Iraq IS Vietnam - And We Shall Cry Hot Tears . . .

[curious]

Ah well, I see we're into the street language/challenge phase.

Ok, as you'll be hunting me down at the Bash (am I near the top of your list of 50?) I will suggest this:

(And hopefully the Bash will be at a casino that has a boxing ring.) 6 three minute rounds, until ko, tko, or decision, the latter to be make by the SBR ladies. Ref will be Dozer, or an all-wise mod.

Other posters here state you have but one arm. OK, I am left-handed so I will tie that one behind my back.

But . . . be very, very csreful of --------

my rite hook

Interesting that the only defense you have of the lies you posted is to threaten a disabled person. Interesting. Don't really see where I challenged you to a brawl. Just called you a liar for posting those lies.

Oh, and even with my health problems on my worst day I could ghost you.

[curious]

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEH..????

That would be like saying "Christainity declared war on hexterosexuality" after these boy fondling priests come out...

Wow, what an insightful parallel. Equating the mass murder of over 3,000 people with planes turned into bombs by Islamofascists to pedophilia. You have such a keen mind. For a crackhead.

[ShamsWoof10]

Wow, what an insightful parallel. Equating the mass murder of over 3,000 people with planes turned into bombs by Islamofascists to pedophilia. You have such a keen mind. For a crackhead.

What a STUPID comment Lt. Dan...

"Islam declared war"... Are you f*ckin' serious...????

This one I won't let die because it's one of the STUPIDEST comments I have heard...

U.S.A. is a Christain nation (although I think atheist) but everywhere you look priests are foundling boys and homosexuality is becoming much more common amoung the society... Are Christains homo's...?

I have never met a so called Islamic terrorist but I have met quite a few Christains that are HOMOS!!!

[Robyn]

I think we should all fight. Because that solves all of the worlds problems. That and finding the perfect purse to go with my new shoes.

Men are silly.

[ShamsWoof10]

I think we should all fight. Because that solves all of the worlds problems. That and finding the perfect purse to go with my new shoes.

Men are silly.

Yeah you're right.... but I guess it could be worse.. We can fight if someone is wearing the same shoes...

[thezbar]

Special Prop Wagering

Grudge Match Curious vs Ritehook


3 rounds


Will Go +600
Won't Go -800


Caution adviced / This could be fixed outcome

[Robyn]

Yeah you're right.... but I guess it could be worse.. We can fight if someone is wearing the same shoes

I think that most women are ok with wearing the same shoes. It's the same dress that starts the cat fights.

Snobby women, lol.

Hey everybody, let's have a pizza party!

[ritehook]

Interesting that the only defense you have of the lies you posted is to threaten a disabled person. Interesting. Don't really see where I challenged you to a brawl. Just called you a liar for posting those lies.

Oh, and even with my health problems on my worst day I could ghost you.

curious, you are my own youth tonic . . . .

Takes me back to my boyhood on the mean streets of New York and Newark (ask jj how mean those fukkin Newark street are,or were then).

The posturing, the call-outs, much less often the fights . . .

Ah, to be 14 again!

I'll supply a reply when I have time.

Will say you are very well-read on these topics, likiely more so than most of your antagonists.

But, you remind me of a very good highway engineer - knows backward and forward all the elements of building am overpass.

But when he's finished, the two sides don't connect. They have about 20 feet betrween each ending.

To be sure, the construction as far as it goes is fine - every piece of cement neatly done, every bolt and rivet in the right place -------- but the fukkin ends don't meet in the middle!

A car driving over either will end up in the creek below.

Too many unwarranted curves.

For one: who, exactly, are the fukkin' "DemoCong." You use this term like a mantra.

OK, I use the term traitorus neocon. But I cite page and number, name rank and serial number.

A number of those laptop bombardiers were deep in the Bush admin (some still are), and they were the ones egging on for the Iraq war (documented) and they were the ones who 7 years prior signed a document for a political party NOT IN THIS COUNTRY stating that to secure the "realm" of that very militariistic land, Saddam Hussein had to be removed.

Destroy the American economy in the process? Fuk it. They couldn't care less.

Kill 4000 young American soldiers, maim tens of thousands more, plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Don't matter. Fuk those hewers of wood and drawers of water. Their lives are far less important than those of the eternal, God-chosen race.

Ok, I named, and cited their document. And gave their positions in the George W (Ben Arnold) Bush admin.

Let me know, exactly, who among high-ranking Democrats in the '60s or '70s was publishing papers on how to secure the realm of a foreign power.

Come now. You say "DemoCong." Give us the names, and dates,and documents.

Not your interpretation of their actions. Just the facts.

[ritehook]

I think we should all fight. Because that solves all of the worlds problems. That and finding the perfect purse to go with my new shoes.

Men are silly.

Just so.

Hope you continue to post on these "serious" threads. Needs the distaff touch!

And what was that junik about Dozer pm-ing you to tell you to stop posting? That was a jest, no?

I don't have time to sort out all inside bull on this board. I note one attention freak said you and your AI friends were out. Because you were taking the attention off him?

I know a tad about marketing, and I know that ANY site like this (and especially this one, with more Diaper Dandies than than on Dick Vitale 10 hour telecast, would raise their revenues with the presence of yourself and friends.

The kids can talk sports and talk to grils - yowzah, them grils! - even talk sex. Wow, every Diaper Dandies dream come true!

I thought that at least one or two of the SBR ladies were being paid to post. (Still think so, unless your citing of the Dozer pm was factual)

A site that wanted to boost their viewership, I think, would pray to the gambling and greenback gods for some sharp female posters, esp attractive ones.

[Robyn]

Just so.

Hope you continue to post on these "serious" threads. Needs the distaff touch!

And what was that junik about Dozer pm-ing you to tell you to stop posting? That was a jest, no?

I don't have time to sort out all inside bull on this board. I note one attention freak said you and your AI friends were out. Because you were taking the attention off him?

I know a tad about marketing, and I know that ANY site like this (and especially this one, with more Diaper Dandies than than on Dick Vitale 10 hour telecast, would raise their revenues with the presence of yourself and friends.

The kids can talk sports and talk to grils - yowzah, them grils! - even talk sex. Wow, every Diaper Dandies dream come true!

