Originally posted by wulfie Oh where oh where do I start? 'Mostly minorities to do the fighting'? A total lie - just like it was back in the era of Vietnam. I'll tell you what. You let me know the next time you are in Georgia, or Southern California, or Virginia, or North Carolina, or South Carolina. I'll give you the names of a couple of bars to go to. You go there and explain to the 'minorities' how they are being 'exploited' by 'fighting for the rich' (as opposed to volunteering to kill bad guys). I'll make sure you have a large audience anywhere you go. You make sure your dental insurance is up-to-date. On a more somber note, I have mental images of plenty of good guys who have been killed over the past 2 or 3 years and none of them were members of a 'minority'. It took a statement like yours to actually cause me to think about specific details like that. There are a few guys I know who have been KIA who *to you* would be considered part of a 'minority group' - but that's your label for your *****ed-up agenda. They considered themselves to be Americans.Bush did something more dangerous and challenging than you have ever done. He flew jet fighter aircraft. In the spirit of the above paragraph I could arrange for you to go to a bar or two in the states where you could explain to some USAF fighter pilots who never flew over SE Asia (read: the majority of the interceptor pilots flying for SAC) about how they were 'draft dodging sissies' and 'never did any dying'. The dental insurance advice is still very relevant in this case. When I think about how many guys I have seen get killed in 'peacetime' military aviation - you are a *****ing loser dude. A total *****ing loser lying about serious issues to support a petty argument that is itself based totally on lies.Where did you get 'never showed up for duty' from? Did you pull it out of your prettythang along with the rest of the facts that define your reality?Here's a suggestion that might lead to you getting a little 'real-world' education. Before you explain to the above mentioned audiences how 'minorities do most of the fighting' and get beating within a inch or two of your worthless life, you should ask them what they think of the "Bring it on" quote. I love it. Most of the guys I know who are currently serving in the military love it. You apparently missed the point of the statement - probably because you are totally incapable of relating to the CiC or anyone directly involved in the current hammering of bad guys worldwide. Bush was saying "Bring it on" because he knew his fighters were up to the task of dealing with the opposition. 'Bring it on - it's nothing my guys cannot handle'. This type of talk may bother you. Why don't you go back to the coffee shop now and 'heroicially resist the evil Bush regime by dreaming up conspiracies to post to the internet' with your fellow 'freedom fighters'.Another reality check - why do you call him a draft dodger? He was a member of the military already. Contrary to popular 'extremist' belief, his Dad did not hold any significant political office at the time (another reason why the 'Bush Jr. was skated into Yale' rumor is baseless). He was as succeptible to being activated to an active duty USAF fighter squadron and deployed to SE Asia as any of the couple thousand other ANG interceptor pilots flying at the time.I'm not average. The guys fighting and sometimes getting killed are not average, except in your eyes I guess. Your comments smack of the Clinton adviser who had that great quote: "The Nations best and brightest didn't die in Vietnam. The best and brightest never went to Vietnam".What's the point of joining into a discussion if all you do is lie?Mike/wulfiep.s. For everyone else reading this reply - here's a graph showing monthly Coalition casualties:
Originally posted by lord dolf vader and i know a lot of vets viet nam and otherwise and am one myself
Originally posted by DmdNexus Need to simplify this for you Mr. Wulfie.You like to call names but don't answer questions.I answer plenty of questions on this BBS. You are the one who appears adept at changing the subject when you don't like the answer, or when you are caught making uneducated or intentionally false statements. 2 of the most recent examples involve Colombia and 'minorities' in the U.S. Armed Forces.The UN didn't find any weaponsPlease explain what *you* mean - specifically - when you say that the UN didn't find *any* weapons. Bush's top WMD investigator didn't find anyAgain - what do you mean when you say that 'Bush's top WMD investigator' didn't find *any* weapons? Be specific.- and now Bush can't say the Iraqis weren't co-operating, because the US military can go any where it wants to in Iraq... and has and nothing has been found.The military has gone anywhere it wants to in Iraq and nothing has been found? Are you saying that every possible place that WMD could have been hidden has been searched by now? Put up or shut up - where are the WMDs?Oooooh. Is this an attempt at 'command presence'? How about... there aren't any. They were destroyed during the first Gulf War... probablely - yes... possiblely - yes...What information leads you to believe this statement to be true? Provide some type of specific answer (i.e. 'Coalition troops found X units of biological agent Z at location Y on this date and reported their destruction'). You know that just might be the correct answer, and this whole damn war was a big charade!Now you are telling me what I know? That's pretty amusing considering how often you've been proven to be incorrect in only the past 24 hours.>>Show me a single quote from Blix stating that Iraq was ever fully cooperating with the UN. It was in the very last report he gave the UN - go read it.It was all over TV - pay attention.If it was that widespread spend the 5 minutes to list a link to the actual report. Be specific. I want to see Blix stating that Iraq had given his teams 'total cooperation'. I only recall him saying that there were some positive developments in terms of Iraqi cooperation. Of course, there's no way he'd spin a report because the UN knew that military action was imminent and pressured him to do so. That would never happen.