PDA

View Full Version : What Next From The Worthless DC Denizens?



Cool Change
01-25-2013, 05:35 AM
John Kerry as Secretary of State? Oh well, it could have been Jane Fonda. Maybe Obama is a centrist.

CJSmith
01-25-2013, 05:50 AM
Who would you recommend over John Kerry?

RobotChicken
01-25-2013, 06:14 AM
:fencing R vs D.....it never ends.....:fencing

Cool Change
01-25-2013, 06:26 AM
Who would you recommend over John Kerry?


Bill Clinton

RobotChicken
01-25-2013, 09:02 AM
Ted :evil Turner....Mr 'Hanoi JACK'. :puke

Z1911
01-25-2013, 03:31 PM
Who would you recommend over John Kerry?

Chuck Norris

Greg
01-25-2013, 03:47 PM
Who would you recommend over John Kerry?

Jillian Michaels.

John Kerry's the biggest pansy to ever wear the uniform.

Banned
01-25-2013, 04:20 PM
Mr. Robert F. Dorr

I second that - politically - I find myself agreeing with almost everything he says!

Rainmaker
01-25-2013, 05:41 PM
John Kerry as Secretary of State? Oh well, it could have been Jane Fonda. Maybe Obama is a centrist.

I'd take John Kerry over that Morally Bankrupt Shrillary any day. Here's hoping we never have to hear her phony ass cackle again.

JD2780
01-25-2013, 05:53 PM
I'd take the bum down the street over Kerry. Atleast with the homeless guy you know what you're getting into.

JD2780
01-25-2013, 05:53 PM
I second Mr. Robert F Dorr.

Uncle-Sugar
01-26-2013, 12:27 AM
Who would you recommend over John Kerry?

Alfred Charles "Al" Sharpton, Jr., American Baptist minister, civil rights activist, television/radio talk show host, official authority of Presidential Blackness, and savior of us all!

Robert F. Dorr
01-26-2013, 11:50 AM
Alfred Charles "Al" Sharpton, Jr., American Baptist minister, civil rights activist, television/radio talk show host, official authority of Presidential Blackness, and savior of us all!

Anybody notice how much weight Reverend Al has lost? He could probably join the Air Force with his waist measurement. He looks very fit and sprite, fully ready to go out and conjure up another civil-liberties fraud.

efmbman
01-26-2013, 01:26 PM
Jill Metzger

Uncle-Sugar
01-26-2013, 05:17 PM
Anybody notice how much weight Reverend Al has lost? He could probably join the Air Force with his waist measurement. He looks very fit and sprite, fully ready to go out and conjure up another civil-liberties fraud.

For once, I agree with YOU 100%. I think he had one of those stomach bands installed, however, he claims it was all through eliminating meat, fried foods and switching over to veggies. Either way, props to him for losing the weight.

Banned
01-26-2013, 05:34 PM
Jill Metzger

Defeating several would-be rapists in hand to hand combat and then escaping is very impressive in my book!

tiredretiredE7
01-26-2013, 07:11 PM
Anybody notice how much weight Reverend Al has lost? He could probably join the Air Force with his waist measurement. He looks very fit and sprite, fully ready to go out and conjure up another civil-liberties fraud.


+1 RFD. The sad part is he could be doing so much more good for African Americans.

Cool Change
01-26-2013, 09:09 PM
Anybody notice how much weight Reverend Al has lost? He could probably join the Air Force with his waist measurement. He looks very fit and sprite, fully ready to go out and conjure up another civil-liberties fraud.

Now, if only he could shrink that bucket sized head to match his body, he might look like a normal human.

Cool Change
01-26-2013, 09:10 PM
Defeating several would-be rapists in hand to hand combat and then escaping is very impressive in my book!

... and running 40 miles barefoot through the desert, Whoa!

efmbman
01-26-2013, 09:22 PM
All kidding aside, I would like to see someone that views an attack on one of our embassies and the murder of our Ambassdor (and others) for what it is: an act of war. I know Embassies and Consulates are not considered soverign territory of the nation represented, but those actions should not be shrugged off.