I thought that at least one or two of the SBR ladies were being paid to post. (Still think so, unless your citing of the Dozer pm was factual)

A site that wanted to boost their viewership, I think, would pray to the gambling and greenback gods for some sharp female posters, esp attractive ones.

That MJF genius kid started three or four threads dedicated to the women of AIC (the original message board where the four of us met) were no longer welcome here, per Bill Dozer. I am so sick and tired of seeing that crap, and what with the full moon the other night, I decided to fight back. So I started that thread chock full of sarcasm. Apparently the moderators or Bill himself didn't find it very funny because they IMMEDIATELY moved it into the private zone. Whatever. I guess it's ok for the peanut gallery to post whatever they want while using Bill's name, but it isn't ok for me. Maybe that's because I write an article for SBR once a week, who knows.

I have been posting here (for free) for a few months now. I am not paid to post and as far as I know, the rest of the women are not paid either.

So to answer your question...NO, that post was not real. We are very welcome here, regardless of what some of the idiots here say. If people don't want to read our threads, they don't have to click on them. I truly do not see how they are any less relevant than half of the off-topic crap some of these guys post on a daily basis.

[curious]

curious, you are my own youth tonic . . . .

Takes me back to my boyhood on the mean streets of New York and Newark (ask jj how mean those fukkin Newark street are,or were then).

Don't have to ask, I lived in Newark for two years.

The posturing, the call-outs, much less often the fights . . .

I don't posture, if I am going to make a move, I make it

Ah, to be 14 again!

As I recall you threatened me. And misrepresented what I said as usual.

For one: who, exactly, are the fukkin' "DemoCong." You use this term like a mantra.

Okay, let's start with FDR. FDR was a communist masquerading as a socialist. Worshipped communism and Stalin. Betrayed half of Europe and sold them out to Stalin when America could have easily prevented communist domination of Eastern Europe. Did the same thing to the Chinese people. Ensured that the communists would seize control. Betrayed Ho Chi Minh and ensured a war in Vietnam. Allowed the top levels of the American government to be infiltrated with communists.

Fast forward to the anti-draft radicals. Committed treason on a large scale. Gave aid and comfort to our enemies. Proved by their actions they were not anti-war, but were instead cowards who were anti-draft. When the draft ended the anti-war riots ended. When the DemoCong Congressmen betrayed the S. Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians to be massacred in their hundreds of thousands there were no anti-war demonstrations. It seems that the morals of these traitors are very selective. War is only a bad thing if America is fighting it.

Then we have Jimmy Carter. Another big time socialist and communist sympathizer. Single handedly set back American interests in many parts of the world many years. Almost ruined the country's economy. Preached this "negotiate" and "understand" the enemy. The list goes on and on. Was one of the perpetrators of the "peace at all costs" nonsense.

Next, the Clintonistas. Wow, so many crimes, where to even begin? Sold out American interests to the Chinese. On every level possible.

Now we have the current bunch of traitors in Congress. Misrepresentation, lies, aid and comfort to the enemy, a willingness to abandon our allies and the Iraqi people so that they can score political points. Traveling to Syria to meet with the head of a terrorist state, giving that terrorist state aid and comfort. Preaching the same "peace at any cost" bullshit that Carter preached. Accusing a sitting president of masterminding the murder of 3,000 Americans. Lincoln would have had these traitors arrested. As would Truman. Or Teddy Roosevelt. Or any of a number of Presidents who possessed a backbone.

OK, I use the term traitorus neocon. But I cite page and number, name rank and serial number.

A number of those laptop bombardiers were deep in the Bush admin (some still are), and they were the ones egging on for the Iraq war (documented) and they were the ones who 7 years prior signed a document for a political party NOT IN THIS COUNTRY stating that to secure the "realm" of that very militariistic land, Saddam Hussein had to be removed.

You say they did this. I don't know if that is true or not. I'm not sure what they have to do with refusing to abandon the Iraqi people to be slaughtered now. Which is my only point about Iraq. I already said I thought going to war was an idiotic idea given the way it was done. I don't support these so-called neocons. So, why are you giving me grief about them? You want to abandon the Iraqi people to be slaughtered because you don't like the people who pushed for the war. I'm not willing to do that.

Destroy the American economy in the process? Fuk it. They couldn't care less.

Hmm, the sell out of American trade interests by the Clintonistas and the refusal of the Congress to do ANYTHING about a sane energy plan couldnt have something to do with the economic problems?

Kill 4000 young American soldiers, maim tens of thousands more, plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Don't matter. Fuk those hewers of wood and drawers of water. Their lives are far less important than those of the eternal, God-chosen race.

Ok, I named, and cited their document. And gave their positions in the George W (Ben Arnold) Bush admin.

Let me know, exactly, who among high-ranking Democrats in the '60s or '70s was publishing papers on how to secure the realm of a foreign power. Come now. You say "DemoCong." Give us the names, and dates,and documents.

Not sure what your point is here. I'm not a neocon, don't support them, don't support their policies. Also don't believe your nonsense about them.

FDR didn't publish a paper on how to secure the realm of a foreign power, he actively ensured it would happen when he gave Eastern Europe to the Soviets. The Clintonistas didn't just publish papers on this, they ensured it when they gave China trade deals that favor China in exchange for cash bribes.

The DemoCong in Congress now are actively supporting the Islamofascists by their "peace at any cost" nonsense.

Not your interpretation of their actions. Just the facts.

Their actions speak far louder than a fictitious document could ever speak.


I'm still not sure why you are trying to hold me accountable for the far right wing wackos in the Republican party. I'm not a Republican and don't support these extreme points of view.

[thezbar]

If we pull out and use u.n.forces and covert activities won't the world view the United States in a better Light? Leaving Viet Nam didn't seem to hurt the U.S. in terms of world opinion did it?

[curious]

If we pull out and use u.n.forces and covert activities won't the world view the United States in a better Light?

U.N. forces are useless. U.N. forces can only be used to keep parties who have agreed to stay away from each other apart. They cannot be used to defeat an insurgency, nor can they be used in a nation building role. There are plenty of examples of disasters caused by attempting to use U.N. forces to create a secure environment.

