't break that system, will it, toopid?

I defer to your superior knowledge. LOL!

You're idea that priorities cannot change and some things
in the works (like policing Baghdad) cannot get left to others

Why aren't they now, then, toopid? Deal in reality, not your
head-up-ass, methane-induced hallucinations.

Either it's important that we're there now, or it can be left to
others.

is a real hoot. If we really got into a shooting war with Iraq,
would or should we really care about Sadr militias death squads?

Who would be attacking who, toopid? If we got "into a shooting war"
would it be Iran attacking us?

Duh. You clearly do not understand how manpower requirements work. Why
don't you give us a matrix of where all the people required would come
from, with duration of deployment and frequency of activation? Do that
and I'll leave you alone. (Hint: it seems that the Pentagon is having
problems with this question. Solve it and get a medal, toopid!)

Moron.

They're impotent against our military and would have little impact
on real army combat operations which wouldn't be in Baghdad
if we're fighting in Iran.

So you're for allowing Iraq to devolve into chaos. That's a switch for
you, seeing as how that would be 'disastrous' for the US long-term
(accrording to you, Mr. "I'm not a contradiction").

It seems that Iraq currently keeps about 140,000 soldiers occupied
pretty much full-time. But I'm sure that would all change, yes?

You are a true moron, toopid.

We were talking about dealing with very current possibilities
and he's talking about long term force levels.

It's a very current possibility that the AD army is breaking. But I
wouldn't listen to one of its top commanders, either. Certainly not
with all of your experience... LOL!

That must be some good **** that you're breathing.

He's talking about long-term force levels based on very current
optempo. This very current optempo is breaking the army. Schoomaker
clearly states the AD needs to grow in order to support the very
current optempo, toopid. Without the addition of another operation.

Would another operation increase or decrease the optempo? I'll defer to
your expertise on this one. LOL!

I'm sure that you've also considered, in your Most Educated Manner,
that we have pulled a brigade of soldiers from an area they will likely
not be needed soon in order to maintain our current commitments and
optempo: the border of North Korea...

Moron.

When are you going to realize that your childish insults aren't
a substitution for rational cogent arguments?

LMAO!

When will you realize that you're trying to discuss things that you
have no clue about, and further that you have no background, training,
experience, or absolutely anything else that might give you one?
(Reading Tom Clancy novels doesn't count, toopid. Sorry.)

Here, you get the last word, toopid: I'm not wasting more time on a
clueless idiot.

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.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

Sorry you can't see the obvious.

Sorry you can only see things one way, toopid.

Myopia can lead to blindness, or so I'm told...

LOL!

Moron.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

So you're for allowing Iraq to devolve into chaos. That's a switch for
you, seeing as how that would be 'disastrous' for the US long-term
(accrording to you, Mr. "I'm not a contradiction").

It seems that Iraq currently keeps about 140,000 soldiers occupied
pretty much full-time. But I'm sure that would all change, yes?

You are a true moron, toopid.

Trapped in your box....forever.

Enjoy the Holidays...if you can.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

So you're for allowing Iraq to devolve into chaos. That's a switch for
you, seeing as how that would be 'disastrous' for the US long-term
(accrording to you, Mr. "I'm not a contradiction").

It seems that Iraq currently keeps about 140,000 soldiers occupied
pretty much full-time. But I'm sure that would all change, yes?

You are a true moron, toopid.

Trapped in your box....forever.

You forget this part, though, toopid.

"You clearly do not understand how manpower requirements work. Why
don't you give us a matrix of where all the people required would come
from, with duration of deployment and frequency of activation? Do that
and I'll leave you alone. (Hint: it seems that the Pentagon is having
problems with this question. Solve it and get a medal, toopid!)"

It's very easy to say as you have, over and over, that someone is
trapped in a box. It's a lot harder to show how to get out of it. Our
top military brass, for example, seems to have some difficulty here,
even manning *current* operations, while you apparently do not, even
manning *another* operation. So show me how this 'box' will change (if
you can. If you cannot, the sane thing for you to do would be to admit
it.). Show me how we can man all of the military requirements currently
facing our military, and then add in that "shooting war" with Iran.

