This not a thread to educate you on how modern conventional warfare works. You simply don't understand the military capabilites of either nation and you're essentially asking us to teach you. That is not a debate. Do some research, then come back with an opinion based on rational thought. Simply saying that the US doesn't know where to bomb contributes nothing. I could pull stuff out of my ass like that all day. It seems to be a trend here. Many of you seem to have a habit or interjecting your opinions on a subject you know little or nothing about. There's a difference between simply disagreeing and not having enough knowledge in the first place to agree or disagree.IRONCHEF wrote:
And my questions go unanswered and now I'm ignorant.
Nevermind the fact the leadership of this country has ALREADY said a ground invasion would fail..i'm just ignorant.
The thread is yours.
lol, holy shit! I can't believe you're actually suggesting we could stage a massive invasion using Iraq? I think you need to look at a map and see what you're talking about.smtt686 wrote:
Do you have access to a map...look at where Iran is. Then you will see we can attack anytime anyway we want to.IRONCHEF wrote:
Our Air Force...will waste billions in bombs and have little to show. Cruise missiles? Arty? hehe. From WHERE exactly will we be shooting that from? take a look at a map and tell me how we would conduct an invasion. Then tell me what country would be dumb enough to accompany us in said invasion. And where would we get the military build up of weapons and soldiers for such a campaign.
You should have learned this in 5th grade. I for one am ashamed for you!
And who is going to be the ones staging themselves in Iraq to run across the border (take a look at the terrain and tell me if a shock and awe can happen across that border and have ANY impact on Iran)? Last i checked, we have about 1/3 or our Army deployed and the other 2/3rds aren't battle ready. Hmmm....
But it's cool, i'm the ignorant one. It's like fucking crazy town in this thread.
yeah, i knew you'd fail again. you just have no capacity to argue like an adult. The united states government disagrees with you. Iran could not be successfully invaded. I've read your links that debate my side arguments, but you can't read things like this that show how little you and your buddies know.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
This not a thread to educate you on how modern conventional warfare works. You simply don't understand the military capabilites of either nation and you're essentially asking us to teach you. That is not a debate. Do some research, then come back with an opinion based on rational thought. Simply saying that the US doesn't know where to bomb contributes nothing. I could pull stuff out of my ass like that all day. It seems to be a trend here. Many of you seem to have a habit or interjecting your opinions on a subject you know little or nothing about. There's a difference between simply disagreeing and not having enough knowledge in the first place to agree or disagree.IRONCHEF wrote:
And my questions go unanswered and now I'm ignorant.
Nevermind the fact the leadership of this country has ALREADY said a ground invasion would fail..i'm just ignorant.
The thread is yours.
Anyone know how we can contact Sam Fisher? Why dont we just drop him off in Iran and get him to clean things up for us.
While hes there, maybe he could nip into Afghanistan and find Bin Laden for us too.
While hes there, maybe he could nip into Afghanistan and find Bin Laden for us too.
Last edited by adam1503 (2006-11-20 16:19:09)
You're right. No need to cite it.Iron_Sentinel wrote:
I dont believe that Iran's forces are poorly trained. Their training may not be as great as the almighty american military, but i believe they can still pack a punch.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Please do some research. A poorly trained Soviet era military has no chance against Israel, much less the US.
When you say soviet era, what do you mean exactly? Hardware? Cause if thats what you mean, i agree that some aspects of Iran's military is based on, or still incorporates Soviet technology, but other than that, i generally believe Iran has moved beyond a soviet era military.
Irans main battle tank is the Soviet made T-72 which is 1970's technology.Iron_Sentinel wrote:
I dont believe that Iran's forces are poorly trained. Their training may not be as great as the almighty american military, but i believe they can still pack a punch.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Please do some research. A poorly trained Soviet era military has no chance against Israel, much less the US.
When you say soviet era, what do you mean exactly? Hardware? Cause if thats what you mean, i agree that some aspects of Iran's military is based on, or still incorporates Soviet technology, but other than that, i generally believe Iran has moved beyond a soviet era military.