Absinthe Anecdote
01-26-2013, 10:07 PM
Anybody notice how much weight Reverend Al has lost? He could probably join the Air Force with his waist measurement. He looks very fit and sprite, fully ready to go out and conjure up another civil-liberties fraud.

Dearest Bob,

I think you meant to say he looks spry, unless you really intended to say that Reverend Al looks like a water fairy.

Just trying to help because I owe you for that lesson in absurdity you gave me last week.

Robert F. Dorr
01-26-2013, 10:42 PM
Dearest Bob,

I think you meant to say he looks spry, unless you really intended to say that Reverend Al looks like a water fairy.

Just trying to help because I owe you for that lesson in absurdity you gave me last week.

Good catch. You're right. I used the wrong word. (Sigh).

Capt Alfredo
01-26-2013, 11:34 PM
All kidding aside, I would like to see someone that views an attack on one of our embassies and the murder of our Ambassdor (and others) for what it is: an act of war. I know Embassies and Consulates are not considered soverign territory of the nation represented, but those actions should not be shrugged off.

Sure, it's an act of war, ok. By whom, though? Islamic militants? We're already fighting them. It wasn't the Libyan government; they actually tried to help, however ineptly. Whom should we be bombing now that we aren't already? To whom are you appealing here?

Robert F. Dorr
01-26-2013, 11:40 PM
Sure, it's an act of war, ok. By whom, though? Islamic militants? We're already fighting them. It wasn't the Libyan government; they actually tried to help, however ineptly. Whom should we be bombing now that we aren't already? To whom are you appealing here?

Apparently the prevailing sentiment is that we should simply bomb all those mofos (not further specified) and sort it out later.

I must be the only person who feels an attack on a consulate is a crime, not an act of war. Similarly, the attack on the World Trade Center was a crime. The attack on the Pentagon was an act of war.

Capt Alfredo
01-26-2013, 11:43 PM
Apparently the prevailing sentiment is that we should simply bomb all those mofos (not further specified) and sort it out later.

I must be the only person who feels an attack on a consulate is a crime, not an act of war. Similarly, the attack on the World Trade Center was a crime. The attack on the Pentagon was an act of war.

I see your distinction. However, if a country or group assassinated the Vice President, would that be a crime, too? Technically, perhaps, but I'm guessing most would see it as an act of war.

Tak
01-26-2013, 11:52 PM
Sure, it's an act of war, ok. By whom, though? Islamic militants? We're already fighting them. It wasn't the Libyan government; they actually tried to help, however ineptly. Whom should we be bombing now that we aren't already? To whom are you appealing here?

"There must be someone who needs some killin"
- Major Payne

Banned
01-27-2013, 12:03 AM
Sure, it's an act of war, ok. By whom, though? Islamic militants? We're already fighting them. It wasn't the Libyan government; they actually tried to help, however ineptly. Whom should we be bombing now that we aren't already? To whom are you appealing here?

What's odder still is the supposed "failure" in our response to the consulate attack. Look at the earlier threads about the topic. Many folks here saw nothing wrong with calling in air strikes, killing dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of civilians completely uninvolved in the attack.

One of my favorite examples is when I suggest to a chicken hawk that the Chinese Embassy in the US would be completely justified in calling in air strikes by the Chinese military if a group of local thugs attacked them. Eyes glaze over!

Robert F. Dorr
01-27-2013, 02:40 AM
What's odder still is the supposed "failure" in our response to the consulate attack. Look at the earlier threads about the topic. Many folks here saw nothing wrong with calling in air strikes, killing dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of civilians completely uninvolved in the attack.

One of my favorite examples is when I suggest to a chicken hawk that the Chinese Embassy in the US would be completely justified in calling in air strikes by the Chinese military if a group of local thugs attacked them. Eyes glaze over!

Or they could bring in main battle tanks. But that would expose the chinks in their armor.

Robert F. Dorr
01-27-2013, 02:43 AM
I see your distinction. However, if a country or group assassinated the Vice President, would that be a crime, too? Technically, perhaps, but I'm guessing most would see it as an act of war.

I didn't write anything about an action taken by a country. Let's stick with a group -- say, al-Qaeda. If they killed the president or the Secretary of Defense, that would be an act of war. If they killed the vice president, that would be a crime.