I don't care how the world views the United States. I care that we now do the right thing for the Iraqi people. Abandoning them to their enemies is just wrong. One thing I don't understand about the "peace at any cost" crowd. They complain about US violation of Geneva Conventions when it suits their purposes. Ignoring the fact that saboteurs dressed in civilian clothing murdering civilians are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, but I digress. They conveniently overlook a major article of the Geneva Conventions which is that an occupying power has an obligation to aid the occupied power so that the occupied power will have a functioning government and security for the civilian population, which means an effective security force consisting of police and military forces. For the United States to run away with the current situation is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Leaving Viet Nam didn't seem to hurt the U.S. in terms of world opinion did it?

Really? The abandonment of our allies to their communist enemies which resulted in the murder of over one million people did not hurt the U.S. in terms of world opinion? Well, if that is true then I guess world opinion is pretty useless, don't you think? In fact, I would argue that I wouldn't want to be viewed favorably by "world opinion" if that world ignores the mass murder of over one million people because of their desire for "peace at all costs".

[Tsoprano]

I wonder what the Pope would say to Bush about his war..?

[thezbar]

Very good Curious You make some excellent points.
Lets say I'm president and you're chief military Council. I want the U.S.soldiers back home and I want a low budget strategy because this war is about to bankrupt this country. You got a plan other than telling me to go pound sand? Just sayin!

[curious]

Very good Curious You make some excellent points.
Lets say I'm president and you're chief military Council. I want the U.S.soldiers back home and I want a low budget strategy because this war is about to bankrupt this country. You got a plan other than telling me to go pound sand? Just sayin!

The low budget I can help you with. I would set up programs to help Iraqi citizens create small companies to do a lot of the things that big contractor firms are being paid to do. Both in the reconstruction projects and the contractors the military hires. This will lower the budget, help the Iraqi economy, and give Iraqis a stake in the success of their country.

A lot of supplies which are shipped to Iraq could be manufactured in Iraq by Iraqis. I would help Iraqis set up manufacturing facilities to make those supplies.

Bringing the troops home I can't help you with. The reason our enemies have not been defeated to date is that the force to space ratio is too low. Not just with combat units, but with the kinds of units that are required to rebuild Iraq. Units like engineering and construction battallions, police batallions, civil affairs units, cultural laision units, and a host of others. The WWII style combat units are needed to provide security to civilian neighborhoods, special ops units are needed to conduct counter insurgency operations.

What people in the United States don't understand is that from the end of the first gulf war to the beginning of the second gulf war, roughly 10 years, the U.N. carried out an undeclared war against the Iraqi people. The no fly zones were enforced by bombing campaigns that devestated the infrastructure of Iraq. The economic sanctions ruined the country because Sadaam spent what money he could get on weapons. The civilian infrastructure really suffered.

Then on the day that the armored units entered Baghdad Sadaam sent the entire government home. That meant that electrical generating plants went offline, water treatment plants went offline, telephones did not work, roads didn't get repaired, the garbage didn't get collected, the police went home, well the list goes on and on. Criminals, terrorists, insurgents, and specially trained Iraqi army units then waged war on both the US forces and the now unprotected infrastructure. The Iraqi economy and civil infrastructure completely collapsed.

I don't know where you live, but imagine if in your town there were no police, the electricity was out for months, no running water, no sanitary sewer, no telephones, no stores open, the ATMs do not work, the banks are closed, the gas stations are closed, the army has been dissolved. What would your city be like? I don't have to know where you live to answer that. It would be hell. A few months of that and you would be an insurgent.

According to the articles of the Geneva Conventions that deal with occupying powers, the United States is obligated to help Iraq recover from what has been done to them since the start of the first gulf war.

So, no, I would not agree to bring the troops home immediately. What I would say is that if we change the composition of the forces to be weighted with the kinds of specialized skills needed to rebuild the civil infrastructure and get the economy back on its feet and provide neighborhood by neighborhood security and increase the number of special operations type units significantly in order to raise the force to space ratio. And, most importantly we did the kind of things that build trust with the civilian population, then there is a chance that we could bring all the troops home after the country is back on its feet.

I would refuse an order to bring all the troops home immediately and rely just on special forces.

If you pushed the issue I would have to have you arrested and take your place as Supreme Leader. <just kidding>

[curious]

I wonder what the Pope would say to Bush about his war..?

You mean the head of the religion which made a pact with Mussolini and Hitler and stood by and did nothing while genocide was being carried out against the Jews by supposedly Catholic countries? I don't think he has any credibility to say anything, actually.

[jackpot269]

Very complicated .

[capitalist pig]

You mean the head of the religion which made a pact with Mussolini and Hitler and stood by and did nothing while genocide was being carried out against the Jews by supposedly Catholic countries? I don't think he has any credibility to say anything, actually.

Yea talk about a waste of probably a hundred million dollars or so just for security while the Pope visits the USA.If he wants to be secure let the catholic church pay for it. They are in the top 5 holders of property, value wise in the world.

later

[curious]

Very complicated .

I don't know. I'm just a simple minded country boy, it seems obvious to me.

The Vatican had the opportunity in 1933 and 1934 to make Hitler a footnote in a history book. Instead of doing that, they gave instructions to senior level German politicians and clergy to support Hitler in every way. The National Socialist party could not have transformed itself from a bunch of street thugs into a national political movement without this assistance.

Another thing that is pretty condemning is the fact that most of the senior ranking NAZI leaders were Catholics, yet none of them were excommunicated. How can that be possible?

[thezbar]

Curious, I have the feeling you are not the type of individual that would kid in a situation like that. Power corrupts!

[ritehook]

Okay, let's start with FDR. FDR was a communist masquerading as a socialist. Worshipped communism and Stalin. Betrayed half of Europe and sold them out to Stalin when America could have easily prevented communist domination of Eastern Europe. Did the same thing to the Chinese people. Ensured that the communists would seize control. Betrayed Ho Chi Minh and ensured a war in Vietnam. Allowed the top levels of the American government to be infiltrated with communists. -curious

While you have some things right, you - uh - connect the dots in a way that only you can see a pattern.

FDR wasn't a communist, wasn't a socialist. You have an unfortunate tendency to frame everything in ideological terms.

