|
Forums21
Topics43,348
Posts1,086,212
Members10,381
| |
Most Online1,254
Mar 13th, 2025
|
|
|
Re: Boxer's 'Low Blow'
[Re: Double-J]
#360122
01/31/07 10:01 PM
01/31/07 10:01 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 69
NY
NYC Goodfella
Button
|
Button
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 69
NY
|
You mean the way I talk? What? Funny how? What's funny about it? He's a big boy. He knows what he said. Funny, how? Let me understand this. But I'm funny how? Funny like a clown? I amuse you? I'm here to fucking amuse you? What do you mean, funny? How am I funny? I don't know. You said it. You said I'm funny. How am I funny? What the fuck is so funny about me? Tell me what's funny. Im just sayin your funny.....the way you tell the story
A CowArd Dies a 1000 deaths, a Soldier dies but Once
|
|
|
Re: Boxer's 'Low Blow'
[Re: ronnierocketAGO]
#360125
01/31/07 10:06 PM
01/31/07 10:06 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 69
NY
NYC Goodfella
Button
|
Button
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 69
NY
|
Olivant and NYC, sitting UNDEr a TREE, K-I-S-S-I-N-G! Wow I haven't heard that since kindergarden. WHat is it like being in the same grade as your kids? I don't know, whats it like to be fucked for life like your kids? Besides, I'm adding as much to the conversation as you and your closet lover are. ZERO! Do you enjoy living?
A CowArd Dies a 1000 deaths, a Soldier dies but Once
|
|
|
Re: Boxer's 'Low Blow'
[Re: Don Cardi]
#360183
02/01/07 12:34 AM
02/01/07 12:34 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,030
Texas
olivant
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,030
Texas
|
If you are obtaining ROE info from former soldiers who fought in Iraq, then the info they are giving you is either mistaken, incidental, or they are lying. Ok, I see where your mentality is on this. I guess that the numerous amount of soldiers that I've worked with and have come in contact with over the last couple of years, on many different occassions, are all lying and colluding on this claim. I think you overestimate the value of your common semse. You know Olivant, you surprise me by making remarks like that. I always thought more of you. But in truth, you may be right, because common sense was telling me to listen to what you had to say because you said that you served in vietnam. So valuing my common sense I did try lsitening to what you had to say. But I guess that I actually did overestimate my common sense. Yes, lack of education, experience, and training in military staregies counts for a whole lot when one is critiqing operations in a military theater.
For example, one needs to know the diffeence between counter-attack and fire suppression; between fire for effect and for collateral damage; between a 5,56 and a 7.62 caliber shell and their effects. There's alot more to it than on TV. Well, the 7.62 cal shell was used in the M14 which was replaced by the M16 which is the newer standard weapon. The 5.56 cal has a much lower recoil and is no longer the standard caliber for U.S. forces on the battlefield because modern and updated body armor will not be penetrated by the 5.56 therefore making it uneffective in today's war. The original 7.62 has been upgraded and will out perform both the original 7.62 and the 5.56, because of it's ability to lethaly penetrate body armor, and also because of it's ability to perform from long range. TV? No, I don't know these things from TV. I do learn about them from reading, working with and talking with real live soldiers who have been on the battlefields of Iraq and experienced much of what I have tried explaining to you, first hand. You know it's kind of ironic that when someone from the left critiques the war itself and calls it a failure, and criticizes the soldiers who are fighting there, they are portrayed as excersizing their freedom of speech, excersizing their rights under the constitution. But when someone like myself questions something that has been told to him by soldiers returning from the battlefield, I am accused of not being educated because of the concerns that I have for our troops and the way that they are made to fight the war. Double standards. With all due respect Olivant, (and I sincerely respect you for serving our country in Vietnam) I don't doubt your knowledge when it comes to military issues. Obviously you would know more than the average civilian would. But that does not make you more superior than anyone else here who has an opinion on things. Your being an veteran does gives you the right to belittle someone just because they have not served in the military. You should be looking to educate others from your experience instead of calling the returning vets liars or accusing people of being uneducated. Don Cardi  I'll repeat what I already told someone else in a reply post: read my post again!
"Generosity. That was my first mistake."
"Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us."
"Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
|
|
|
Re: Boxer's 'Low Blow'
[Re: olivant]
#360634
02/02/07 10:16 PM
02/02/07 10:16 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 69
NY
NYC Goodfella
Button
|
Button
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 69
NY
|
If you are obtaining ROE info from former soldiers who fought in Iraq, then the info they are giving you is either mistaken, incidental, or they are lying. Ok, I see where your mentality is on this. I guess that the numerous amount of soldiers that I've worked with and have come in contact with over the last couple of years, on many different occassions, are all lying and colluding on this claim. I think you overestimate the value of your common semse. You know Olivant, you surprise me by making remarks like that. I always thought more of you. But in truth, you may be right, because common sense was telling me to listen to what you had to say because you said that you served in vietnam. So valuing my common sense I did try lsitening to what you had to say. But I guess that I actually did overestimate my common sense. Yes, lack of education, experience, and training in military staregies counts for a whole lot when one is critiqing operations in a military theater.