Not sure why you picked this example but a lot of military members don't realize that the vice president is not in the chain of command. He has no role in the military and no authority to tell a military member to do anything.

Robert F. Dorr
01-27-2013, 02:46 AM
Sure, it's an act of war, ok. By whom, though? Islamic militants? We're already fighting them. It wasn't the Libyan government; they actually tried to help, however ineptly. Whom should we be bombing now that we aren't already? To whom are you appealing here?

If we're going to bomb anybody we'd better get some new airplanes and new bombs. Build the new bomber, put an advanced version of the F-15E Strike Eagle back into production for U.S. forces, kill the F-35 Lightning II, and develop a formidable force able to bomb anybody who has a foreign-sounding name or wears a beard. They're all the same anyhow.

CYBERFX1024
01-27-2013, 04:04 AM
If we're going to bomb anybody we'd better get some new airplanes and new bombs. Build the new bomber, put an advanced version of the F-15E Strike Eagle back into production for U.S. forces, kill the F-35 Lightning II, and develop a formidable force able to bomb anybody who has a foreign-sounding name or wears a beard. They're all the same anyhow.

I for one rarely agree with you on what you have to say. But this is spot on correct. They supposedly had the F-22 that was next generation, spent all that time and money on it. Then just abandoned it like sack of potatos and concentrated on the F-35. Which has time after time had problems and delays due to manufacture and other issues.What do they do just keep pouring money into it. At least the Marine Corps had the sense to drop the new AAV concept after all the problems with it. Why doesn't the DOD just do that?

CYBERFX1024
01-27-2013, 04:10 AM
I personally can't stand John Kerry. He should have won the election in 2004 if he stuck to his values. But he couldn't do that he kept flopping around worse than a fish out of water. He is totally spineless. Clinton at least has some spine, and I think the whole Libya situation wasn't her fault but came from higher up the food chain.

I have always heard that Embassys and Consulates are considered soverign territory of the nation that is in it. I have heard that from friends of mine who have went and did Marine Security Guard. So there must be some kind of truth in it.

Cool Change
01-27-2013, 07:47 AM
:fencing R vs D.....it never ends.....:fencing

How long will it be before Democrats and Republicans start "going at it" like Sunnis and Shiites?

Robert F. Dorr
01-27-2013, 10:49 AM
I personally can't stand John Kerry. He should have won the election in 2004 if he stuck to his values. But he couldn't do that he kept flopping around worse than a fish out of water. He is totally spineless. Clinton at least has some spine, and I think the whole Libya situation wasn't her fault but came from higher up the food chain.

I have always heard that Embassys and Consulates are considered soverign territory of the nation that is in it. I have heard that from friends of mine who have went and did Marine Security Guard. So there must be some kind of truth in it.

Embassies and consulates are the sovereign territory of the host country, which seems to be what you mean. The idea that you're on U.S. soil when you step into an American embassy or consulate ... that's a myth.

efmbman
01-27-2013, 01:35 PM
Sure, it's an act of war, ok. By whom, though? Islamic militants? We're already fighting them. It wasn't the Libyan government; they actually tried to help, however ineptly. Whom should we be bombing now that we aren't already? To whom are you appealing here?

I can't answer that, but I just feel no action at all is a dangerous precedent. The lesson learned is that as long as the group attacking a US Embassy is not a foreign military, there is no government to be accountable and therefore no response.


I didn't write anything about an action taken by a country. Let's stick with a group -- say, al-Qaeda. If they killed the president or the Secretary of Defense, that would be an act of war. If they killed the vice president, that would be a crime.

Not sure why you picked this example but a lot of military members don't realize that the vice president is not in the chain of command. He has no role in the military and no authority to tell a military member to do anything.

By that rational, would you agree that a North Korean missle strike on Portland, OR, that kills 100,000 citizens is a crime providing that no military personnel or civilians in the chain of command were among the victims? Or would that be an act of war?

Banned
01-27-2013, 05:28 PM
Or they could bring in main battle tanks. But that would expose the chinks in their armor.

I almost fell out of my chair when I read this.