I agree that he betrayed half of Europe to the Red Army, that he was very subservient to Stalin etc. (He also directed vital war supplies needed by US forces flown over the North Pole to get to the Russians.)

It wasn't a matter of idealogy for this New York blue blood. In fact, he was captured by the same forces that raised a victory flag on the empty head of GW Bush.

They weren't nationalsits then, but Commuinits. They had infiltrated his administration, and most wer of one ethnicity. (Hint: when the Bolseviks took power in Russia they burned and sacked churches all over the land, but one type religious structure they left unmolested.)

This group had as it chief aim the defeat of Germany. And FDR did indeed lead the public into war while making pacifist statement in the '40 campaign. And then Sec of Stte Hull gve the Japanese an ultimatum: Evacuate all their Imperial conquests they made in the '30s.

One historian, Tansill, later wrote a book "Back Door to War." FDR used the Japanese reaction to the ultimaum (Pearl Harbor) and the inherent racism of the American people to get into the Europe war. Most US forces were sent to Europe, the Pac Theatre was more of a sideshow.

But "Demo Cong?" The Viet Cong (National Liberation Front of Vietnam) didn't even come into existence until 15 years after the death of FDR! What in hell you talkin' about, bud?

I would suggest you resist the rhetoricalk flourishes. It hurts your rep when dealing with fact.

One other thing: " . . . betrayed Ho Chi MInh." Huh?

Ho was a Communist vrtually since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. In the earkly '20s Ho helped to fouind the French Communist Party. (He was also in the USA at around the time of the WWI)

Later, Uncle Ho became a valuable functionary of the Comintern (Communist Internationale). He got his training and funds from Moscow, and was treated there for tuberculosis.

While the Viet Minh was initially a Vietnamese nationalist group, Ho and his cadrres of Reds soon captured it, for their own purposes.

[ritehook]

In short, if FDR was a Communist, he must have been a very stupid one indeed, to betray one of his comrades, a bright, shining red light in the Far East.

It's not always clear what motivates a nation's leader, especially in the lead-up to war. It was clear to Americans of sense (likie Chas Lindbergh) that the Rossevelt regime in the late '30s was itching for war. I think at least part of that was that his main flatterers were of Communist or fellow-travelling persuasion.

But another had been his hatred and probaly jealousy of the way Germany, broken and beaten through the '20s after the bitter defeat in WWI, had made a remarkable economic recovery. (While Amrican workers were shivering in soup lines, German workers were taking vacations on the Riviera.)

Some will say that it was due to a fullscale re-armament inaugurated by the Nazis. But German industry was not on a full war footing until around 1942. The German people, like all late Western people, were very reluctant to go to war, and suspicious of those who would try to slide the nation into anoher bloodbath.

One posstible reason for Germany's economic resurgence, while other countries were still floundering in a long Depression, is that they ditched the interest-bearing loans of the internatinal banks, and went back to the barter system. This earned them the eternal enmity of the global money manipulators.

[ritehook]

You made some other points which when I've time I'll get back to. (Tho all who were on this thread on now hopped up on the NBA playoffs.)

However, you seem to disagree with all or most of the wars the US has been in the last 100 years, and to a great extent I agree with you - don't belive they were in the interests of the USA.

But your position seems to be, that if we get into it, let's "win" it, whatever that means.

It's like me whispering in your ear that a certain dude has been making hostile and indeed murderous statements about you and your family, insulting you ten ways from Sunday.

So you wade in with both hands, and start beating the poor bastard to a pulp.

Then you get word from your best and most trusted friend: the information you received from me was a complete lie. The guy you were beating on never made such comments.

It would seem sane to desist from the punishment you were delivering to that innocent man. But no. You don't miss a beat, muttering that you were going to finish what you had started. And keep on punching.

So you continue, crazy as a bedbug. And so is the American nation, continuing this fraudulant sh-t show in Iraq. The bedbugs are running the world.

[curious]

You made some other points which when I've time I'll get back to. (Tho all who were on this thread on now hopped up on the NBA playoffs.)

However, you seem to disagree with all or most of the wars the US has been in the last 100 years, and to a great extent I agree with you - don't believe they were in the interests of the USA.

But your position seems to be, that if we get into it, let's "win" it, whatever that means.

It's like me whispering in your ear that a certain dude has been making hostile and indeed murderous statements about you and your family, insulting you ten ways from Sunday.

So you wade in with both hands, and start beating the poor bastard to a pulp.

Then you get word from your best and most trusted friend: the information you received from me was a complete lie. The guy you were beating on never made such comments.

It would seem sane to desist from the punishment you were delivering to that innocent man. But no. You don't miss a beat, muttering that you were going to finish what you had started. And keep on punching.

So you continue, crazy as a bedbug. And so is the American nation, continuing this fraudulent sh-t show in Iraq. The bedbugs are running the world.

Ho Chi Minh became a communist because he was desperate and disgusted at the betrayal by not one but two US Presidents. The Viet Minh originally modeled themselves after the US Revolutionaries, they were Jeffersonian democrats at first. They turned to the Soviets after it became clear to them that the US was not to be trusted. Ho first got a taste of this from Wilson, who he visited in person and asked Wilson to apply the freedoms that Wilson had been talking about to Vietnam. Wilson's reply was, "that only applies to white people". Roosevelt then betrayed the Viet Minh who were largely responsible to the Japanese defeat in the Burma campaign of '44. It was their guerrilla tactics against the Japanese supply lines that made the Japanese forces in Burma and Cambodia crumble. They were repaid by being given back to their French masters. Of course they turned to America's enemy, the Soviet Union. This could have turned out very differently.

You say that Roosevelt was not a socialist. Then you have never read any of his policies or the history of the depression. Roosevelt set up large "programs" that were absolutely socialist. There were so many schemes which would have made Lenin and Stalin proud. I will refer to just two, you can look up the others yourself.
National Industrial Recovery Act
Agricultural Adjustment Act
The Agricultural Adjustment Act would have set up communist style farm collectives. Fortunately this disastrous piece of socialist legislation was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The National Industrial Recovery Act would have nationalized many manufacturing industries and put them in the hands of the workers. Sounds like communism to me. This scheme too was ruled unconstitutional This law was genius in the way it hid its true intention. It established trade unions and gave them great power. It put businesses under 20,000 pages of regulations that they could not possibly adhere to. Then there was a clause that would allow labor unions to seize the businesses for "non compliance" with the regulations.