BTW, bushie and rummy thought 'outside of the box.' He thought that the
age-old lessons of military history were outdated, just like you do.
Fat lot of good that did him (and us), toopid...

So time for you to prove your mettle, toopid. I'll accept an Excel
speadsheet showing troop strength, location, and where pulled from. You
do not need to do a full DMD by MOS with unit MTOE. Show us all about
that box you keep braying about (with nothing but a cute little phrase
to back it up).

Can you do it?

I didn't think so.

BTW, your lack of brains will not affect my holidays at all. As I said,
you have a pretty high opinion of yourself, little man.

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.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

So you're for allowing Iraq to devolve into chaos. That's a switch for
you, seeing as how that would be 'disastrous' for the US long-term
(accrording to you, Mr. "I'm not a contradiction").

It seems that Iraq currently keeps about 140,000 soldiers occupied
pretty much full-time. But I'm sure that would all change, yes?

You are a true moron, toopid.

Trapped in your box....forever.

You forget this part, though, toopid.

"You clearly do not understand how manpower requirements work.

You don't understand changing priorities. This whole premise
was how to deal with a crisis. You think those 140,000
are unavailable to be reassigned in a crisis?
The crisis which has yet to be more than a discussion point
BTW.
Try to support solutions instead of crawling in your box and
crying all the time. You sound the whiny fool crying
we don't have enough troops in Europe. WTF do we need
troops in Europe for?

Here's your chance....dems always wanted to bring in
the Euros....well lets let them defend themselves for the
first time in a half a century.
http://www.basicint.org/europe/NATO/...2defcapgap.htm


ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...

So you're for allowing Iraq to devolve into chaos. That's a switch for
you, seeing as how that would be 'disastrous' for the US long-term
(accrording to you, Mr. "I'm not a contradiction").

It seems that Iraq currently keeps about 140,000 soldiers occupied
pretty much full-time. But I'm sure that would all change, yes?

You are a true moron, toopid.

Trapped in your box....forever.

You forget this part, though, toopid.

"You clearly do not understand how manpower requirements work.

You don't understand changing priorities. This whole premise
was how to deal with a crisis. You think those 140,000
are unavailable to be reassigned in a crisis?

Without having Iraq devolve beyond the point that it has already
devolved to, yes.

The crisis which has yet to be more than a discussion point
BTW.

And we cannot ("Wah! You are so negative, Shhhh!! Think outside the
box! (although I have no ideas on what that means!) We absolutely have
to remain 100% committed to Iraq unless something else comes up! And
then we can blame the liberal media!") support another long-term
military mission without breaking the military. We are having problems
supporting what we've already started. That's pretty obvious to anybody
with a clue.

Try to support solutions instead of crawling in your box and
crying all the time.

And what are your solutions again? You keep dodging this one. You keep
mentioning 'boxes' but offer nothing more than a cute little
(brainless) talking point.

And I'm not, BTW, 'crying.' Unless being able to identify reality
represents 'crying' in your 'mind.'

You sound the whiny fool crying
we don't have enough troops in Europe. WTF do we need
troops in Europe for?

Um, where did this (brainless) strawman come from?

If you'll recall, it was you who brought up how Germany did not want us
to redeploy troops. That's the only mention ever that I can recall.
I've never even mentioned any need for troops in Europe.

What are your solutions? If you're suggesting that we can pull troops
out of Iraq without the fatal, dire consequences that you've so
frequently predicted, then we can do that now. If we cannot do so, then
we cannot. You don't get to have it both ways, toopid.

Shall we just keep all personnel on the front lines 'for the duration?'
What would be the result of something like that, IY(clueless)O?

So how many troops can we take out of Iraq? Give a hard number. Not
some silly talking point about 'boxes.'

Here's your chance....dems always wanted to bring in
the Euros....well lets let them defend themselves for the
first time in a half a century.
http://www.basicint.org/europe/NATO/...2defcapgap.htm

LOL!

toopid, the methane is affecting your 'mind' again. Pull it out.

We spend more on our military than any other nation on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

To expect any other nation in NATO to keep up with us is not very
realistic, don't you agree?

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.e. not to mention
toopid, the greatest military 'mind' of them all] 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.