Dude are you even responding to any of my posts or what? I suppose you can see that i'm right and you're too arrogant to acknowledge that fact.IRONCHEF wrote:
yeah, i knew you'd fail again. you just have no capacity to argue like an adult. The united states government disagrees with you. Iran could not be successfully invaded. I've read your links that debate my side arguments, but you can't read things like this that show how little you and your buddies know.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
This not a thread to educate you on how modern conventional warfare works. You simply don't understand the military capabilites of either nation and you're essentially asking us to teach you. That is not a debate. Do some research, then come back with an opinion based on rational thought. Simply saying that the US doesn't know where to bomb contributes nothing. I could pull stuff out of my ass like that all day. It seems to be a trend here. Many of you seem to have a habit or interjecting your opinions on a subject you know little or nothing about. There's a difference between simply disagreeing and not having enough knowledge in the first place to agree or disagree.IRONCHEF wrote:
And my questions go unanswered and now I'm ignorant.
Nevermind the fact the leadership of this country has ALREADY said a ground invasion would fail..i'm just ignorant.
The thread is yours.
Does using rational thought to form and argue a well-thought out opinion mean I have no capacity to argue like an adult? Do you even read some of things you post?IRONCHEF wrote:
yeah, i knew you'd fail again. you just have no capacity to argue like an adult.
IRONCHEF wrote:
I believe Iran would hand us our asses if we invaded. Period. It would make Iraq's warfare look like a G-rated video game.
IRONCHEF wrote:
True, but then we haven't seen our military invade something as powerful as Iran.
IRONCHEF wrote:
Frankly, we'd probably run out of bombs...and the ones we'd waste, we'd never know if we even hit good targets because our intelligence sucks! lol
IRONCHEF wrote:
Care to cite that claim? Also, was the fear our soldiers had that they'd be beating us conventionally or with chemicals? Because all they had to show for might was the gassing of their people up north, and their war with Iran..which let us know perfectly what kind of might they had.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
During the first Guld War Iraq had the fourth largest army on earth, along with one of the largest armored divisions and air force.IRONCHEF wrote:
True, but then we haven't seen our military invade something as powerful as Iran.
IRONCHEF wrote:
YOu think our bombing campaigns will actually kill members of their military? You don't think they know exactly what we'll be wasting ordnance on?
This is all a joke, right? Come on, man. Your best argument for a US military defeat in Iran is that we would "run out of bombs"!? You really are clueless.IRONCHEF wrote:
Our Air Force...will waste billions in bombs and have little to show. Cruise missiles? Arty? hehe. From WHERE exactly will we be shooting that from?
Couldn't have said it better myself.IRONCHEF wrote:
And my questions go unanswered and now I'm ignorant.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-20 16:29:50)
Wow, I mean seriously is he really gonna debate about this shit. He doesnt know anything about military capabilities. Especially with someone who is in the military.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Does using rational thought to form and argue a well-thought out opinion mean I have no capacity to argue like an adult? Do you even read some of things you post?IRONCHEF wrote:
yeah, i knew you'd fail again. you just have no capacity to argue like an adult.IRONCHEF wrote:
I believe Iran would hand us our asses if we invaded. Period. It would make Iraq's warfare look like a G-rated video game.IRONCHEF wrote:
True, but then we haven't seen our military invade something as powerful as Iran.IRONCHEF wrote:
Frankly, we'd probably run out of bombs...and the ones we'd waste, we'd never know if we even hit good targets because our intelligence sucks! lolIRONCHEF wrote:
Care to cite that claim? Also, was the fear our soldiers had that they'd be beating us conventionally or with chemicals? Because all they had to show for might was the gassing of their people up north, and their war with Iran..which let us know perfectly what kind of might they had.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
During the first Guld War Iraq had the fourth largest army on earth, along with one of the largest armored divisions and air force.IRONCHEF wrote:
YOu think our bombing campaigns will actually kill members of their military? You don't think they know exactly what we'll be wasting ordnance on?This is all a joke, right? Come on, man. Your best argument for a US military defeat in Iran is that we would "run out of bombs"!?IRONCHEF wrote:
Our Air Force...will waste billions in bombs and have little to show. Cruise missiles? Arty? hehe. From WHERE exactly will we be shooting that from?Couldn't have said it better myself.IRONCHEF wrote:
And my questions go unanswered and now I'm ignorant.
Pollux, Arabeter,
Real simple. Read the below quotation and then make a post telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Tell me that the best military planners we have are wrong. Tell me a ground invasion would succeed. I'll wait. And i wont insult you or take apart your posts like you two have done to me while avoiding reality.
This is the article
And this is the text I'd like you to read:
But various specialists and some military officials are resisting strikes.
