Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any...


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... Page: <<   < prev  65 66 [67] 68 69   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 2:15:02 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

thompsonx: I am sure that would have made his gulivarian escapades in iraq much easier

Don't dismiss a mission out in sector as a "Gulliverian escapade." Your attitude on this post proves your hatred of the military.


No I just like pointing out phonies


I am making an appearance to say that I have met HFC, he is human, and he is in the military.  Infantry and all.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 1321
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 4:54:28 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
thompsonx: According to the aws(american welding society) the minimum shade used in welding gogles for oxy/acetylene is #5...this would preclude the welder from seeing where the sparks were falling. Red Herring.

This is beside the point in our discussion. Someone came on here and claimed that people in the military didn't talk about their military experiences. I came back with the story that my dad told me, where he did the welder's job for him to quickly get the job done. You're attempting to use this to argue that my dad "lacked" discipline by "abandoning" his post, which he didn't. In each instance, you couldn't argue your case, so you advance a red herring statement. However, this is just another example of you using google to make yourself sound like you "know" what you're talking about.

thompsonx: Wearing ppe (safety glasses) to weld is a sure sign that someone has no clue what they are doing.

Negative. Whether he wore the PPE or the welder's helmet didn't influence the fact that my dad was able to weld. If you were a veteran, you'd also remember numerous instances of people trying to cut corners.

thompsonx: That some squid knows how to weld is hardly relevant.

Actually, it's relevant to this debate. If you were attached to the department my dad was attached to, you'd know how to weld and do other ship hull maintenance work. It bolsters the fact that my dad quickly finished a welding job. Again, this supports my argument that military people will talk about their military experiences, and I used my dad quickly finishing a welding job as an example.

What's irrelevant to the debate is what kind of face shield the welder used.


thompsonx: His job is firewatch and not welder so it would appear that you learned your military discipline from someone who had little. Inductive Fallacy.

WRONG. You argued that he abandoned his post. In order for him to do that, he'd have to leave the welder unattended. In my argument, and yours, there's no indication that he abandoned the welder. In this post, you acknowledge that he was doing the welder's job, which meant that he was with the welder. My dad was active, and didn't just want to sit around doing nothing. While remaining at his firewatcch AO, he did the welders job... fully capable of taking out a fire that may have started.

My dad demonstrated far more discipline in real life than you've demonstrated here. You've got no legs to stand on when talking about military discipline. You've got no discipline and integrity when dealing with this thread.


thompsonx: As for your squid daddy serving six tours in viet nam that is clearly misleading. If your squid daddy was a frog or a seal,as you claim, he would have been serving 6 month tours with no less than six months out of country between tours. This would mean he only did three years.

The only person being misleading is you, here's why.

A combat tour is a combat tour, regardless of how many months they did that combat tour. And no, they weren't always six months. Navy deployments range from three to nine months. Army deployments range from 9 months to a year and a half. Marine deployments range from 6 months and up. If the main purpose of your deployment is to conduct combat operations, conduct combat missions, combat support missions, etc, you went on a combat tour, period, whether that was three months long, or a year and a half, is beside the point.

And get this.


Every branch of the service gives their deployed service members the opportunity to extend their deployments. Did you get that? EXTEND their deployments. My dad loved being in the field, he was active, and enjoyed doing combat missions. He hated the shore duty/garrison arrangement. His heart was in the field. He wasn't satisfied with just doing the minimum tour, he talked about how he extended some of his deployments.

Again, if you were a veteran, you would've known about these deployment extension opportunities. This is just one more hash mark on the "thompsonx is a poser," sleeve.


thompsonx: I gave you ample opportunity to clarify your position

I've constantly argued that my dad did 6 combat tours. I never argued that he did 6 years, I never said that. I never said that for a few reasons. First, you consistently use strawman arguments, addressing what you wanted people to say rather than what they wanted to say. Second, I knew that you did a google search on SEAL/Navy deployments, and that google search gave you the 6 month Navy deployments. A third reason is that I never argued that he did 6 years.

I withheld the above facts about deployment extensions, and deployment lengths, until you decided to drop the foot about the 6 years deployment. This is an example of what I'm talking about when I say that I'm being sadistic in these fights.