SENDBILLMONEY
01-27-2013, 06:34 PM
I have always heard that Embassys and Consulates are considered soverign territory of the nation that is in it. I have heard that from friends of mine who have went and did Marine Security Guard. So there must be some kind of truth in it.

If that is what you have always heard, you have always heard wrong. There is no forfeiture of sovereignty by the "receiving State" (i.e., the nation in which the diplomatic mission is located).

See the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 18 April 1961, for a little light reading. Article 22 might be particularly instructive, as it imposes restrictions and special duties on the "receiving State."

Article 22

1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

Robert F. Dorr
01-27-2013, 06:40 PM
I can't answer that, but I just feel no action at all is a dangerous precedent. The lesson learned is that as long as the group attacking a US Embassy is not a foreign military, there is no government to be accountable and therefore no response.

By that rational[e], would you agree that a North Korean missle strike on Portland, OR, that kills 100,000 citizens is a crime providing that no military personnel or civilians in the chain of command were among the victims? Or would that be an act of war?

Of course not. As I wrote twice in this thread, my comments are about non-state actors like al-Qaeda. An attack by another nation, like North Korea, is an act of war regardless of the target. I also made it clear that I don't have an easy answer with respect to non-state actors.

Robert F. Dorr
01-27-2013, 06:43 PM
If that is what you have always heard, you have always heard wrong. There is no forfeiture of sovereignty by the "receiving State" (i.e., the nation in which the diplomatic mission is located).

See the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 18 April 1961, for a little light reading. Article 22 might be particularly instructive, as it imposes restrictions and special duties on the "receiving State."

Article 22

1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

I wonder if SENDBILLMONEY was distracted by the sloppy wording of the post to which he was responding. As SENDBILLMONEY and CYBERFX1024 both appear to know, the premises of an embassy or consulate are part of the sovereign territory of the host nation, not the nation providing the embassy or consulate. You can't escape to U.S. soil by walking into an American embassy. That said, SENDBILLMONEY is also correct that there is an agreement about host-government authorities stepping onto the premises.

Tak
01-27-2013, 07:00 PM
If that is what you have always heard, you have always heard wrong. There is no forfeiture of sovereignty by the "receiving State" (i.e., the nation in which the diplomatic mission is located).

See the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 18 April 1961, for a little light reading. Article 22 might be particularly instructive, as it imposes restrictions and special duties on the "receiving State."

Article 22

1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf

Item 2 didn't work out so well in benghazi.
It's okay though, Sec. Clinton accepted full responsibilty
(With zero consequences) which is the cornerstone of leadership.

Capt Alfredo
01-27-2013, 08:52 PM
I didn't write anything about an action taken by a country. Let's stick with a group -- say, al-Qaeda. If they killed the president or the Secretary of Defense, that would be an act of war. If they killed the vice president, that would be a crime.

Not sure why you picked this example but a lot of military members don't realize that the vice president is not in the chain of command. He has no role in the military and no authority to tell a military member to do anything.

That's exactly why I picked that example. The Veep is a nobody in terms of the military chain of command.

Robert F. Dorr
01-27-2013, 09:16 PM
I for one rarely agree with you on what you have to say. But this is spot on correct. They supposedly had the F-22 that was next generation, spent all that time and money on it. Then just abandoned it like sack of potatos and concentrated on the F-35. Which has time after time had problems and delays due to manufacture and other issues.What do they do just keep pouring money into it. At least the Marine Corps had the sense to drop the new AAV concept after all the problems with it. Why doesn't the DOD just do that?

A plane-making company and an engine-making company, both of which employ recently retired generals, have sold us a meaningless concept called "fifth generation" and an unimportant aircraft feature called "stealth," while arguing that no other fighter offers either.

In reality, there is no fifth generation -- or first, or fourth; it's all nonsense -- and stealth is not particularly important. Nor has there ever been a reason for stealth to be classified. I would have liked to see a larger number of F-22 Raptors after so much effort went into the aircraft but I wasn't initially a fan of the F-22. ("The F-22 is not a cure-all," by RFD, appeared in the November 13, 1995 Air Force Times). I've never been a fan of the F-35, which doesn't excel at any of the various missions for which it's being put forward.