"The Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it because it is so constrained" in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA Middle East specialist. A former defense official who stays in touch with colleagues added, "I don't think anybody's prepared to use the military option at this point."
...
Any extended attack would require U.S. forces to cripple Iran's air defense system and air force, prepare defenses for U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and move Navy ships to the Persian Gulf to protect shipping. U.S. forces could launch warplanes from aircraft carriers, from the Diego Garcia island base in the Indian Ocean and, in the case of stealth bombers, from the United States. But if generals want land-based aircraft in the region, they face the uphill task of trying to persuade Turkey to allow use of the U.S. air base at Incirlik.
Planners also are debating whether launching attacks from Iraq or using Iraqi airspace would exacerbate the political cost in the Muslim world, which would see it as proof that the United States invaded Iraq to make it a base for military conquest of the region.
and..
Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert in targeting and war games who teaches at the National Defense University, recently gamed an Iran attack and identified 24 potential nuclear-related facilities, some below 50 feet of reinforced concrete and soil.
At a conference in Berlin, Gardiner outlined a five-day operation that would require 400 "aim points," or targets for individual weapons, at nuclear facilities, at least 75 of which would require penetrating weapons. He also presumed the Pentagon would hit two chemical production plants, medium-range ballistic missile launchers and 14 airfields with sheltered aircraft. Special Operations forces would be required, he said.
Gardiner concluded that a military attack would not work, but said he believes the United States seems to be moving inexorably toward it. "The Bush administration is very close to being left with only the military option," he said.
But hey, you're in the military so maybe these guys don't really know what they're talking about....
Real simple. Read the below quotation and then make a post telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Tell me that the best military planners we have are wrong. Tell me a ground invasion would succeed. I'll wait. And i wont insult you or take apart your posts like you two have done to me while avoiding reality.
This is the article
And this is the text I'd like you to read:
But various specialists and some military officials are resisting strikes.
"The Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it because it is so constrained" in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA Middle East specialist. A former defense official who stays in touch with colleagues added, "I don't think anybody's prepared to use the military option at this point."
...
Any extended attack would require U.S. forces to cripple Iran's air defense system and air force, prepare defenses for U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and move Navy ships to the Persian Gulf to protect shipping. U.S. forces could launch warplanes from aircraft carriers, from the Diego Garcia island base in the Indian Ocean and, in the case of stealth bombers, from the United States. But if generals want land-based aircraft in the region, they face the uphill task of trying to persuade Turkey to allow use of the U.S. air base at Incirlik.
Planners also are debating whether launching attacks from Iraq or using Iraqi airspace would exacerbate the political cost in the Muslim world, which would see it as proof that the United States invaded Iraq to make it a base for military conquest of the region.
and..
Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert in targeting and war games who teaches at the National Defense University, recently gamed an Iran attack and identified 24 potential nuclear-related facilities, some below 50 feet of reinforced concrete and soil.
At a conference in Berlin, Gardiner outlined a five-day operation that would require 400 "aim points," or targets for individual weapons, at nuclear facilities, at least 75 of which would require penetrating weapons. He also presumed the Pentagon would hit two chemical production plants, medium-range ballistic missile launchers and 14 airfields with sheltered aircraft. Special Operations forces would be required, he said.
Gardiner concluded that a military attack would not work, but said he believes the United States seems to be moving inexorably toward it. "The Bush administration is very close to being left with only the military option," he said.
But hey, you're in the military so maybe these guys don't really know what they're talking about....
How does anything in that article support your claims:IRONCHEF wrote:
Pollux, Arabeter,
Real simple. Read the below quotation and then make a post telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Tell me that the best military planners we have are wrong. Tell me a ground invasion would succeed. I'll wait. And i wont insult you or take apart your posts like you two have done to me while avoiding reality.
This is the article
And this is the text I'd like you to read:
But various specialists and some military officials are resisting strikes.
"The Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it because it is so constrained" in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA Middle East specialist. A former defense official who stays in touch with colleagues added, "I don't think anybody's prepared to use the military option at this point."
...
Any extended attack would require U.S. forces to cripple Iran's air defense system and air force, prepare defenses for U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and move Navy ships to the Persian Gulf to protect shipping. U.S. forces could launch warplanes from aircraft carriers, from the Diego Garcia island base in the Indian Ocean and, in the case of stealth bombers, from the United States. But if generals want land-based aircraft in the region, they face the uphill task of trying to persuade Turkey to allow use of the U.S. air base at Incirlik.