But wait! There's more!

According to those that I talked to, who were in the Navy during the Vietnam Era, Navy deployments were 9 months long. It wasn't till the 21st Century till the 9 month Navy deployment returned. So once again, thanks for proving that you're a poser, like I've repeatedly stated throughout this thread.


thompsonx: but you in your effort to paint yourself as the son of some "big deal" Strawman Argument + Repeat Point

My mentioning my dad and his 6 combat tours has everything to do to countering what people said. For instance, I used his doing the welder's job story to prove a poster wrong about service members "not" talking about their experiences. I used it against you to give you an example of who my dad knocked on their asses when he was in the Navy. If the reason I give you, for my dad's six combat tours, and welder job, "isn't believable" to you remember, I know what my cognitive processes are, you don't. If you find yourself in disagreement, know that you're wrong and have the integrity to make a post that reflects reality.

thompsonx: kept you from stating the facts

The vast majority of what I'm saying here is reasoned argument based on facts. These facts are based on extensive research, as well as experience, in the material that we're debating. The fact that your arrogance blinds you to these facts doesn't translate to these "not" being facts.

thompsonx: which begs us to question the validity of your other statements Inductive Fallacy, Strawman Argument.

You used a strawman argument in an attempt to question facts that I presented on this thread. You argued from the 6 year approach rather than the 6 combat tour approach. Then you proceeded to argue that since he didn't fit your textbook definition of a combat tour, he "didn't" do the combat tour. These are all attempts to play with semantics, which have nothing to do with the fact that my dad did 6 combat tours in Vietnam.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 1322
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 4:55:40 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
thompsonx: You do not seem to know very much about the history of warfare...

You do realize that a strong interest in history, especially military history, exists among the ranks, do you? We do study ancient tactics. I'm a history buff, and none of the examples that you talk about support what you're talking about. You're as clueless about military history as you are about the military.

thompsonx: did the dog eat that volumn of your britanica?

Did that one brain cell of yours leave you absent minded again... giving your master yet one more area to take a dump in?

thompsonx: Sun Tzu speaks of it.

Sun Tzu speaks about how you could use deception in warfare.

thompsonx: Thermopalie was an example of asymetrical warfare.

No it isn't. It's an example of conventional warfare, or symmetrical warfare. The tactics that both sides used were conventional tactics. Using a phalanx to block a narrow path that's impassable unless you go through that path was conventional during that time. They used a tactic that both sides recognized. The stronger army tried to use their tactics to push through the defense, as they did this in previous battles.

thompsonx: The napolianic war against england

That's another example of conventional warfare.

thompsonx: The Boar war in south africa is another.

Nope, that's another example of conventional warfare.

thompsonx: WWII there was the finish/russian encounter.

That's another example of conventional warfare.

thompsonx: Then there was that little mix up between england and germany in wwII.

That's another conventional war.

thompsonx: You do not seem to really understand what asymetrical warfare really is. Just because it got a name in the 70's does not mean it did not exist.

WRONG. Each example that you brought up is an example of conventional warfare, hence symmetrical warfare. You knew who your enemy was, you knew where the frontlines were. Things were more clearly defined in each of the examples that you mentioned.

Asymmetrical warfare is a complete change in paradigm, where the enemy uses tactics that the other side wouldn't consider as warfare. Now, warfare has evolved ever since we've engaged in it. When it evolved, people didn't realize that it was evolving. It's those points when it evolved, when it changed, that are comparable to asymmetrical warfare. But they're conventional warfare just the same.

Once those points were passed, people understood what warfare, for that time period, is. Once this change happened, there was no way in hell that they'd be able to turn around and predict which way warfare will turn in the future. You erroneously do that with the UN charter. It was written to deal with a world that just fought World War II. It was designed to address the world, and type of warfare that existed, in the Middle of the 20th Century. It didn't address 21st Century Warfare, it didn't address asymmetrical warfare.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 1323
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 4:56:45 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

thompsonx: I am sure that would have made his gulivarian escapades in iraq much easier

Don't dismiss a mission out in sector as a "Gulliverian escapade." Your attitude on this post proves your hatred of the military.