For example, one needs to know the diffeence between counter-attack and fire suppression; between fire for effect and for collateral damage; between a 5,56 and a 7.62 caliber shell and their effects. There's alot more to it than on TV. Well, the 7.62 cal shell was used in the M14 which was replaced by the M16 which is the newer standard weapon. The 5.56 cal has a much lower recoil and is no longer the standard caliber for U.S. forces on the battlefield because modern and updated body armor will not be penetrated by the 5.56 therefore making it uneffective in today's war. The original 7.62 has been upgraded and will out perform both the original 7.62 and the 5.56, because of it's ability to lethaly penetrate body armor, and also because of it's ability to perform from long range. TV? No, I don't know these things from TV. I do learn about them from reading, working with and talking with real live soldiers who have been on the battlefields of Iraq and experienced much of what I have tried explaining to you, first hand. You know it's kind of ironic that when someone from the left critiques the war itself and calls it a failure, and criticizes the soldiers who are fighting there, they are portrayed as excersizing their freedom of speech, excersizing their rights under the constitution. But when someone like myself questions something that has been told to him by soldiers returning from the battlefield, I am accused of not being educated because of the concerns that I have for our troops and the way that they are made to fight the war. Double standards. With all due respect Olivant, (and I sincerely respect you for serving our country in Vietnam) I don't doubt your knowledge when it comes to military issues. Obviously you would know more than the average civilian would. But that does not make you more superior than anyone else here who has an opinion on things. Your being an veteran does gives you the right to belittle someone just because they have not served in the military. You should be looking to educate others from your experience instead of calling the returning vets liars or accusing people of being uneducated. Don Cardi I'll repeat what I already told someone else in a reply post: read my post again! YOUR POST IS MEANINGLESS AND WORTHLESS.
A CowArd Dies a 1000 deaths, a Soldier dies but Once
|
|
|
Re: Boxer's 'Low Blow'
[Re: NYC Goodfella]
#360837
02/03/07 06:21 PM
02/03/07 06:21 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 12,724
Double-J
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 12,724
|
If you are obtaining ROE info from former soldiers who fought in Iraq, then the info they are giving you is either mistaken, incidental, or they are lying. Ok, I see where your mentality is on this. I guess that the numerous amount of soldiers that I've worked with and have come in contact with over the last couple of years, on many different occassions, are all lying and colluding on this claim. I think you overestimate the value of your common semse. You know Olivant, you surprise me by making remarks like that. I always thought more of you. But in truth, you may be right, because common sense was telling me to listen to what you had to say because you said that you served in vietnam. So valuing my common sense I did try lsitening to what you had to say. But I guess that I actually did overestimate my common sense. Yes, lack of education, experience, and training in military staregies counts for a whole lot when one is critiqing operations in a military theater.
For example, one needs to know the diffeence between counter-attack and fire suppression; between fire for effect and for collateral damage; between a 5,56 and a 7.62 caliber shell and their effects. There's alot more to it than on TV. Well, the 7.62 cal shell was used in the M14 which was replaced by the M16 which is the newer standard weapon. The 5.56 cal has a much lower recoil and is no longer the standard caliber for U.S. forces on the battlefield because modern and updated body armor will not be penetrated by the 5.56 therefore making it uneffective in today's war. The original 7.62 has been upgraded and will out perform both the original 7.62 and the 5.56, because of it's ability to lethaly penetrate body armor, and also because of it's ability to perform from long range. TV? No, I don't know these things from TV. I do learn about them from reading, working with and talking with real live soldiers who have been on the battlefields of Iraq and experienced much of what I have tried explaining to you, first hand. You know it's kind of ironic that when someone from the left critiques the war itself and calls it a failure, and criticizes the soldiers who are fighting there, they are portrayed as excersizing their freedom of speech, excersizing their rights under the constitution. But when someone like myself questions something that has been told to him by soldiers returning from the battlefield, I am accused of not being educated because of the concerns that I have for our troops and the way that they are made to fight the war. Double standards. With all due respect Olivant, (and I sincerely respect you for serving our country in Vietnam) I don't doubt your knowledge when it comes to military issues. Obviously you would know more than the average civilian would. But that does not make you more superior than anyone else here who has an opinion on things. Your being an veteran does gives you the right to belittle someone just because they have not served in the military. You should be looking to educate others from your experience instead of calling the returning vets liars or accusing people of being uneducated. Don Cardi I'll repeat what I already told someone else in a reply post: read my post again! YOUR POST IS MEANINGLESS AND WORTHLESS. 
|
|
|
|
