Crap Throwing Monkey

When did T-Bone become a Lions fan?

I disagree. For some of those, they don't necessarily have to be dead.

I thought they had one in Schoebel? I think a better way to address the D-line would be a solid interior lineman, who would not only shore up the run defense but draw more double-teams in pass defense and thereby improve Schoebel's performance. Not that I'm saying that's all the defensive line needs...but if you're going to make only one change, that would be my choice.

Actually, I've stated repeatedly that most of my professors were smarter than me, and I didn't go on for my PhD because I became disillusioned with the political process of higher level research and after spending that much time in school I wanted to work for a living. So much for those psychic powers of yours diving the inner details of my motivations. The rest, though, is pretty much true. This quarter's International Air Power Review has a great AD-1 Skyraider centerfold...

You vastly overestimate the effort it takes to mock a loser like yourself.

No. I just marvel at your own inability to understand your own posts. You basically suggested that Israel attack Iran in a manner they're not capable of for no discernable reason having nothing to do with the original topic. You haven't yet explained how or why that's supposed to work, save an analogy that makes absolutely no sense, haven't managed to address the original topic, can only insult me in lieu of discussion...and it's somehow all my fault. Typical.

I don't know...that Jedi mind trick might be just the thing to motivate some of those pinheads on the roster.

That's too bad. But at least she has an excuse. What's yours?

Shut up, dumbass. The adults are talking.

The problem with this debate we're having is that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. And the quote was not "erroneously" assigned to you. It was dead-on accurate, as I have already demonstrated: you said it was a manner in which Israel could hurt Iran in connection with their nuclear program, through virture of the fact that we are discussing Iran's nuclear program. From this, and your further arguments, I can only deduce that you simply don't understand the discussion. I think this is actually likely at this point, given your bull sh-- analogy previously, and the fact that you can't even see that the analogy makes no sense and is not the least bit applicable to the discussion. Now shut up and let the adults talk. Go play in the corner with meazza.

That bull sh-- analogy demonstrates precisely how little you understand what you're talking about.

Do you even know how diesel-electric subs at sea are resupplied? Probably because when it's at sea it's out of Iranian hands and is the property of the buyer, being carried in a ship that's the property of yet another party. Where else could you hit Iranian oil interests? So if Israel was worried about Iranian nuclear ambitions, they could hurt Iran in other ways, but you're not saying that would impact Iranian nuclear ambitions? In a thread about Iranian nuclear ambitions? Shut up, BF.

The REALLY scary thing is that it's from Christmas 2003...

No I understand. "Why can't Israel blocade the Straits of Hormuz and apply pressure to Iran's nuclear program indirectly and psychologically, instead of bombing the sh-- out of it?" Uh...because of reality. Israel doesn't have a fleet that can stage that far without serious outside (i.e. US) support. How do you suppose the subs would get there, magic? And that's even beyond criticizing your unsupported and boneheaded supposition that applying pressure to Iranian naval interests would somehow affect their nuclear ambitions anyway...

Though I'd agree with you on CAS in the '80s (not so much the '70s - the USAF and Army air components were both forces in transition from '60s era technology), the history of air support is that it's not all its billed as. (And wasn't all it was billed as when the Stukas were doing it, anyway.) I used to have these types of discussions a lot in college: "Air power will be all-powerful over the battlefield." "The ATGM will be all-powerful on the battlefield." "The attack helicopter will be all-powerful on the battlefield." "The MLRS will be all-powerful on the battlefield." It's all crap. Any new - "revolutionary" - technical advancement in the military sphere usually goes through three distinct phases: 1) a conservative "feeling through" period of limited use in support of traditional tactics, 2) a peroid where the zealous evangelists predict it will change warfare for good and make everything else obsolete, 3) final integration with other battlefield arms along traditional military theory. It's as true for air power as it was for tanks as it was for torpedos as it will be for the currently and faintly ridiculous vogue of "networked warfare" and "information warfare". Air power itself stood as little chance to stop the Soviets as WWI-style trench warfare. Air power integrated with land forces and applied through the operational depth of the opponent...that's another story. It stood a good chance, at the very least, as the foundation of AirLand Battle was sound (as has now been demonstrated twice in Iraq) even if the AirLand Battle doctrine itself was flawed. But the key was that air power (i.e. CAS) alone would not be relied on to win battles, but would be one component of the integrated whole. And it's also important to note that that fundamental basis of AirLand Battle - attacking the enemy simultaneously throughout his operational depth - was a fundamentally Russian theory. The Russians all but invented the concept in WWII (the Germans did, sort of - but their doctrone was more one of strategic encirclement). Whether they had the military leadership and discipline throughout their army to properly execute such an operational theory is one thing...but they did have theory every bit as advanced as Western military thought.

That doesn't mean you can't vet the site. What, someone presents an idea that, with my not inconsiderable knowledge of the subject, is clearly ill-informed, and I'm supposed to give it a great deal of thought before I belittle it?

I believe this is called an a priori assumption...

Typical German costal boats designed for Baltic work...and suitable for the eastern Med as well, most likely. But again...you going to sail them through the Suez secretly? Or somehow go through the South Atlantic around Africa into the eastern Indian Ocean? And as good as the research for Harpoon is...it's still a computer game.

And devastated I and IX Corps, and kicked their asses back across the parallel before the front stabilized, and then couldn't make any headway because they were strictly a light infantry force with little weaponry heavier than mortars incapable of digging a well-balanced force out of a fortified position. Which is COMPLETELY different from the NATO-Soviet face-off on the interior German border...

Oh, shut up. Just shut up. You had me at "pencilneck".

1) No, it isn't. It's not applicable in many situations...but it's not being ignored. Ask the people in Fallujah. 2) "Use our Air Force" is just a little simplistic. Air power has significant limitations in its use, particularly in the manner in which you seem to be implying it should be used. I'm not to keen on getting into it right now...but I can recommend 20-30 good books on the subject if you'd like to study it.

It ain't just a few bad games. Personally...I blame Doug Flutie.

Respect? Here? How long have you been here?

Yes, he does. So do I. So does JSP. Sometimes people are just ass holes. That's life. !@#$ing live with it.

NOW you're being an idiot. He's not banning you for not sharing his opinion, he just disagrees with you.