Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2008 05:12 pm
Let me wait for some more weeks to expose this die hard old pathetic participant of politics.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2008 08:44 pm
Advocate wrote:
There was nothing ironic about my remark. It was a serious statement. BTW, your reference to "Joe Ching" is pretty obnoxious, which is on par with most of your writing.


That's rich, given how likely you are to foam at the mouth and rant irrationally at anyone who criticizes Israeli policy.

"Joe Ching" is what G.I.s stationed in Korea call the North Koreans--and they use that term because that is what the ROK soldiers call them. Maybe you should take a flight over to Kimpo, get on the shuttle to Seoul, and take a taxi to Yongsan. You can go to UN headquarters and tell the ROK high command that their soldiers have to stop calling the North Koreans "Joe Ching."
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 09:29 am
Your judgement is really zilch. We have about 19,000 soldiers in S. Korea. Should the one million soldiers from the north invade, military experts say there is little doubt that our troops would be annihilated quickly .

Anyone with sense would tell you that our military presence in S. Korea is foolish in the extreme.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 10:01 am
Do you just make this **** up as you do along?

Quote:
In any event, with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team going to Iraq in August 2004, the total number of troops declined by 5,000, to a total of 22,500 Army soldiers.

The Air Force has two wings located in the USFK region with some 8,300 personnel, operating a total of about 100 aircraft of all types.


Source at Global Security-dot-org.

That means that there are slightly in excess of 30,000 troops in Korea.

Additionally, there are the more than 40,000 troops in Japan. From the same source:

Quote:
U.S. Forces, Japan, with its U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps elements, consists of approximately 47,000 military personnel, 52,000 dependents, 5,500 DOD civilian employees and 23,500 Japanese workers. There are roughly 350 aircraft from the Air Force, Navy and Marines located in the USFJ AOR.


You also display your typical stupidity with regard to military affairs. Do you think the American troops in Korea are intended to stop the DPRK single-handed? What a loon. Once again, from Global Security, here is a detailed order of battle for the army, air force, navy and marines of the Republic of Korea. The South Korean army numbers somewhat in excess of one half million troops.

But you must think armies fight on chess boards, large flat spaces where the mere weight of numbers will always prevail. One million North Koreans don't mean much if they can't be brought to bear. The area in which the United States troops are deployed is the only logistically reasonable invasion route of the South by the North. Stacking up units in that narrow area just makes better targets.

The North Koreans only have three things going for them militarily, and as one is nukes, that leaves only two advantages in conventional warfare. Those two things are huge artillery concentrations (and i've already pointed out that both the United States Army and the United States Air Force are already prepared to deal with that), and medium range ballistic missiles (the Korean version of the old Soviet "Scuds," which is what Hussein used in Iraq in 1991--they are hardly to be considered an effective tactical weapon).

The mere preponderance of numbers is meaningless if they can't be deployed effectively. When the Allies landed in Normandy in 1944, they were vastly outnumbered both by the troops in the German Seventh Army, and the additional forces immediately available to react to the invasion. The 21st Panzer Division, formerly the heart of Rommel's Afrika Korps, was strung out on the road leading southeast from Caen. Despite being less than 30 kilometers from the English and Canadian landing beaches, it took them two days to assemble on the high ground south of Caen, more than 10 kilometers from the beaches. In Brittany was the crack 6th Fallschirmjager (paratroopers)--they had about 60 kilometers to travel--and it took them five days, because they had to walk all the way, and they could only walk at night.

Why? Because the Allies had complete control of the air. On D-Day, the Germans flew 160 sorties in all of France (a sortie is one plane flying one mission--a plane can fly more than one mission a day, and can therefore have more than one sortie per day), and only two over the invasion beaches. By contrast, the Royal Air Force and the 8th and 9th United States Army Air Forces flew more than 14,800 sorties on D-Day. Nothing moved in the day time in Normandy without risking destruction. The 6th FS division suffered horribly just getting to the Cotentin penninsula, and they were almost wiped out in the fighting in Normandy.

If the North invades the South, they will face the same disproportionate balance of air forces. Having a million troops and massive artillery concentrations doesn't mean squat if you can't get your boys to the party. Most of the army of the DPRK would merely be targets for American and South Korean missile batteries and American and South Korean air forces. The quality of the American and South Korean equipment is far superior to anything the North has, with the exception of their artillery. Given that their artillery is either already in fixed positions, or is kept in hardened bunkers underground behind the border, they'd either be sitting ducks in their positions, or as they attempted to make the approach march. This is precisely what Rommel said about Normandy in his personal papers before the invasion--that all their resources should be poised to throw the invaders back from the beaches, because if they were in the interior, they'd never survive the approach march. If Joe jumps, he won't survive the approach march, no matter how many Americans he kills.

That's why Kim Jong Il rattles his saber so consistently with his threats of developing a nuclear arsenal. He knows that if he tries a conventional ground war, he's f*cked.

I'm not surprised that you don't know it, though.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 02:02 pm
Literalist and ah that you are, you jump on my statement regarding the number of our troops in S. Korea. But whether 19,000 or 30,000, there would be little difference regarding an attack by more than one million NK troops.