No I just like pointing out phonies


Actually, you love to ignore questions challenging you to put your money where your mouth is with that claim. Are you confident in that statement, where you think that I'm a "phony"? Are you willing to bet on it? I'm still waiting for someone on your side of the debate to respond to that challenge. The fact that they'd continue with their claims, that they won't stake a bet on, speaks volumes about their, and your, lack of integrity.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 1324
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 4:57:15 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
Back from Iraq for a short time?

You started this never-ending thread on May 5th.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 1325
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 4:57:58 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I've combat deployed to that country


What exactly does this term mean?


If you were a veteran, you would've never asked that question, it would've been plainly obvious. Thanks for continuing to prove me right about you, that you never served.


So you have used a term to bolster your ego and now find yourself unable or unwilling to actually define your terms...
Long on rhetoric and short of fact seems to be your m.o.


First, that term is commonly used in the military. If you're a veteran, like you claim you are, you'd be able to look at that and know what it means. This has nothing to do with bolstering ego. This has nothing to do with my not wanting to answer a stupid question. It's a term I picked up after I joined the military. It's a term that you'd be familiar with had you ben a veteran.

Don't dismiss a reasoned argument, backed with facts, logic, and extensive research, as rhetoric. Your arrogance my blind you to the facts in my argument, that doesn't translate to them "not" existing.

Again:

"The internet is a great resource, but unless you know and have lived a subject firsthand, you cannot fake it with someone who has. thompsonx is so obviously lying that he deserves every bit of ridicule he gets. Of course that is his mo on virtually all topics, so it shouldnt be a surprise." -- willbeurdaddy

Willbeurdaddy has you down to a "T."

Second, until you answer my questions without attempting to BS me, you've got no legs to stand on demanding that I answer you questions.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 1326
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 4:59:01 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

You'd have to be "blind" to make that comment. I read what you quoted from the UN charter. It didn't prove my argument wrong, all you did was show text written to address symmetrical warfare. The people writing that charter didn't realize that this was what they were doing. But in terms of 21st Century Warfare, that's precisely what they were doing.


Strawman argument + Red herring

Is it your position that churchill and roosevelt had no understanding of asymetrical warfare?

Strawman argument + Red herring.


This is a strawman argument, as both of them dealt with a symmetrical war, and had good understanding of symmetrical war. Twenty First Century warfare isn't something that they needed to know... they came well before the paradigm shift in warfare happened. Your question is a red herring question as it has nothing to do with the thread.



You might want to avail yourself of churchills little tome on wwII. He goes into this concept quite deeply and how he dealt with it's advantages and disadvantages.
The work also contains all of his letters to roosevelt and roosevelts answers to them.
Both men were quite aware of what asymetrical warfare was just as did sun tzu, long before the term was coined the concept was well understood.


They were discussing symmetrical warfare. Every war is going to involve deception and planning at all levels. What you're doing is taking "deception" and erroneously tacking the asymmetrical warfare label to that. That's inductive fallacy. Deception exists in both symmetrical and asymmetrical warfare, it exists everywhere you have humans interacting with each other. That doesn't make conventional warfare the same thing as asymmetrical warfare. Every correspondence Churchill and other leaders had with each other during World War II dealt with symmetrical warfare, or conventional warfare, and they discussed the deception involved with the war they were engaging in.

The development of new weapons that'll change the way wars are fought? That's something that constantly happens in symmetrical warfare.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 1327
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 5:00:19 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

thompsonx: by the "soldier"


There's no quotation about this, I'm a soldier. And, unlike you, I served.


Well of course you are.
You have spent more than 60 pages telling us so.
Everyone who wants to believe you does and those who are a little sceptical you attack with your "superlative rhetoric"


That's because you, and others on your side, spent 60 + pages pulling shit out of your asses trying to cast doubt on the fact that I'm in the military. Is your ego blinding you to the fact that if the opposition repeats something, I'm going to repeat my reply? If that happens to be the question on whether I served or not, I'm going to keep coming back and counter your drivel with that fact.