Planners also are debating whether launching attacks from Iraq or using Iraqi airspace would exacerbate the political cost in the Muslim world, which would see it as proof that the United States invaded Iraq to make it a base for military conquest of the region.
and..
Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert in targeting and war games who teaches at the National Defense University, recently gamed an Iran attack and identified 24 potential nuclear-related facilities, some below 50 feet of reinforced concrete and soil.
At a conference in Berlin, Gardiner outlined a five-day operation that would require 400 "aim points," or targets for individual weapons, at nuclear facilities, at least 75 of which would require penetrating weapons. He also presumed the Pentagon would hit two chemical production plants, medium-range ballistic missile launchers and 14 airfields with sheltered aircraft. Special Operations forces would be required, he said.
Gardiner concluded that a military attack would not work, but said he believes the United States seems to be moving inexorably toward it. "The Bush administration is very close to being left with only the military option," he said.
But hey, you're in the military so maybe these guys don't really know what they're talking about....
Also, nowhere in that article does it say that the US would lose a conventional war with Iran, which is what you were arguing in the first place. Just read what you are posting. What is outlined in the article is completely irrelevant to the claims you have made in this thread.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Does using rational thought to form and argue a well-thought out opinion mean I have no capacity to argue like an adult? Do you even read some of things you post?IRONCHEF wrote:
yeah, i knew you'd fail again. you just have no capacity to argue like an adult.IRONCHEF wrote:
I believe Iran would hand us our asses if we invaded. Period. It would make Iraq's warfare look like a G-rated video game.IRONCHEF wrote:
True, but then we haven't seen our military invade something as powerful as Iran.IRONCHEF wrote:
Frankly, we'd probably run out of bombs...and the ones we'd waste, we'd never know if we even hit good targets because our intelligence sucks! lolIRONCHEF wrote:
Care to cite that claim? Also, was the fear our soldiers had that they'd be beating us conventionally or with chemicals? Because all they had to show for might was the gassing of their people up north, and their war with Iran..which let us know perfectly what kind of might they had.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
During the first Guld War Iraq had the fourth largest army on earth, along with one of the largest armored divisions and air force.IRONCHEF wrote:
YOu think our bombing campaigns will actually kill members of their military? You don't think they know exactly what we'll be wasting ordnance on?This is all a joke, right? Come on, man. Your best argument for a US military defeat in Iran is that we would "run out of bombs"!? You really are clueless.IRONCHEF wrote:
Our Air Force...will waste billions in bombs and have little to show. Cruise missiles? Arty? hehe. From WHERE exactly will we be shooting that from?Couldn't have said it better myself.IRONCHEF wrote:
And my questions go unanswered and now I'm ignorant.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-20 16:57:37)
Wow dude, I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN FOR YOU. Do not believe what the government tells you. You dont have the need to know about this kinda shit. You see in the military we have this thing called OPSEC (Operations Security) which limits what we can tell the public or people that dont have the need to know. What your hearing is what your supposed to hear. I have a Top Secret (SSBI) clearance for a reason man. I know shit that you wouldnt believe. I understand from a civilian point of view that hearing that info from a highly respected military officer that it must be true. Believe me that its not. I wish I could tell you the things I have been training for to make you see this. The only thing that I can see in your post that is slightly true is that we dont wanna go to war with them. In a nutshell, the government tells you what you need to hear to make you feel all fuzzy inside.IRONCHEF wrote:
Pollux, Arabeter,
Real simple. Read the below quotation and then make a post telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Tell me that the best military planners we have are wrong. Tell me a ground invasion would succeed. I'll wait. And i wont insult you or take apart your posts like you two have done to me while avoiding reality.
This is the article
And this is the text I'd like you to read:
But various specialists and some military officials are resisting strikes.
"The Pentagon is arguing forcefully against it because it is so constrained" in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA Middle East specialist. A former defense official who stays in touch with colleagues added, "I don't think anybody's prepared to use the military option at this point."
...
Any extended attack would require U.S. forces to cripple Iran's air defense system and air force, prepare defenses for U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and move Navy ships to the Persian Gulf to protect shipping. U.S. forces could launch warplanes from aircraft carriers, from the Diego Garcia island base in the Indian Ocean and, in the case of stealth bombers, from the United States. But if generals want land-based aircraft in the region, they face the uphill task of trying to persuade Turkey to allow use of the U.S. air base at Incirlik.