It is truly stupid to say, as you do, that they would never attack knowing our power. Well, we had overwhelming power in the Korean War, which didn't keep NK from attacking. And Obama willingly took us on in Kuwait even though their defense budget was $1.6 B.

Your ad hominian statements were noted.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 02:32 pm
advocate wrote:
And Obama willingly took us on in Kuwait even though their defense budget was $1.6 B.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 04:52 pm
Advocate wrote:
. And Obama willingly took us on in Kuwait even though their defense budget was $1.6 B.


I thought it was Sadam Hussein we were fighting in Kuwait.
I didnt know that Bark Obama was the enemy then.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 04:56 pm
Advocate wrote:
Literalist and ah that you are, you jump on my statement regarding the number of our troops in S. Korea. But whether 19,000 or 30,000, there would be little difference regarding an attack by more than one million NK troops.

It is truly stupid to say, as you do, that they would never attack knowing our power. Well, we had overwhelming power in the Korean War, which didn't keep NK from attacking. And Obama willingly took us on in Kuwait even though their defense budget was $1.6 B.

Your ad hominian statements were noted.


F*cking unbelievable

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 04:58 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Advocate wrote:
. And Obama willingly took us on in Kuwait even though their defense budget was $1.6 B.


I thought it was Sadam Hussein we were fighting in Kuwait.
I didnt know that Bark Obama was the enemy then.


Oops, that should have read Barak Obama. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 05:37 pm
Can't blame Advocate, here. Obama, Osama, Hussein ... those Muslim names all look alike.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 05:44 pm
McCain backtracks on war-over-oil remark link
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 07:00 pm
McCain won't violate our Constitutional gun rights.

Hillary and Obama dream of violating our Constitutional gun rights.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 07:48 pm
McCain's Birth Abroad Stirs Legal Debate

His Eligibility for Presidency Is Questioned

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 2, 2008; Page A06

The Senate has unanimously declared John McCain a natural-born citizen, eligible to be president of the United States.

That is the good news for the presumptive Republican nominee, who was born nearly 72 years ago in a military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone, then under U.S. jurisdiction. The bad news is that the nonbinding Senate resolution passed Wednesday night is simply an opinion that has little bearing on an arcane constitutional debate that has preoccupied legal scholars for many weeks.

Article II of the Constitution states that "no person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of president." The problem is that the Founding Fathers never defined exactly what they meant by "natural born citizen," and the matter has never been fully tested in court. At least three pending cases are challenging McCain's right to be sworn in as president.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 09:52 pm
Kitten with a Whip wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
nimh wrote:
Temper, temper!

John McCain appears to be as foulmouthed as, say, Rev. Wright... even just showing what he said on this forum will take some innovative typography.

Quote:
Book: McCain temper boiled over in '92 tirade, called wife a 'c*nt'

John McCain's temper is well documented. He's called opponents and colleagues "shitheads," "ass holes" and in at least one case "a f*cking jerk."

But a new book on the presumptive Republican nominee will air perhaps the most shocking angry exchange to date.

The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. [..]

    Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.



When we see a video of McCain making such a disgusting comment, as opposed to the assurances of annonymous sources, perhaps then we can draw comparisons between him and Wright.

This is typical of a silly sort of tit for tat advocacy that argues: "Yeah my guy was a real jerk but yours was a worse one!"

Sorry nimh, but I am just not going to take the word of a guy trying to make millions on a book who, on a second hand basis, cites anonymous sources. I doubt you would either if the tables were turned.

You seem to pride yourself in what amounts to nimhish objectivity and reason, and yet you repeat this tripe as if it were undisputed fact.

Even if it turns out to be entirely accurate, will that, in some way, excuse any and all of Obama's failings as respects the Rev Wright?



Obama doesn't have any failings in regards to Wright. He did exactly the right thng. He addressed the issue and he distanced himself but didn't throw his pastor under the bus. McCain's tirades are legendary(and yes MR Buzz there is video) and weoll-documented and your denial of the facts tell me you are one of those right wngers who live in the non-reality based universe.

It is also laughable that you bring out the worn out "oh they are just printing lies to sell books" canard yet you criticize the "what your guy did is worse than what my guy did" defense while failing to recognize that it doesn't remotely apply in this situation as the McCain flap applies directly to the candidate not an acquaintance.

I applaud MCCain's service as I applaud all who have served but that doesn't qualify him to be the decider. I don't know what his malady is, there are rumors of PTSD, etc. (I grant you only rumors but McCain won't release his records.) Because the fella is nice to the press and feed them barbeque and seems to prefer lash out at women (Bumiller and Cindy), the clown is getting a free pass from the mainstream media.

After Obama is the nominee, I am confident the press will start doing their job and get McCain to answer questions about his obvious impairments.


Kitten with a Whip wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
nimh wrote:
Temper, temper!

John McCain appears to be as foulmouthed as, say, Rev. Wright... even just showing what he said on this forum will take some innovative typography.

Quote:
Book: McCain temper boiled over in '92 tirade, called wife a 'c*nt'

John McCain's temper is well documented. He's called opponents and colleagues "shitheads," "ass holes" and in at least one case "a f*cking jerk."