As for the skeptics? Again:

"The internet is a great resource, but unless you know and have lived a subject firsthand, you cannot fake it with someone who has. thompsonx is so obviously lying that he deserves every bit of ridicule he gets. Of course that is his mo on virtually all topics, so it shouldnt be a surprise." -- willbeurdaddy

Someone with firsthand accounts of what's it like in the military would be able to read my comments, and quickly point out the fact that I'm in the military. Those without military experience would miss those signs. At best, they're being deceptive if they claim to be veterans. At worse, they're lying. If they claim to be veterans, but make a conclusion that a veteran wouldn't make, they deserve to be ridiculed.

Don't dismiss my accurately pointing out lack of first-hand experience as my attacking with "superlative rhetoric." Your saying that to massage your bruised ego doesn't change the fact that what you dismiss as "superlative rhetoric" is reasoned, logical argument.


(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 1328
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 5:01:46 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
thompsonx: It is clear that you get more ass than a toilet seat

So you're admitting that you're a toilet seat? You're more of a crap bucket. Women sit on my face, they scream in fear at your face. The world has lady magnets... you're the lady repellant.

thompsonx: You seem to be quite an expert on loosers

And you seem to be an expert loser. If you disagree with that, remember, you said that I'm the expert on "loosers," so as an expert, I could identify the real losers. Loser.

thompsonx: I was unaware of any advantages you had...pray tell enlighten us.

Pull your head out of your ass and remove those large horse blinders. Remove the filters your ego forced into place, and you'll see the advantages I enjoy over you.

thompsonx: For which we have your boastful words

Your bruised ego describes my words as "boastful." A critical thinker would see me as making a statement of fact to counter your drivel.

thompsonx: Did I miss that part?

You missed a whole bunch of parts on the account of your having your head shoved so far up your ass, your strawman friend needed to move into your intestines.

thompsonx: Besides being a squid what exactly was it that he did?

Did six combat tours in Vietnam, to your never serving in Vietnam.

thompsonx: Well there are some people I killed I probably should not have and some I did not that I should have ROTFLMFAO!

Yup, women die with laughter when you attempt to have sex with them. People die with laughter when you try to sell them your poser stories of being a veteran. If you killed people, you'd be in jail.

thompsonx: but then that is life and one can only move forward and learn from their mistakes.

In that case, you're one of the oddballs that keep falling backwards. You don't learn anything from your mistakes... you wouldn't be posting on this thread anymore if you were the type that learned from your mistakes.

thompsonx: When I look at you all I get is your avitar and that is just a rat with wings

Again, you wouldn't be here trying to accomplish the impossible if that is how you saw me. No. I've accomplished more in my life than you have in yours. When you look at me, you're constantly reminded of that, so you try to stay here to validate your false sense of importance.

thompsonx: Actually it was two and they were back to back, unlike your squid daddy who never did more than six months at a time in country.

WRONG, you didn't serve. Your posts here don't give you away as a Vietnam Veteran. A Vietnam Veteran wouldn't ask me what a combat deployment is. You did zero years in Vietnam. If you served, you either were stateside, or did a routine deployment non-combat related. Ok, I'll be nice and entertain the "possibility" that you "served" in Vietnam... as a FOBBIT azz pogue... as a desk warrior that couldn't get admin stuff straight, so you ended up as a "latrine guard." You were so attracted to shit that you extended another year.

That was me going way out there to "entertain" the "possibility" that you "served" in Vietnam.


thompsonx: What I said about your squid daddy was that from what you posted he was short on discipline

You failed to prove that fallacy that you advanced; that he was short on discipline on the account he "abandoned" his post, which he didn't. He did both his work and the welder's. Your conduct on this thread? That's an example of someone that lacks military discipline. But again, you have an excuse for that, your posts don't do your "veteran" claims any justice.

thompsonx: and that he was never in country more than six months straight.

If that were "true," quotations used strongly, then that'd be six months longer than you "serving" in Vietnam.

thompsonx: Thank gawd for that.

Just as I expected, you're a man of low expectations.

thompsonx: Oh please do tell us more about your sexual exploits

I only share that with real men, sorry.

thompsonx: we are all on the edge of our chairs in rapt anticipation

Speak for yourself, you're at the edge of your chair drooling over women that'll never have sex with you. Just go back to all those women here that you perved over. Guess what? While you're on the edge of your chair, about to fall off and smash your drool filled face onto your computer screen, the women you're perving over is having sex with a real man.

thompsonx: How could they not when a rat with wings is my competition?