Planners also are debating whether launching attacks from Iraq or using Iraqi airspace would exacerbate the political cost in the Muslim world, which would see it as proof that the United States invaded Iraq to make it a base for military conquest of the region.
and..
Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert in targeting and war games who teaches at the National Defense University, recently gamed an Iran attack and identified 24 potential nuclear-related facilities, some below 50 feet of reinforced concrete and soil.
At a conference in Berlin, Gardiner outlined a five-day operation that would require 400 "aim points," or targets for individual weapons, at nuclear facilities, at least 75 of which would require penetrating weapons. He also presumed the Pentagon would hit two chemical production plants, medium-range ballistic missile launchers and 14 airfields with sheltered aircraft. Special Operations forces would be required, he said.
Gardiner concluded that a military attack would not work, but said he believes the United States seems to be moving inexorably toward it. "The Bush administration is very close to being left with only the military option," he said.
But hey, you're in the military so maybe these guys don't really know what they're talking about....
Last edited by arabeater (2006-11-20 16:56:17)
As I thought. You can't face getting your ass owned...and you never do..resorting to childish antics, taking things out of context, not using reason..all while using your fale authority to declare someone as non-credible... it's old dude.
now go and post quotes from me from an old religious thread and condescend and do your bit..but know that you and eggbeater are wrong.
I"m just saddened because i thought you and I keeping away from each other meant we had improved our posting habits but you had to start insulting me again and attempting to manipulate my opinions with your tired BS. Bummer, I thought you grew up.
now go and post quotes from me from an old religious thread and condescend and do your bit..but know that you and eggbeater are wrong.
I"m just saddened because i thought you and I keeping away from each other meant we had improved our posting habits but you had to start insulting me again and attempting to manipulate my opinions with your tired BS. Bummer, I thought you grew up.
How am I taking things out context? I simply quoted everything you said in this thread. Please explain how what I quoted was taken out of context to imply a different meaning than what you orginally intended. Also, do you honestly think you've owned anyone here? You've made arguments that are beyond idiotic, then claim victory when you cite a source that in no way supports anything you've said in this thread.IRONCHEF wrote:
As I thought. You can't face getting your ass owned...and you never do..resorting to childish antics, taking things out of context.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-20 17:01:38)
yadda yadda yadda...side step, tap dance, side step...lie, lie..e-penis..yadda yadda...you know NOTHING. you failed. see you both tomorrow.arabeater wrote:
Wow dude, I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN FOR YOU. Do not believe what the government tells you. You dont have the need to know about this kinda shit. You see in the military we have this thing called OPSEC (Operations Security) which limits what we can tell the public or people that dont have the need to know. What your hearing is what your supposed to hear. I have a Top Secret (SSBI) clearance for a reason man. I know shit that you wouldnt believe. I understand from a civilian point of view that hearing that info from a highly respected military officer that it must be true. Believe me that its not. I wish I could tell you the things I have been training for to make you see this. The only thing that I can see in your post that is slightly true is that we dont wanna go to war with them. In a nutshell, the government tells you what you need to hear to make you feel all fuzzy inside.
honestly, would it matter if I proved ANYTHING to you? would you stop your bullshit troll posting? you'd just go wiki something new to bullshit about and pretend you're smart again. you just don't have the maturity to debate with grown ups.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
How am I taking things out context? I simply quoted everything you said in this thread. Please explain how what I quoted was taken out of context to imply a different meaning than what you orginally intended. Also, do you honestly think you've owned anyone here? You've made arguments that are beyond idiotic, then claim victory when you cite a source that in no way supports anything you've said in this thread.IRONCHEF wrote:
As I thought. You can't face getting your ass owned...and you never do..resorting to childish antics, taking things out of context.
so keep baiting me and try to get me to insult you so you can report me..you are SOOOOO easy to read dude.
Please explain to me how you owned my ass. I just think its so funny that a civilian thinks he knows what hes talking about on the subject of military strategy against somebody thats in the military and has a Top Secret Clearance and has been subject to things that you wouldnt comprehend. Just because you can find supposed articles in which you most dumbfoundatly believe to a T, doesnt mean your a fucking expert on the subject.IRONCHEF wrote:
As I thought. You can't face getting your ass owned...and you never do..resorting to childish antics, taking things out of context, not using reason..all while using your fale authority to declare someone as non-credible... it's old dude.
now go and post quotes from me from an old religious thread and condescend and do your bit..but know that you and eggbeater are wrong.