Take the basic F-15E Strike Eagle from the final production batch, tweak it up with some of the bells and whistles being suggested by the folks at McDonne....McDon....er....BOEING....and you'll have a less costly and very effective fighting machine. Boeing would have opposed this a few years ago because the company had an enormous stake in the F-22, but it has no stake in the F-35 so the time has come.

Absinthe Anecdote
01-27-2013, 09:59 PM
A plane-making company and an engine-making company, both of which employ recently retired generals, have sold us a meaningless concept called "fifth generation" and an unimportant aircraft feature called "stealth," while arguing that no other fighter offers either.

In reality, there is no fifth generation -- or first, or fourth; it's all nonsense -- and stealth is not particularly important. Nor has there ever been a reason for stealth to be classified. I would have liked to see a larger number of F-22 Raptors after so much effort went into the aircraft but I wasn't initially a fan of the F-22. ("The F-22 is not a cure-all," by RFD, appeared in the November 13, 1995 Air Force Times). I've never been a fan of the F-35, which doesn't excel at any of the various missions for which it's being put forward.

Take the basic F-15E Strike Eagle from the final production batch, tweak it up with some of the bells and whistles being suggested by the folks at McDonne....McDon....er....BOEING....and you'll have a less costly and very effective fighting machine. Boeing would have opposed this a few years ago because the company had an enormous stake in the F-22, but it has no stake in the F-35 so the time has come.

Those designations of fighter aircraft by generation are used to categorize aircraft by capability in terms of onboard weapon systems, air intercept radar, flight controls and radar cross section (RCS).

I would argue that stealth or a low RCS is a very desirable feature when putting a fighter up against an integrated air defense system.

As an intelligence analyst I can attest that grouping not only fighter aircraft but other weapon systems by a generation designation that relates to capability is useful when comparing and evaluating potential threats.

It is also an easy way to teach apprentice intelligence analysts about weapon systems.

I wouldn’t call those designations meaningless.

While the following Wikipedia link isn’t what the Air Force uses to classify fighters it’s close enough for an example of how each generation is defined.

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

Absinthe Anecdote
01-27-2013, 10:13 PM
Hah...intelligence anal yst...
That explains a lot...
Dillweed...

Yes, it does explain a lot, drunkard. :)

RobotChicken
01-28-2013, 12:01 AM
:spy 'Military intelligence' is only good as it's timely delivery too it's intended recipient. Now it is so 'miro-managed' from JAG officers to mission non-essential politicians and flag officers it is BEYOND stale,besides being on the 6 o'clock news. :tape2 The out sourcing of intl services to private contractors; over intel ratings on classified materials, and way too much secret-noforn and unqualified jr E's & O's with questionable backgrounds access to the intel. Nuff said. :doh

Robert F. Dorr
01-28-2013, 12:16 PM
Those designations of fighter aircraft by generation are used to categorize aircraft by capability in terms of onboard weapon systems, air intercept radar, flight controls and radar cross section (RCS).

I would argue that stealth or a low RCS is a very desirable feature when putting a fighter up against an integrated air defense system.

As an intelligence analyst I can attest that grouping not only fighter aircraft but other weapon systems by a generation designation that relates to capability is useful when comparing and evaluating potential threats.

It is also an easy way to teach apprentice intelligence analysts about weapon systems.

I wouldn’t call those designations meaningless.

While the following Wikipedia link isn’t what the Air Force uses to classify fighters it’s close enough for an example of how each generation is defined.

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

Rubbish. The fighter "generation" thing is a Lockheed Martin marketing ploy that the Air Force adopted and started using back in the day when it thought it might get more F-22s. To believe this, you would have to believe that the F-15E, Rafale, Gripen, Su-27 and Typhoon all belong to one generation while the F-22 and F-35 belong to the next. It's absolute nonsense and it's dangerous when you teach it to people with a superficial knowledge of the subject.

Stealth is only useful against a foe who doesn't have an "integrated air defense system." In a peer war against a modern adversary, stealth serves no purpose because the first guy to switch on his radar is dead.