While I'm getting my face sat on, and having sex with women, you're drooling over women on this site who'll never have sex with you. Nope, no competition there.

thompsonx: Yeah! aint it kewel

Being a loser isn't cool. That just tells me that you're sexually frustrated, and have resorted to acting like a teenager who has never had sex. The closest you had to "intimacy" was a woman smacking you for daring to imply that you guys have sex.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 1329
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 5:03:19 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
EbonyWood: Ugh, this is weak and evasive,

WRONG. Every reply I've given you directly addressed your post, it's points and intended points. My replies to you were strong and on point.

EbonyWood:even by your standards.

Being weak and evasive aren't the way I generate my posts. My standards, which I've been consistent with, are to hit strong, hard, and on point.

EbonyWood: You completely failed to address why you resorted to your agenda and then denied it. Strawman Argument.

Wrong on two counts. You're accusing me of having an agenda, which I don't. I have a purpose, not an agenda. When you liberals accuse someone of "having" an "agenda," you're accusing someone of having a long term propaganda plan. Second, the theme throughout this thread was the Iraq War, and my plan to tell people what's actually going on. That's not an agenda, but me carrying out a plan, a purpose.

This is a strawman argument, as you're accusing me of doing something that I didn't do.


EbonyWood: Back to BT until you're less confused. Inductive Fallacy

Your intent with your posts were clear. Based on what I've seen you do on other threads, and on the people that I've debated with over the years; There's no confusion on what you're trying to communicate, and on what you're claiming you're trying to communicate. And Basic training is the wrong advice you could give to someone if you want them to see things through your filters. The training a service member receives in BCT provides the groundwork for the thought process someone will ultimately have to see right through the BS that you spew on this and other threads.

EbonyWood: At this point, you log into one of your other IDs and go and help out your boys.

Do you want to place a bet on that statement? I know for a fact that I only have one account on this message board. Since you seem to be having problems observing what's going on here, I'll break it out to you. I come on here once a day to reply to the drivel that people post in response to me. Then I leave and go somewhere else. I don't jump back in as another username to deal with you people's drivel on the other threads.

If you're saying that because I know what you say on the other threads, then you'd have to be really slow. If you go to your collorme profile, you'd notice a button that says, "View Forum Posts." You could further refine that to posts a person makes on a forum.


EbonyWood: Last time I looked, they were coughing up blood on all fronts.

Actually, I'm seeing a handful of level headed people refusing to buy into the garbage that your side of the argument spews. I also see them make comments about you that I've also observed from your conduct here. Don't mistake the fact that we have a majority liberal population here; with that majority jumping on these few, as the later coughing up blood on all fronts. When you say this, you put yourself on the same footing as Baghdad Bob.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 1330
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 5:04:34 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline
Questions that thompsonx continues to avoid, despite having ample time to address them:

Everybody used to believe that the sun orbited the Earth. Since everybody believed this, did it automatically follow that the Sun actually orbited the Earth, simply because everybody believed it did? YES [ ] NO [ ].

Simply copy and paste that question, put an "X" in the appropriate box and spare me your BS.

Your failure to answer this question will prove that you have no confidence in your statement. Your failure to answer this questions truthfully and factually, as constrained above, causes you to forfeit asking me questions, or expecting answers to your questions.

Let's not forget this question:

What? Are you that arrogant that you're telling me that everybody on the opposition has somebody that they've designated to meet other people for themselves? And how the fuck can you peg these people from a website?


Meeter: Attendant, a person who is present and participates in a meeting; one who meets. (Princeton, wordnetweb)

So you need to give me the answer to this question. And before you give me the bullshit about, "attacking your spelling because I 'don't" have an argument," I'm going to remind you of what you said above:

"So now it is our job to read your mind when you can't even post your own thoughts clearly." --thompsonx


Get used to seeing these questions, I'm tempted to reply to your strawman/shotgun questions with these two questions.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 1331
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 5:07:23 PM   
herfacechair


Posts: 1046
Joined: 8/29/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

thompsonx: I am sure that would have made his gulivarian escapades in iraq much easier

Don't dismiss a mission out in sector as a "Gulliverian escapade." Your attitude on this post proves your hatred of the military.