I"m just saddened because i thought you and I keeping away from each other meant we had improved our posting habits but you had to start insulting me again and attempting to manipulate my opinions with your tired BS. Bummer, I thought you grew up.
liar.arabeater wrote:
Please explain to me how you owned my ass. I just think its so funny that a civilian thinks he knows what hes talking about on the subject of military strategy against somebody thats in the military and has a Top Secret Clearance and has been subject to things that you wouldnt comprehend. Just because you can find supposed articles in which you most dumbfoundatly believe to a T, doesnt mean your a fucking expert on the subject.IRONCHEF wrote:
As I thought. You can't face getting your ass owned...and you never do..resorting to childish antics, taking things out of context, not using reason..all while using your fale authority to declare someone as non-credible... it's old dude.
now go and post quotes from me from an old religious thread and condescend and do your bit..but know that you and eggbeater are wrong.
I"m just saddened because i thought you and I keeping away from each other meant we had improved our posting habits but you had to start insulting me again and attempting to manipulate my opinions with your tired BS. Bummer, I thought you grew up.
You just proved that you cannot debate with me on this subject. Dont even try it boy, you will lose.IRONCHEF wrote:
yadda yadda yadda...side step, tap dance, side step...lie, lie..e-penis..yadda yadda...you know NOTHING. you failed. see you both tomorrow.arabeater wrote:
Wow dude, I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN FOR YOU. Do not believe what the government tells you. You dont have the need to know about this kinda shit. You see in the military we have this thing called OPSEC (Operations Security) which limits what we can tell the public or people that dont have the need to know. What your hearing is what your supposed to hear. I have a Top Secret (SSBI) clearance for a reason man. I know shit that you wouldnt believe. I understand from a civilian point of view that hearing that info from a highly respected military officer that it must be true. Believe me that its not. I wish I could tell you the things I have been training for to make you see this. The only thing that I can see in your post that is slightly true is that we dont wanna go to war with them. In a nutshell, the government tells you what you need to hear to make you feel all fuzzy inside.
Don't talk about maturity when you can't seem to debate without using obscenities. You are the epitome of immaturity. The fact of the matter is that you have made ridiculous claims in thread, and your only defense to criticism are personal attacks.IRONCHEF wrote:
honestly, would it matter if I proved ANYTHING to you? would you stop your bullshit troll posting? you'd just go wiki something new to bullshit about and pretend you're smart again. you just don't have the maturity to debate with grown ups.
so keep baiting me and try to get me to insult you so you can report me..you are SOOOOO easy to read dude.
I dont have to prove shit to you buddy. I know what the facts are and your sitting in front of your computer thinking that you are somehow owning me.IRONCHEF wrote:
liar.arabeater wrote:
Please explain to me how you owned my ass. I just think its so funny that a civilian thinks he knows what hes talking about on the subject of military strategy against somebody thats in the military and has a Top Secret Clearance and has been subject to things that you wouldnt comprehend. Just because you can find supposed articles in which you most dumbfoundatly believe to a T, doesnt mean your a fucking expert on the subject.IRONCHEF wrote:
As I thought. You can't face getting your ass owned...and you never do..resorting to childish antics, taking things out of context, not using reason..all while using your fale authority to declare someone as non-credible... it's old dude.
now go and post quotes from me from an old religious thread and condescend and do your bit..but know that you and eggbeater are wrong.
I"m just saddened because i thought you and I keeping away from each other meant we had improved our posting habits but you had to start insulting me again and attempting to manipulate my opinions with your tired BS. Bummer, I thought you grew up.
yep.
No. Have fun in fantasy land little boy.IRONCHEF wrote:
yep.
This is beyond tiresome. Do you really need to ruin every debate you attempt to participate in, IRONCHEF? It seems that every time someone offers a counterpoint to some utterly ridiculous claim you have made, which is usually borderline trolling, you flip out and resort to more trolling and personal attacks. That is not how debates work.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-20 17:25:56)
Agreed. I'm outta here. Take care of this troll Fancy!Fancy_Pollux wrote:
This is beyond tiresome. Do you really need to ruin every debate you attempt to participate in, IRONCHEF? It seems that every time someone offers a counterpoint to some utterly ridiculous claim you have made, which is usually borderline trolling, you flip out and resort to trolling and personal attacks. That is not how debates work.