It breaks my heart that an intelligence analyst would drink the "fifth generation" Kool-Aid. It reflects the damage done by industry and the brass being in bed together.

imported_Sgt HULK
01-28-2013, 04:46 PM
Anybody notice how much weight Reverend Al has lost? He could probably join the Air Force with his waist measurement. He looks very fit and sprite, fully ready to go out and conjure up another civil-liberties fraud.

hopefully he is dying from some horrid disease

Pullinteeth
01-28-2013, 08:52 PM
I didn't write anything about an action taken by a country. Let's stick with a group -- say, al-Qaeda. If they killed the president or the Secretary of Defense, that would be an act of war. If they killed the vice president, that would be a crime.

Not sure why you picked this example but a lot of military members don't realize that the vice president is not in the chain of command. He has no role in the military and no authority to tell a military member to do anything.

May just be semantics but can a group with no country REALLY declare war?

Banned
01-29-2013, 01:58 AM
A plane-making company and an engine-making company, both of which employ recently retired generals, have sold us a meaningless concept called "fifth generation" and an unimportant aircraft feature called "stealth," while arguing that no other fighter offers either.

In reality, there is no fifth generation -- or first, or fourth; it's all nonsense -- and stealth is not particularly important. Nor has there ever been a reason for stealth to be classified. I would have liked to see a larger number of F-22 Raptors after so much effort went into the aircraft but I wasn't initially a fan of the F-22. ("The F-22 is not a cure-all," by RFD, appeared in the November 13, 1995 Air Force Times). I've never been a fan of the F-35, which doesn't excel at any of the various missions for which it's being put forward.

Take the basic F-15E Strike Eagle from the final production batch, tweak it up with some of the bells and whistles being suggested by the folks at McDonne....McDon....er....BOEING....and you'll have a less costly and very effective fighting machine. Boeing would have opposed this a few years ago because the company had an enormous stake in the F-22, but it has no stake in the F-35 so the time has come.

This is easily one of the most fascinating posts I've read from you. Have you written anything specifically about 4GW and "asymmetric warfare"?

Absinthe Anecdote
01-29-2013, 01:53 PM
Rubbish. The fighter "generation" thing is a Lockheed Martin marketing ploy that the Air Force adopted and started using back in the day when it thought it might get more F-22s. To believe this, you would have to believe that the F-15E, Rafale, Gripen, Su-27 and Typhoon all belong to one generation while the F-22 and F-35 belong to the next. It's absolute nonsense and it's dangerous when you teach it to people with a superficial knowledge of the subject.

Stealth is only useful against a foe who doesn't have an "integrated air defense system." In a peer war against a modern adversary, stealth serves no purpose because the first guy to switch on his radar is dead.

It breaks my heart that an intelligence analyst would drink the "fifth generation" Kool-Aid. It reflects the damage done by industry and the brass being in bed together.

I don’t doubt that the defense contractors use this as a marketing ploy; however, what makes you think they are the ones who started categorizing fighter aircraft by generation?

In my experience we applied those terms to Soviet era weapons systems much more than our own aircraft. We also categorized surface-to-air missile systems in a similar manner.

I’m sure you wouldn’t put a MIG-15 and a SU-27 in the same category of potential threats based on their capability. Would you?

You are only focusing on one facet of this topic and ignoring the other sides.

Your claim that “the first one who turns on their radar dies” is an extremely over simplified view. That might hold true for some scenarios but it is a long way from being a universal truth.

Absinthe Anecdote
02-01-2013, 01:02 PM
I am the winner of this thread!

imported_CLSE
02-26-2013, 06:28 PM
Or they could bring in main battle tanks. But that would expose the chinks in their armor.


Interesting, Bob. So, you're saying that the Chinese have "chinks" in their armor?

Robert F. Dorr
03-10-2013, 07:26 PM
Interesting, Bob. So, you're saying that the Chinese have "chinks" in their armor?

Not at all. I am familiar with the purpose and use of quotation marks. I did not use them.

GoatDriver57
03-11-2013, 06:13 PM
Good catch. You're right. I used the wrong word. (Sigh).

Nope, you took too much time in your answer. " Al looks like a water fairy." fits best. ;).

Pullinteeth
03-12-2013, 05:44 PM
Uggggghhhh Now I remember why I don't look at the news... Headline today: "Congress Races to Stop Government Shutdown, Again" Really? Races? To do something they were supposed to do six months ago?