But a new book on the presumptive Republican nominee will air perhaps the most shocking angry exchange to date.

The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. [..]

    Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c*nt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.



When we see a video of McCain making such a disgusting comment, as opposed to the assurances of annonymous sources, perhaps then we can draw comparisons between him and Wright.

This is typical of a silly sort of tit for tat advocacy that argues: "Yeah my guy was a real jerk but yours was a worse one!"

Sorry nimh, but I am just not going to take the word of a guy trying to make millions on a book who, on a second hand basis, cites anonymous sources. I doubt you would either if the tables were turned.

You seem to pride yourself in what amounts to nimhish objectivity and reason, and yet you repeat this tripe as if it were undisputed fact.

Even if it turns out to be entirely accurate, will that, in some way, excuse any and all of Obama's failings as respects the Rev Wright?



Obama doesn't have any failings in regards to Wright. He did exactly the right thng. He addressed the issue and he distanced himself but didn't throw his pastor under the bus.

He didn't throw Wright under the bus?

(One of the advantages of returning from a hiatus.)


McCain's tirades are legendary(and yes MR Buzz there is video) and weoll-documented and your denial of the facts tell me you are one of those right wngers who live in the non-reality based universe.

If there is a video which depicts McCain calling his wife a c*nt, please provide us with a link or shut up.

It is also laughable that you bring out the worn out "oh they are just printing lies to sell books" canard yet you criticize the "what your guy did is worse than what my guy did" defense while failing to recognize that it doesn't remotely apply in this situation as the McCain flap applies directly to the candidate not an acquaintance.

This makes no sense. Try again please.

I applaud MCCain's service as I applaud all who have served but that doesn't qualify him to be the decider. I don't know what his malady is, there are rumors of PTSD, etc. (I grant you only rumors but McCain won't release his records.) Because the fella is nice to the press and feed them barbeque and seems to prefer lash out at women (Bumiller and Cindy), the clown is getting a free pass from the mainstream media.

Opinion. Provide evidence.

After Obama is the nominee, I am confident the press will start doing their job and get McCain to answer questions about his obvious impairments.

Time will tell then, assuming Hillary doesn't sneak up and bite Obama's ass.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 10:01 pm
Setanta wrote:
Advocate wrote:
There was nothing ironic about my remark. It was a serious statement. BTW, your reference to "Joe Ching" is pretty obnoxious, which is on par with most of your writing.


That's rich, given how likely you are to foam at the mouth and rant irrationally at anyone who criticizes Israeli policy.

"Joe Ching" is what G.I.s stationed in Korea call the North Koreans--and they use that term because that is what the ROK soldiers call them. Maybe you should take a flight over to Kimpo, get on the shuttle to Seoul, and take a taxi to Yongsan. You can go to UN headquarters and tell the ROK high command that their soldiers have to stop calling the North Koreans "Joe Ching."


Setanta v Advocate!

Setanta defending the use of ethnic slurs!

Priceless!
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 10:19 pm
Electing McCain is like giving Bush a third term.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2008 11:12 pm
Advocate wrote:
Electing McCain is like giving Bush a third term.


Hardly, but it's an effective, albeit dishonest, political slogan.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 08:27 am
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Electing McCain is like giving Bush a third term.


Hardly, but it's an effective, albeit dishonest, political slogan.



It is pretty close to being true. McCain says he will continue on in Iraq, and sees progress in Afghanistan. He favors continuing, and later renewing, the tax cuts for the super-rich, and is even proposing additional large tax cuts. He opposes universal healthcare. He is not proposing conservation regarding energy. Etc. How does McCain differ?
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 12:36 am
I've been accused of being a zealot for McCain. I've never been for either party, I think low voter turn out is hilarious and don't mind joining that cause myself - hell, as a matter of principle, I want less government, especially federal, so if someone thinks I'm drinking the Kool-Aid, eat me. Then you've got this whole post-Bush reactionary thing - I mean, people jumping over each other to whine about how burned they are - compared to that my cynicism and restraint are remarkable. Anyway, insofar as government is necessary and in place, I'm enthusiastically for McCain and some folk see a built in fallacy there - like there's nothing worth getting fired up about and anyone who thinks otherwise is foaming at the mouth. It's my own fault as an American, we taught that very thing, to be placid or blow, to Europe and Japan the hard way, then got lazy ourselves...

Moving on - like every other American I'm the pro-active sort. Here's a little clip that speaks to the kernel of substance present in McCain to the exclusion of the competition. Keep in mind, it's satire not comedy...

The Onion - McCain Declines Secret Service
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 May, 2008 08:31 am
It is unbelievable that so many people find McCain acceptable. I would think that a person who was a key member in the Keating Five would be disqualified. After all, they cost the taxpayer half a trillion dollars.

Hanno, remember that the government often steps in when private enterprise won't, or can't, get the job done. Postal service is a an example, as well as mass transportation and space exploration. When one of three people have no or inadequate health insurance, we should be going universal like the rest of the world.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » McCain!
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 07:45:42