The list of socialist programs goes on and on. If you try to claim that FDR was not a socialist if not an outright communist, then you know nothing about his policies.

Yes, I think that most of the wars the US has been involved in were wrong. WWII could have been handled very differently, FDR purposely picked a fight with Japan when Japan was seeking a way to be at peace with the US. FDR violated the neutrality laws of the US to wage an undeclared war against German UBoats. He further violated US law by giving arms to belligerent nations. Then, FDR purposely influenced the war plans of the military to ensure that the Soviets would be able to overrun eastern Europe. I know you will deny this, read a book Wedemeyer Reports. It is the story of the head of the warplans division, General Wedemeyer who prepared the war plans that became DDay. What most people don't know is that Wedemeyer's original plan called for an invasion of Europe in '43 and a blitzkrieg campaign which would have reached Berlin by the end of the year in '43. Roosevelt interfered with this plan and got the US involved in the adventures in the Mediteranean, against the advice of all the senior military planners. Patton said that the only way to conquer Italy is from the top down, not the bottom up. His plan called for two landings at the top of Italy, one on the east coast, one on the west coast, with the two armies moving toward each other across the Po valley, to link up and cut off all the Axis forces in Italy. These forces then would have had to slog their way up the entire Italian peninsula while being harassed by Allied Air Power. the Axis troops in Africa would have been cut off, there was no strategic value in fighting them. Wedemeyer and Patton both said that the British should dig in at El Alemain and go to a defensive war and harass the Axis supply lines and move the troops freed up to England for the cross channel invasion.

FDR is personally responsible for the communists taking over half of Europe and China. FDR refused to give China real aid. General Stillwell wrote that China could have fielded 60 front line divisions if they had been given proper aid. The China theater was never more than a joke. FDR insisted that the Chinese government had to bring the communists into the government or they could not get aid. The minuscule amounts sent "over the hump" and over the Burma road were less than 1/10 of 1% what was given the Soviets.

This will sound cynical, but the best thing to do when you have two enemies and they are fighting each other is to let them pummel each other senseless and then step in and deliver the knock out blow yourself. Wedemeyer and Patton recommended this. WWII could have been over by the fall of '43 with Soviet forces still east of the old Polish border.

China could have defeated Japan on her own with proper help.

The US Navy broke the Japanese codes long before the Kaigun left for Hawaii. The Japanese did not enforce total silence in the fleet. The Navy picked up the carriers on route for Hawaii. The best way to deal with this would have been for FDR to announce to the entire world that the Kaigun was on its way toward Hawaii. The Japanese would have had no choice but to turn back.

I call FDR one of the first DemoCong because he sold out half the free world for his socialst beliefs. The same thing the DemoCong do today. The VC were fifth columnist committing treason against their country and selling out their fellow citizens for their ideology. FDR is no different, the DemoCong are no different.

Yes, I believe that since we are in this war in Iraq we should win it. I define winning in this case as defeating totally our al-Qaeda, and Syrian and Iranian enemies and their proxies, and giving the Iraqi people a functioning government and security forces and army. I don't think this because "since we got into it, we should win" as you misrepresented my views. I think this way because we have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people and we should destroy al-Qaeda and Iranian and Syrian proxy forces anywhere we find them.

[pimike]

well stated!!!!!!!!

[QUOTE=curious;697020]Ho Chi Minh became a communist because he was desperate and disgusted at the betrayal by not one but two US Presidents. The Viet Minh originally modeled themselves after the US Revolutionaries, they were Jeffersonian democrats at first. They turned to the Soviets after it became clear to them that the US was not to be trusted. Ho first got a taste of this from Wilson, who he visited in person and asked Wilson to apply the freedoms that Wilson had been talking about to Vietnam. Wilson's reply was, "that only applies to white people". Roosevelt then betrayed the Viet Minh who were largely responsible to the Japanese defeat in the Burma campaign of '44. It was their guerrilla tactics against the Japanese supply lines that made the Japanese forces in Burma and Cambodia crumble. They were repaid by being given back to their French masters. Of course they turned to America's enemy, the Soviet Union. This could have turned out very differently.

You say that Roosevelt was not a socialist. Then you have never read any of his policies or the history of the depression. Roosevelt set up large "programs" that were absolutely socialist. There were so many schemes which would have made Lenin and Stalin proud. I will refer to just two, you can look up the others yourself.
National Industrial Recovery Act
Agricultural Adjustment Act
The Agricultural Adjustment Act would have set up communist style farm collectives. Fortunately this disastrous piece of socialist legislation was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The National Industrial Recovery Act would have nationalized many manufacturing industries and put them in the hands of the workers. Sounds like communism to me. This scheme too was ruled unconstitutional This law was genius in the way it hid its true intention. It established trade unions and gave them great power. It put businesses under 20,000 pages of regulations that they could not possibly adhere to. Then there was a clause that would allow labor unions to seize the businesses for "non compliance" with the regulations.

The list of socialist programs goes on and on. If you try to claim that FDR was not a socialist if not an outright communist, then you know nothing about his policies.

Yes, I think that most of the wars the US has been involved in were wrong. WWII could have been handled very differently, FDR purposely picked a fight with Japan when Japan was seeking a way to be at peace with the US. FDR violated the neutrality laws of the US to wage an undeclared war against German UBoats. He further violated US law by giving arms to belligerent nations. Then, FDR purposely influenced the war plans of the military to ensure that the Soviets would be able to overrun eastern Europe. I know you will deny this, read a book Wedemeyer Reports. It is the story of the head of the warplans division, General Wedemeyer who prepared the war plans that became DDay. What most people don't know is that Wedemeyer's original plan called for an invasion of Europe in '43 and a blitzkrieg campaign which would have reached Berlin by the end of the year in '43. Roosevelt interfered with this plan and got the US involved in the adventures in the Mediteranean, against the advice of all the senior military planners. Patton said that the only way to conquer Italy is from the top down, not the bottom up. His plan called for two landings at the top of Italy, one on the east coast, one on the west coast, with the two armies moving toward each other across the Po valley, to link up and cut off all the Axis forces in Italy. These forces then would have had to slog their way up the entire Italian peninsula while being harassed by Allied Air Power. the Axis troops in Africa would have been cut off, there was no strategic value in fighting them. Wedemeyer and Patton both said that the British should dig in at El Alemain and go to a defensive war and harass the Axis supply lines and move the troops freed up to England for the cross channel invasion.

