The Superior King Tiger

In article ,
(Denyav) wrote:

.except that the one nation in the world with the capability of taking
advantage of that paradigm shift is... well, the US, which is currently
redesigning the entire US military to take that jump.

Unfortunately not,the new paradigm shift favors scientificaly and
technologically savvy nations,

....and you think the US doesn't qualify, for some reason?

not the nations with the existing defense infrastructure. In other
words "advanced nations" will benefit from the paradigm shift,not
"advanced countries".

....none of which excludes the US in any form or fashion.

US has to do much more than preparing population for paradigm change
by using PSYOPs.

Loosen up that old foil cap, dude, it's cutting off the circulation to
your brain.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:24:46 GMT, "Brett" wrote:

"John Mullen" wrote:
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message

[..]

The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if we
weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we
could
have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that, then
you
are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short time
anyway.

I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent

in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
government.

Try a different dictionary www.m-w.com

1. a person who revolts against civil authority or an established
government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

"a rebel not recognized as a belligerent" and while you might not recognize
it as a civil authority Paul Bremer does meet all of the requirements.



Try a real dictionary, not some web page. My copy of Black's Law Dictionary
defines an insurgent as "One who participates in an insurrection; one who opposes
the execution of law by force of arms, or who rises in revolt against the constituted
authorities." (Black's is a very highly regarded legal dictionary)

Mr Brenner, and the rest of US civil and military personnel in Iraq clearly do not
meet this definition.


Al Minyard

On Sat, 08 May 2004 16:46:19 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Scott Ferrin wrote:

And if you want a real test of Russian armour, send them to take
Washington DC and see if *that* passes the giggle test.

I always thought it would be a kick if the USSR ever tried an air
assault or landing on the US. IF they think there's a lot of guns in
the Middle East. . .

The fun part would be when the commanders realize that a few hundred
*thousand* US civilians would qualify as "snipers" in the Soviet armed
forces.

We have people who buy mile-range rifles for *fun*.

I know a somewhat "touched" individual who got himself a few old 30mm
barrels off of a GAU-8 Avenger cannon. :-) We keep talking about
making one of them into a potato gun (rifled and all). And he's got
himself an AR-15 and wants one of those Barret Arms .50 Calber rifles.
And he doesn't even hunt. I know *many* people who hunt deer and elk
around here and none of them have just *one* gun. I've often
wondered, how many guns are in a city like LA or NY. Could you
imagine the turnout if they put out a bounty of $10k for each head of
an enemy soldier? Of course there would be friendly fire like the
world has never seen but hey, it's a thought :-)

"Alan Minyard" wrote:
On Sat, 08 May 2004 14:24:46 GMT, "Brett" wrote:

"John Mullen" wrote:
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message

[..]

The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if
we
weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we
could
have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that,
then
you
are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short
time
anyway.

I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent

in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
government.

Try a different dictionary www.m-w.com

1. a person who revolts against civil authority or an established
government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent

"a rebel not recognized as a belligerent" and while you might not
recognize
it as a civil authority Paul Bremer does meet all of the requirements.



Try a real dictionary, not some web page.

It's the same definition found in the hardback copy found in most libraries
in the United States.

My copy of Black's Law Dictionary
defines an insurgent as "One who participates in an insurrection; one who
opposes
the execution of law by force of arms, or who rises in revolt against the
constituted
authorities." (Black's is a very highly regarded legal dictionary).

Big deal, one of my copies of Black's (7th) quotes "A person who, for
political purposes, engages in armed hostility against an established
government".

Mr. Bremer believe it or not is a civil authority.

Mr Brenner, and the rest of US civil and military personnel in Iraq
clearly do not
meet this definition.

Mr. Bremer meets all of the requirements for a recognizable civil authority
since he appears to have been given the authority to name regional civilian
governors.

"robert arndt" wrote in message
m...
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm

Better than any mass-produced piece-of-**** Sherman

Any special reason why this piece-of-**** post about an extinct tank ended
up in rec.aviation.military?

Vaughn

"John Mullen" wrote in message ...
But the Challenger II is another fine, battle-proven piece of hardware.


We don't see any reports to prove it.

Before the war, the Challenger II was criticized for not being combat
ready. One reason the British were given an objective close to the
start line is because your tank was unproven -- along with your SA-80
rifle which is a piece of dung by anyone's standards.

The BBC reported on a host of other equipment that was giving problems
before the Limeys deployed to Iraq.



But, as I said, as a military, the US armed forces are second to none by a
wide margin. You can make all the snide remarks you like, but it won't
change anything. The envy, however, is palpable.

It just may not quite be the time for this accusation. Unless you want to
provoke laughter that is.


If we wanted to provoke laughter, we can talk about the British Army.



Publicly exposed as having tortured POWs.


