and the mantrum begins....
And you are in complete denial of your own words. I quoted you, I made nothing up, you said what you said. Run from it now that it's exposed. If I had put my junk on the table and got it smacked with a hammer I'd tuck and run too.
More worthless ad homs. junk is a good word though, that is all you post, loud mouthed "junk", so far two paragraphs where you claim victory for posting contradictory nonsense and baiting trolling. you rawk!
If you remove a nations sovereignty in any way you have "stripped it, taken, removed it, done away with it, etc." You know what the word means, you said they would not be considered sovereign...which entails discarding their sovereignty.
Oh looky, more mincing words by Reverend Hellhound! This is the best you have? Complete avoidance of the issue?
I pinned you, you know it. So rather than actually debate your "solution" you will hide behind this milktoast "when did I say strip" defense. I'll accept your surrender on this point.
Now an intellectually wanting semantics post. You do know when you "scapel" your little hammer into other countries without thier permission you are breaking that county's sovereignty.
at your "e-command pressence"
You fail on so many levels.....
Why are you bringing up the basement? I am simply refering to your little mantrums up here. and if you are going to violate vegas, perhaps you should try to at least be honorable about it and not lie.Yeah, when was the last time I challenged you to a...oh wait, not up here.
No, I know what you claimed you did in the Air Force.
Like I said, we can compare dd214's any time you want. keep trolling though.
Are you serious? Like how? You want hypothetical scenarios? What is it about surgical overt operations or covert operations that you don't understand? Why do you need examples? I thought you were high speed low drag and all that, you know you hang out with "operators" and whatnot. This is yet more of your avoidance of actually talking about your solution. I've put my ideas on the table...you've said you'd simply send in more troops and invade more countries. Nothing more. You've yet to provide a single specific.
yeah I am not going to comment here because I have what cops should have, it is called "self control". this is a vegas violation. Please show some self control
I know for a fact we can conduct MOUT operations without knocking out power grids and water treatment plants, we can do it without leveling entire city blocks or sections of neighborhoods. Do you know what the **** MOUT actually means? Apparently you read the acronym somewhere because your position here is absolutely lacking in credibility.
You are losing all self control kid, every paragraph of yours contains a little personal attack or two. is this how you "debate"? pathetic.
But I love how you think we should send in small man teams without softening up an area as an ONLY solution.
I think you are more worries about the terrorists and what france thinks of us than the safety of those who serve. shame on you.
Again with the personal attacks, give it up kid, all I am doing is laughing at you. See I could come back and slam you left and right, But I wont. Why? because I have what is called self control....
MOUT does not require widespread paths of destruction. MOUT is building to building, room to room, street to street warfare conducted primarily by dismounted troops in an urban environment. The very nature of MOUT is to avoid leveling a city, otherwise we wouldn't send in ground troops until after we had carpet bombed the place into rubble. You really need to just stop. Seriously. I've been there, you obviously have not.
And you fail as usual... "MOUT" is all military actions that are planned and conducted on a terrain complex where man-made construction affects the tactical options available to the commander.
perhaps you should be the one "looking it up".....
No, you are suggesting a one dimensional approach. I'm not. In fact I'm apparently speaking at a macro level that you refuse to rise to.
FAIL. If you are going to lie, try not to make it so blatant.
Fail again. lying gets us nowhere.No, you didn't propose anything in detail at all. You said "we invade." I described a multi-dimensional approach. You want to stay the course.
No, I said that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do
...did I not? How do you just forget this stuff? I mean seriously, I actually typed out that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do, yet here you are asking if I'm suggesting that we should have asked the Taliban for permission? What is wrong with your memory?
How did we invade Afghanistan without violating sovereignty? you talk out of both sides of your mouth.
Why do you think I asked you to spell out precisely what nations you would have us invade and what the other stages of your solution would involve? Because I have already said that combat operations where necessary should be conducted. But I was clear that Iraq was an example of what we should not be doing. Remember that? You have yet to answer my question regarding who you think we should invade or on what scale. Why is that again? Do you not like specifics Mr. Reverend Hellhound? Do they bother you? You sure ask for a lot of them.
simple, because it is a moronic question.... or maybe I should give you Obama's answer and say "Pakistan".... would that make you feel better?
I wouldn't venture into the woods by myself either if I were you, best to avoid.
Given your inability to actually carry on any form of substantial debate in this thread, I'll go ahead and save my energy. I can recommend some books for you, sorry...they don't have a lot of pictures.
do you have how to "e-thug and be cool on the internet"?
And you still haven't posted a single bit of substance to this argument.
Just because you can't argue what I post, claiming that I have not posted a single bit of substance while posting pages of attakcs does not make it true.