FDR is personally responsible for the communists taking over half of Europe and China. FDR refused to give China real aid. General Stillwell wrote that China could have fielded 60 front line divisions if they had been given proper aid. The China theater was never more than a joke. FDR insisted that the Chinese government had to bring the communists into the government or they could not get aid. The minuscule amounts sent "over the hump" and over the Burma road were less than 1/10 of 1% what was given the Soviets.

This will sound cynical, but the best thing to do when you have two enemies and they are fighting each other is to let them pummel each other senseless and then step in and deliver the knock out blow yourself. Wedemeyer and Patton recommended this. WWII could have been over by the fall of '43 with Soviet forces still east of the old Polish border.

China could have defeated Japan on her own with proper help.

The US Navy broke the Japanese codes long before the Kaigun left for Hawaii. The Japanese did not enforce total silence in the fleet. The Navy picked up the carriers on route for Hawaii. The best way to deal with this would have been for FDR to announce to the entire world that the Kaigun was on its way toward Hawaii. The Japanese would have had no choice but to turn back.

I call FDR one of the first DemoCong because he sold out half the free world for his socialst beliefs. The same thing the DemoCong do today. The VC were fifth columnist committing treason against their country and selling out their fellow citizens for their ideology. FDR is no different, the DemoCong are no different.

Yes, I believe that since we are in this war in Iraq we should win it. I define winning in this case as defeating totally our al-Qaeda, and Syrian and Iranian enemies and their proxies, and giving the Iraqi people a functioning government and security forces and army. I don't think this because "since we got into it, we should win" as you misrepresented my views. I think this way because we have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people and we should destroy al-Qaeda and Iranian and Syrian proxy forces anywhere we find them.[/Qmab
n

Perfectly stated, a man that does trurth

[curious]

CP is correct that if 58,000 troops had died in Iraq there would be protests galore in the street, how ever i don't think you can compare the total number of deaths in the two wars. The reason being is that because of improvements to body armour, and field medicine there are far more men wounded now who would have died in Vietnam. The combat death to wounded ratio in Vietnam was approximately 1 was death to 2.2 wounded whereas in Iraq it is around 1 to 15. Far more troops returning home disabled who would have died in Vietnam.

The "anti-war" protests were really anti-draft protests. When the draft ended the anti-war demonstrations ended. These same so-called anti-war demonstrators were nowhere to be found when the DemoCong betrayed the people of Indochina to their communist enemies. They were totally silent while the communists murdered over 1 million people after the betrayal.

[ritehook]

The Tet offensive was a complete disaster for the Viet Cong. They ceased being a fighting force at the conclusion of Operation Phoenix which was launched by the CIA and the Army special forces and marine corps long range recon units soon after Tet. The VC were in tatters because of Tet. Tet only became a "victory" because of the same left wing propagandists in the media who are feeding the American people the same about the war in Iraq being "unwinnable".

South Vietnam fell because the DemoCong cut off all their aid in 1975 and forbid the USAF from supporting them when the communists launched their yearly offensive. This offensive was stopped in both 1973 and 1974 due in large part to the air power. The war was basically over in 1973. Thank the DemoCong for selling out the South Vietnamese to their communist enemies. -curious

Your thinking, my friend, is lamentably one-dimensional.

Sure, the Tet offensive took a large toll of NLF forces.

But non-linear wars - even more so than conventional set-piece warfare - uses various methods and strategy of attack.

Including on the morale of the enemy.

It is legitimate to attack an enemy's supply lines. The US and Britain also thought, in WW2, that it was OK to attack the undefended and open city of Dresden, that crated firestorms which killed hundreds of thosands of civilians, mostly women and children fleeing the Red Army.

In the world of non-linear war, it is legitimate to attack the homefront morale of the occupying force.

That is exactly what Tet did. And most successfully.
Right after that asshole, Westmoreland, said that the insurgency was crippled.

Americans - most of whom never bought into that bullshit "domino" theory, or cared about it - thought their soldiers would come home soon.

Tet told them different. And they turned completely on the warmongers. And the begininng of the end of the US occupaiton of Vietnam was at hand.

In this sense, Tet was brilliant. It achieved it goals. Even if not by the self-serving "rules" of yesterday strategists. Your statement that Tet was "a complete disaster" for the NLF is completely erroneous.

-----------------------------------------------------

The government in S. Vietnam after the hasty departure of the US was as riddled with corruption as is the Maliki "government" in the Green Zone.

Nationalism is a powerful force, and the Viet Cong were, as their base, a nationalist entity. Even the Communists were informed by nationalism.

It's tribal. When the Germans appeared at the outskirts of Moscow, old Joe Stalin made desperate speeches to this Russians, invoking not Marx but the greatnesss of Matushka Rossiya, holy Mother Russia.

The success of communism in parts of the Third World is that it hitched its star to nationalism, the ancient instinct of tribalism.

If the US had continued its material support of the S Vietnam regime, it would have only prolonged the conflict. Because if S Vietnam could have defended itself on its own, it would have done so in the 60s, and not needed US help.

[pimike]

The "anti-war" protests were really anti-draft protests. When the draft ended the anti-war demonstrations ended. These same so-called anti-war demonstrators were nowhere to be found when the DemoCong betrayed the people of Indochina to their communist enemies. They were totally silent while the communists murdered over 1 million people after the betrayal.

you r right on budy

[ritehook]

Ho Chi Minh became a communist because he was desperate and disgusted at the betrayal by not one but two US Presidents. The Viet Minh originally modeled themselves after the US Revolutionaries, they were Jeffersonian democrats at first. They turned to the Soviets after it became clear to them that the US was not to be trusted. Ho first got a taste of this from Wilson, who he visited in person and asked Wilson to apply the freedoms that Wilson had been talking about to Vietnam. Wilson's reply was, "that only applies to white people". Roosevelt then betrayed the Viet Minh who were largely responsible to the Japanese defeat in the Burma campaign of '44. It was their guerrilla tactics against the Japanese supply lines that made the Japanese forces in Burma and Cambodia crumble. They were repaid by being given back to their French masters. Of course they turned to America's enemy, the Soviet Union. This could have turned out very differently - curious

Say what?