>>He had the Mark 1 Mod 0 terrorist human being which is capable of carrying biological and/or chemical weapons. Well watermelon that gives us justification to kill every Iraqi on sight - they just might be a terrorist with a bomb.It's easy to kill people when they are no longer seen as human - isn't it.Objectify the enemy is the first step to not seeing him as human.Who's evil now?Your words and your words alone. If you search my various posts on the topic, you'd see that long before I was stupid enough to waste a couple of hours debunking your posts my position on Iraqi soldiers was that they were 'caught in the middle' - between a stupid dictator's actions and the inevitable response from the rest of the world. I've said the same about Afghanis fighting for the ATF. I have some sympathy for the 'average' (read: conscripted, or non-politically motivated) Iraqi soldier. I spoke with no small # of them after they surrendered in 1991.>>When you have a large civilian populace 'under the gun' of massed artillery controlled by a madman, you need to use a little diplomacy. Double standard. It's easy to stomp all over 3rd world countries when the political reprecussions are lower. So with your reasoning that makes going to war with Iraq ok.Yet N.K. not ok - right? Because N.K. would cause more what? Political damage right...do we really care about casualties? Do we?I get it... it's the bully doctrine to foreign diplomacy... makes sense... that's pretty much how the world community views us now.You sure do have a wandering brain sometimes. It's a lot more simple than you think. N. Korea has Seoul 'held hostage' due to the close proximity of massed N. Korean artillery. The dictator leading N. Korea is not a friend of the people of S. Korea. Thus the populace of Seoul is under constant threat of destruction from a hostile leader. One Nation's civilians are under the constant and imminent threat of death from another Nation's unstable and 'evil' leader.Iraq's leadership did not *yet* have the same ability - to wipe out a couple of million innocent foreigners almost immediately. Are you saying it would have been wiser to delay acting against him until *after* he gained this capability? This is why the restriction on SSM ranges (which Iraq was found to be lying about in terms of compliance by Blix himself) was so important.I'd say we care about noncombatant casualties a great deal. We've even gone out of our way on several occasions any not killed as many enemy soldiers as we could, because we felt their morale and loyalty were questionable as they were 'caught in the middle' (see above for what I mean by this). One example is using B-52 strikes vs. advance positions of Iraqi units (long since abandoned in most cases) instead of PGM attacks vs. currently occupied MLR positions during the 1991 Gulf War. USAF leadership figured that a big display of firepower would cause many of the soldiers in the units witnessing the display to surrender. It worked.You seem to think that the U.S. does not care about killing people. Please specifically state why you think this. Another example that makes me believe the opposite of what you believe - during the 1991 Gulf War all targets to make the ATO had to be cleared by a military lawyer first. If there was a military target with civilians nearby, the question "We can hit it but do we need to to hasten the end of the war?" was asked before such targets made the ATO.What's the reason for the war in Iraq - there were no WMD... that was a ruse - not the real reason.A ruse? What do you mean by ruse? Answer specifically. Also, by 'not the real reason' are you saying that the only reason for removing Hussein was WMD? Are you saying that was the only reason put forth by the U.S.?>>You can think what you want. I've been to Colombia more than once and my job involved dealing with the topic at hand. I bet you have, probably ensuring Mr. Bush's cocaine delivery got to him?You're still not saying anythingA slanderous lie about our President, followed by another lie about what I've said. Let's recap here - you said that the U.S. had a double standard because 'the U.S. was doing nothing about Colombia, a major source of drugs - termed WMD by you - entering into the U.S.' I then corrected you on the reality of the Situation in Colombia, i.e. that the U.S. and Colombian governments were heavily involved in combatting the FARC - which controls the enclaves where the majority of the 'drug WMDs' you spoke of come from. You then added that this didn't matter because the Colombian government was 'corrupt', judges and juries bought off, etc. I then corrected you again - on the character of Colombia's government.I know I'm stretching your ability to think logically here...ok... if all that were true, then there would be no contaminated soil and there would be no fumes.. and there would be no UN sanction violations... because there were no WMD.Got it! Is there the slightest possibility you could see that logic?Before you declare yourself victorious, explain the Iraqi rotation of topsoil at known NBC sites? You know - the topsoil rotation that was questioned in the UN. The topsoil rotation that went unexplained by the Iraqis and had no other possible purpose than to hide topsoil that would reveal checmical agent residue when tested?Let me quess you're a butler in the senate cafeteria, or were you the shoe shine boy?I was neither. But if I did either for a living, basic reading skills and an internet connection would allow me to run circles around you when discussing these topics.Mike/wulfie
Originally posted by k2cok I've figured out who wulfie really is - Ding Chavez.How is Mr C. doing these days?
Originally posted by wulfie You've got me on this one. I have no idea what you are talking about. Enter it into the record books. Mike/wulfie
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM HINT: Tom Clancy
Originally posted by wulfie Still drawing a blank. It must be in reference to one of his later books? The 2 Clancy books that I read were 'The Hunt for Red October' and 'Red Storm Rising'. Just tell me is 'Ding Chavez' derogatory? I get the feeling it is. Mike/wulfie
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM I think he's introduced in "Clear and Present Danger" IIRC.I can't see that it's derogatory. IMHO, he is one of Clancy's better characters.
Originally posted by wulfie Are his later books any good in your opinion? I was 'warned off' Clancy after Red Storm Rising by several people. They told me his books shifted from interesting to 'Jack Ryan Saves The World Single Handedly'. Maybe I shouldn't have listened.I think Red Storm Rising is one of my favorite fiction books of all time.Mike/wulfie