No I just like pointing out phonies


I am making an appearance to say that I have met HFC, he is human, and he is in the military.  Infantry and all.


I wasn't kidding when I said that I'll meet a poster here face to face.

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 1332
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 5:11:08 PM   
Jeffff


Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

I wasn't kidding when I said that I'll meet a poster here face to face.



By the cannon? After school?

_____________________________

"If you don't live it, it won't come out your horn." Charlie Parker

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 1333
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 5:17:34 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff


quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

I wasn't kidding when I said that I'll meet a poster here face to face.



By the cannon? After school?


He's so manly isn't he?

But he can't meet you after school.

He has to be at the World of Warcraft meeting.

Maybe later in the evening.



(in reply to Jeffff)
Profile   Post #: 1334
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 5:18:04 PM   
EbonyWood


Posts: 2044
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

 I come on here once a day to reply to the drivel that people post in response to me. Then I leave and go somewhere else.


Completely refuted by your own comments about being aware of what is posted on all the other threads.
 
Can you type without lying? You keep tripping over them.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 1335
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 5:20:54 PM   
Jeffff


Posts: 12600
Joined: 7/7/2007
Status: offline
I'll bet his lips move as he reads this.

_____________________________

"If you don't live it, it won't come out your horn." Charlie Parker

(in reply to EbonyWood)
Profile   Post #: 1336
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 7:49:46 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herfacechair

thompsonx: You do not seem to know very much about the history of warfare...

You do realize that a strong interest in history, especially military history, exists among the ranks, do you? We do study ancient tactics. I'm a history buff, and none of the examples that you talk about support what you're talking about. You're as clueless about military history as you are about the military.

thompsonx: did the dog eat that volumn of your britanica?

Did that one brain cell of yours leave you absent minded again... giving your master yet one more area to take a dump in?

thompsonx: Sun Tzu speaks of it.

Sun Tzu speaks about how you could use deception in warfare.

thompsonx: Thermopalie was an example of asymetrical warfare.

No it isn't. It's an example of conventional warfare, or symmetrical warfare. The tactics that both sides used were conventional tactics. Using a phalanx to block a narrow path that's impassable unless you go through that path was conventional during that time. They used a tactic that both sides recognized. The stronger army tried to use their tactics to push through the defense, as they did this in previous battles.

thompsonx: The napolianic war against england

That's another example of conventional warfare.

thompsonx: The Boar war in south africa is another.

Nope, that's another example of conventional warfare.

thompsonx: WWII there was the finish/russian encounter.

That's another example of conventional warfare.

thompsonx: Then there was that little mix up between england and germany in wwII.

That's another conventional war.

thompsonx: You do not seem to really understand what asymetrical warfare really is. Just because it got a name in the 70's does not mean it did not exist.

WRONG. Each example that you brought up is an example of conventional warfare, hence symmetrical warfare. You knew who your enemy was, you knew where the frontlines were. Things were more clearly defined in each of the examples that you mentioned.

Asymmetrical warfare is a complete change in paradigm, where the enemy uses tactics that the other side wouldn't consider as warfare. Now, warfare has evolved ever since we've engaged in it. When it evolved, people didn't realize that it was evolving. It's those points when it evolved, when it changed, that are comparable to asymmetrical warfare. But they're conventional warfare just the same.

Once those points were passed, people understood what warfare, for that time period, is. Once this change happened, there was no way in hell that they'd be able to turn around and predict which way warfare will turn in the future. You erroneously do that with the UN charter. It was written to deal with a world that just fought World War II. It was designed to address the world, and type of warfare that existed, in the Middle of the 20th Century. It didn't address 21st Century Warfare, it didn't address asymmetrical warfare.