After what two presidents who betrayed him did Ho turn to communism?

Taft and Wilson?

Ho was an active communist in France right after WWI. He helped to found the French Communist Party. Somewhere around 1920, or '21.

Likely he became a Red at the time of the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. Or possibly before, in his globetrotting travels.

It is very unlikely that a neophyte Red is going to help establish the French Communist Party.

Ho was very smart. He appealed to Wilson on the basis of that dreamer's ideology. But Ho was already Red by the time he did so.

Communists for decades, in the West, always hitched their cart to the prevaling liberty or liberal ideology. When it was beneficial for them to be patriots, they were patriots. Or Jeffersonian democrats. Or Wilsonian idealists.

Whatever worked.

Their is an old story that, in the 40s and 50s in the US, the FBI could always distinguish a true Stalinist from a mere liberal in one or another "front" group: the Commie was the only one who know the second, and usally the third, verse of The Star Spangled Banner.

[ritehook]

Yes, I believe that since we are in this war in Iraq we should win it. I define winning in this case as defeating totally our al-Qaeda, and Syrian and Iranian enemies and their proxies, and giving the Iraqi people a functioning government and security forces and army. I don't think this because "since we got into it, we should win" as you misrepresented my views. I think this way because we have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people and we should destroy al-Qaeda and Iranian and Syrian proxy forces anywhere we find them.

Just doesn't make sense, guy.

AQ was NOT in Iraq, until after we invaded.

You (and the neocons and nationalist Israelis) can define Iran and Syria as enemies. They are not enemies of the American people.

Bush ane bin Laden have one thing in common: they both love the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Any "moral oblisgation" we have to the Iraqi people is to get the fuk out of their country! Poll after poll, including by the GOP pollster, has told us that 80 to 90% of them want the US forces OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY.

We invaded and destroyed their country (one of the more Westernized in the Islamic world, iwth a Christian as Foregin Minister - you won;'t see that again!) and insist upon occupying it. They want us out.

Most of the resistance fighters are NOT AQ. The ranks of AQ are made of mainly of non-Iraqis. The guy who was killed by a US air raid a few year ago was Jordanian. The new AQ leader in Iraq is reportedly Egyptian.

The Iraqi people want both entities out. Once the Americans leave (and they will, "DemoCong" or not) the Iraqi will get rid of AQ. And AQ is definitely not welcome in Iran.

When the American invasion began, and met its initial resistance from the Iraqi people, a Jordanian journalist "embedded" with a four-man resistance cell in Baghdad asked the young man who led it - a guy who had sold his small business to finance the cell - why he was doing it.

What do you think he replied? That he was looking forward toward martyrdom and the 72 virgins? Thet he loved Saddam and was fighting for his return to power?

Tht may be what shithead neocons want us to believe.

But the five word reply the businessman turned warrior gave to the Jordanian journalist is something I think Americans will well understand:

"BECAUSE MY COUNTRY WAS INVADED."

[ritehook]

There is one item I was mistken on, as i was going by memory.

The resistance met by the ARVN in Laos, was, as you say, mainly NVA. Altho thrre were srong elements of the Laotian communist guerrillas among them.'"

The ARVN had the Hmong tribesmen to help - many of the latter are now resident in the USA, another insane by-product of the crazy war.

There were also trained mercenaries from Thailand fighting America's bogus battles in Laos.

But in reality, the main reason for what amounted to defeat was that the ARVN, lke the forces of the Maliki govt in the Green Zone - had no morale. They knew they were merely pawns of the Americans.

Sure, the NVA was well-trained. But, the ARVN had the support of the great and uncontested US air power, and also devastating artillery.

They should have accomplished the mission in a walk.

But, as a man who knew warfare intimately (Napoleon) once said: "in war the spiritual outweighs the matrial by 3 to one."

In non-linear war the ratio is more like 30-1.

[curious]

There is one item I was mistken on, as i was going by memory.

The resistance met by the ARVN in Laos, was, as you say, mainly NVA. Altho thrre were srong elements of the Laotian communist guerrillas among them.'"

The ARVN had the Hmong tribesmen to help - many of the latter are now resident in the USA, another insane by-product of the crazy war.

There were also trained mercenaries from Thailand fighting America's bogus battles in Laos.

But in reality, the main reason for what amounted to defeat was that the ARVN, lke the forces of the Maliki govt in the Green Zone - had no morale. They knew they were merely pawns of the Americans.

Sure, the NVA was well-trained. But, the ARVN had the support of the great and uncontested US air power, and also devastating artillery.

They should have accomplished the mission in a walk.

But, as a man who knew warfare intimately (Napoleon) once said: "in war the spiritual outweighs the matrial by 3 to one."

In non-linear war the ratio is more like 30-1.

You don't know what the phuck you are talking about. Were you in Vietnam? You got this bullshit from the leftist propaganda. If ARVN forces were so bad why did they thoroughly defeat the NVA offenses in '72, '73, and '74?

The incursion into Laos was a total fiasco. US air power was not used in the campaign because of some stupid idea that US forces should not go into "neutral" Laos. JFK allowed the Polish delegate to a U.N. commission on Indochina to declare Laos a "neutral". This was a total facade. The NVA occupied the eastern 1/3 of Laos the entire war.

The ARVN forces were deployed by helicopter in "island" pockets several miles apart, isolated from each other and isolated from their base of supply. The NVA forces used an old tactic of "cut off their supply and retreat", "fight offensively against one force at a time, defensively against the other", "bring up superior forces", "fight a battle of encirclement". ARVN didn't have their own heavy weapons. The NVA had tanks and heavy artillery.