Well at least Americans are more humanitarian than the UK.

Your scumbag Queen pinned medals on British paratroopers after they
shot 27 unarmed, innocent civilians in Derry. Unfortunately for John
Mullen, both the shootings and the awards ceremony were 'caught on
film' as well.

Thus Mullen shows a common affliction of so many Brits: his head
appears to filled with nuclear waste.


I don't see the grounds for envy there, personally.


The US usually learns valuable lessons from their mistakes, which is
more than we can say for the British. Their dead empire is the proof.


" I do feel that once the Falklands war
was over, the hierarchy were not interested
in what had happened or in what lessons
that might be learned from it all "
~ Brigadier Julian Thompson,
3rd Commando Brigade

Rob wrote.

And anyone who says Russian tanks are garbage outta have his ass
shipped out in an M-1A2 and land on the outskirts of Moscow in 50
degree below zero weather with Mils, Migs, and Sukhois flying about
and Russian troops armed with ATGWs.

Rob, stop masturbating to your very odd fantasies.

Walt

"Evan Brennan" wrote in message
...
"John Mullen" wrote in message
...
But the Challenger II is another fine, battle-proven piece of
hardware.


We don't see any reports to prove it.

Before the war, the Challenger II was criticized for not being combat
ready. One reason the British were given an objective close to the
start line is because your tank was unproven -- along with your SA-80
rifle which is a piece of dung by anyone's standards.

The BBC reported on a host of other equipment that was giving problems
before the Limeys deployed to Iraq.



But, as I said, as a military, the US armed forces are second to none
by a
wide margin. You can make all the snide remarks you like, but it won't
change anything. The envy, however, is palpable.

It just may not quite be the time for this accusation. Unless you want
to
provoke laughter that is.


If we wanted to provoke laughter, we can talk about the British Army.



Publicly exposed as having tortured POWs.


Well at least Americans are more humanitarian than the UK.

Yeah. So what? My dad is bigger than your dad.

Your scumbag Queen pinned medals on British paratroopers after they
shot 27 unarmed, innocent civilians in Derry. Unfortunately for John
Mullen, both the shootings and the awards ceremony were 'caught on
film' as well.

As you may be aware, there is an enquiry currently going on about that. I
totally agree with you that this was an awful event, all the worse for
having been covered up at the time.

'Don't use troops for crowd control' would appear to be the motto here.

Thus Mullen shows a common affliction of so many Brits: his head
appears to filled with nuclear waste.

It only appears that way to you because your head is filled with doggy poo
poo.

I don't see the grounds for envy there, personally.


The US usually learns valuable lessons from their mistakes, which is
more than we can say for the British. Their dead empire is the proof.

And your empire is doing well just now, would you say? All that learning
from mistakes should let you roll up the trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan
fairly quickly. After all, you guys learned *so much* from getting your
asses kicked in Nam.

Particularly, after My Lai, I am sure no US forces would ever mistreat
civilians again for example.

Should be easy, eh?

(In case you don't get it, I am laughing my ass off here at your last
paragraph. Thank you so much for the entertainment!)

J

On 8 May 2004 17:27:01 -0700, (Evan Brennan)
wrote:

"John Mullen" wrote in message ...
But the Challenger II is another fine, battle-proven piece of hardware.


We don't see any reports to prove it.



ROTFL! What's this 'We' business ?



greg

[Plastic paddies usual intellectual dishonesty binned unread]

--
"vying with Platt for the largest gap
between capability and self perception"

John Mullen wrote:

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message

The situation in Iraq is an insurgent force, and quite honestly, if we
weren't so damn concerned about politics and 'collateral damage' we could
have the insurgency put down in 12 hours. If you don't belive that, then you
are a fool. And quite frankly, it's really only been a very short time
anyway.

I don't agree. I suppose I must be a fool. Check your words.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=insurgent

in·sur·gent (n-sûrjnt)
adj.
1.. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a
government.
2.. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party.
There is no established authority in Iraq, nor is there any political
leadership, therefore I would not say 'insurgent' is the right word at all.

'A very short time'? Bwah ha ha ha!

So what would qualify as a long time in your world? Over a year seems likea
long time to me, and I am sure to the people in Iraq. 12 hours? My ass.

I don't know, Saddam didn't seem to have much difficulty putting
down the southern Shiite revolt (insurgency?) back in 1991.

Where were these fearless, instrument of Allah cleric "insurgents"
back then, or even afterwards?

Hiding out in Iran, terrified they were about to be assassinated
by one of Saddam's men at any moment.

The insurgency could be put down in a relatively short time, but
it would be brutal; not much different than Saddam.

So instead, we plod along, "bogged down" in Iraq, with the anti-Bush
or anti-American crowd crowing about how inept the Americans are
in its occupation of Iraq.


SMH