Here is someone who disagrees with your assessment of asymetrical warfare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

From the cite
Representative list of asymmetric wars
Below is a representative list of interstate asymmetric wars fought between 1816 and 1945:[9]

Franco-Spanish War, First Anglo-Burmese War, Second Russo-Persian War, War of the Cakes, First Anglo-Afghan War, Uruguayan Dispute, Austro-Sardinian War, First Schleswig-Holstein War, Second Anglo-Burmese War, Anglo-Persian War, Italo-Roman War, Two Sicilies, Franco-Mexican War, Second Schleswig-Holstein War, Anglo-Abyssinian War, Anglo-Egyptian War, Tonkin War, Franco-Siamese War, Second Italo-Ethiopian War, Second Boer War, Sino-Russian War, Tripolitanian War, Franco-Turkish War, Polish Revolution, Italo-Ethiopian War, Sino-Japanese War, German-Polish Confrontation of World War II, German-Danish Confrontation of World War II, German-Norwegian Confrontation of World War II, German-Belgian Confrontation of World War II, German-Dutch Confrontation of World War II, Italo-Greek Confrontation of World War II, German-Yugoslav Confrontation of World War II

And this

The use of terrain in asymmetric warfare
Terrain can be used as a force multiplier by the smaller force and as a force inhibitor against the larger force. Such terrain is called difficult terrain.

The contour of the land is an aid to the army; sizing up opponents to determine victory, assessing dangers and distance. "Those who do battle without knowing these will lose." ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The guerrillas must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea. ― Mao Zedong.

A good example of this type of strategy is the Battle of Thermopylae, where the narrow terrain of the valley was used to alter the odds by funneling the Persian forces, who were numerically superior, to a point where they could not use their size as an advantage.

For a detailed description of the advantages for the weaker force in the use of built-up areas when engaging in asymmetric warfare, see the article on urban warfare.

It seems that you only open your mouth to change feet

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 1337
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 7:52:31 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

thompsonx: I am sure that would have made his gulivarian escapades in iraq much easier

Don't dismiss a mission out in sector as a "Gulliverian escapade." Your attitude on this post proves your hatred of the military.


No I just like pointing out phonies


I am making an appearance to say that I have met HFC, he is human, and he is in the military.  Infantry and all.



Do you also vouch for all that he has posted?

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 1338
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 8:59:32 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

thompsonx: Wearing ppe (safety glasses) to weld is a sure sign that someone has no clue what they are doing.


Negative. Whether he wore the PPE or the welder's helmet didn't influence the fact that my dad was able to weld. If you were a veteran, you'd also remember numerous instances of people trying to cut corners.

If you try to weld with safety glasses on and not the proper shade of lense in your goggles you go blind.
You said your squid daddy's job was firewatch...he abandoned his job as firewatch and took the job of the certified welder who was contracted to do the job. Your squid daddy had his job and the welder had his job but your squid daddy chose to stop doing his job which means he abandoned his post and took the post of the welder. Spin that how you choose but those facts are the facts as stated by you.

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 1339
RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer yo... - 7/23/2010 9:09:56 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

thompsonx: That some squid knows how to weld is hardly relevant.

Actually, it's relevant to this debate. If you were attached to the department my dad was attached to, you'd know how to weld and do other ship hull maintenance work.

Please make up your mind. Was your squid daddy a welder or a squid frog/seal? They really are seperate mos.

It bolsters the fact that my dad quickly finished a welding job. Again, this supports my argument that military people will talk about their military experiences, and I used my dad quickly finishing a welding job as an example.

What's irrelevant to the debate is what kind of face shield the welder used.

If your squid daddy used safety glasses the weld puddle would be so bright he would not be able to see where the sparks were falling...if he wore welding goggles then the tint would be so dark as to prevent him from seeing where the sparks landed.
Both cases render him incapable of doing his assigned task of firewatch which you say he abandoned to do the welding he was not assigned to do.
Like I said your squid daddy's lack of discipline seems to run in the family.




< Message edited by thompsonx -- 7/23/2010 9:34:25 PM >

(in reply to herfacechair)
Profile   Post #: 1340
Page:   <<   < prev  65 66 [67] 68 69   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Back from Iraq for a short time, ready to answer your questions if you have any... Page: <<   < prev  65 66 [67] 68 69   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.605