The Hmong were not part of this operation. ARVN forces did not fight along side Hmong forces. They were enemies. The Hmong helped the American special forces. The Thai "mercenaries" were Kuomintang forces or their descendants who escaped to Thailand when the communists took over. They had their own agenda. They were not part of the ARVN incursion into Laos either.

The operation was a fiasco because the US administration believed their own lies. "Laos is neutral", "There are no significant NVA forces in Laos"....etc. Idiots.

JFK allowed the communists to manipulate the US through the UN in getting Laos and Cambodia declared as neutrals, then the communists put large NVA forces in both countries and set up supply networks that could not be interdicted. One supply network was the Ho Chi Minh trail, another and more important supply network was by sea to Cambodia at Kompong Son, then overland to the fish hook region that lies just west of Saigon. Another was through Laos to the Mekong river, then by boat across Cambodia. Another was by boat to the south china sea and then up the many rivers that empty into the south china sea, the most important being the mekong and its tributaries. None of these supply lines was successfully interdicted because of JFK's allowing the U.N. to be manipulated into declaring Laos and Cambodia "neutrals". And then compounding that error by pretending that they were actually neutral. When in fact the eastern third of both countries was occupied by the NVA and their local communist allies, the Pathet Lao in Laos and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

My father served two tours in Vietnam. His unit was embedded with ARVN troops. My father had great respect for them. My father was a Marine and a company commander of the long range reconnaissance patrol, the elite of the Marine Corps. He doesn't give respect lightly.

Next time you address a post to me know what the phuck you are talking about.

[curious]

Ho Chi Minh became a communist because he was desperate and disgusted at the betrayal by not one but two US Presidents. The Viet Minh originally modeled themselves after the US Revolutionaries, they were Jeffersonian democrats at first. They turned to the Soviets after it became clear to them that the US was not to be trusted. Ho first got a taste of this from Wilson, who he visited in person and asked Wilson to apply the freedoms that Wilson had been talking about to Vietnam. Wilson's reply was, "that only applies to white people". Roosevelt then betrayed the Viet Minh who were largely responsible to the Japanese defeat in the Burma campaign of '44. It was their guerrilla tactics against the Japanese supply lines that made the Japanese forces in Burma and Cambodia crumble. They were repaid by being given back to their French masters. Of course they turned to America's enemy, the Soviet Union. This could have turned out very differently - curious

Say what?

After what two presidents who betrayed him did Ho turn to communism?

Taft and Wilson?

Ho was an active communist in France right after WWI. He helped to found the French Communist Party. Somewhere around 1920, or '21.

Likely he became a Red at the time of the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. Or possibly before, in his globetrotting travels.

It is very unlikely that a neophyte Red is going to help establish the French Communist Party.

Ho was very smart. He appealed to Wilson on the basis of that dreamer's ideology. But Ho was already Red by the time he did so.

Communists for decades, in the West, always hitched their cart to the prevaling liberty or liberal ideology. When it was beneficial for them to be patriots, they were patriots. Or Jeffersonian democrats. Or Wilsonian idealists.

Whatever worked.

Their is an old story that, in the 40s and 50s in the US, the FBI could always distinguish a true Stalinist from a mere liberal in one or another "front" group: the Commie was the only one who know the second, and usally the third, verse of The Star Spangled Banner.

There is no difference in my book between a "liberal" and a communist. They both want to steal from anyone who is productive. The only difference between them is the degree of the theft they are willing to commit.

[curious]

Your thinking, my friend, is lamentably one-dimensional.

Sorry, dude, I am not your friend. And you know nothing about me, so you don't know what I think.

Sure, the Tet offensive took a large toll of NLF forces.
But non-linear wars - even more so than conventional set-piece warfare - uses various methods and strategy of attack.

Including on the morale of the enemy.

The morale of the American people was damaged by the deliberate and knowing lies told by the DemoCong party and their leadership. This was treason of the highest sort. Lincoln would have had these people shot. The leftists in the media portrayed every event in the war in the worst possible light and knowingly lied about major events.

It is legitimate to attack an enemy's supply lines. The US and Britain also thought, in WW2, that it was OK to attack the undefended and open city of Dresden, that crated firestorms which killed hundreds of thosands of civilians, mostly women and children fleeing the Red Army.

In the world of non-linear war, it is legitimate to attack the homefront morale of the occupying force.

The communists could not have been successful in this without the willing participation of the leftist propagandists in the US media and the DemoCong party. This is treason.

That is exactly what Tet did.

Sorry, you are mistaken. Tet did not damage American morale. the lies told by the DemoCong and their leftist allies in the media about Tet damaged American morale

And most successfully.
Right after that asshole, Westmoreland, said that the insurgency was crippled.

It was crippled, then after Operation Phoenix launched a short time later the VC ceased being a viable fighting force.

Americans - most of whom never bought into that bullshit "domino" theory, or cared about it - thought their soldiers would come home soon.

Tet told them different. And they turned completely on the warmongers. And the begininng of the end of the US occupaiton of Vietnam was at hand.

And the massacre of 1 million civilians by the DemoCong's communist allies in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.

In this sense, Tet was brilliant. It achieved it goals. Even if not by the self-serving "rules" of yesterday strategists. Your statement that Tet was "a complete disaster" for the NLF is completely erroneous.

It only ended up this way because the DemoCong party and their leftist allies in the media used unrelenting propaganda to portray the VC as a strong force that would defeat the US when in reality they were finished. Remove this treason from the equation and Tet was an unmitigated disaster.

The government in S. Vietnam after the hasty departure of the US was as riddled with corruption as is the Maliki "government" in the Green Zone.

You mean after the DemoCong traitors sold them out by cutting off aid even though the US had a treaty with S. Vietnam that guaranteed defense of S. Vietnam in the face of N. Vietnamese further hostilities in violation of the peace accords?

The United States Congress is the most corrupt organization on the planet. So, what is your point?

Nationalism is a powerful force, and the Viet Cong were, as their base, a nationalist entity. Even the Communists were informed by nationalism.

You know absolutely nothing about this. The VC were communist cadres who never amounted to a significant % of the population. There fight was not nationalism, it was communist ideology. This was proven when they helped murder over 1 million people after the fall of Saigon in the name of their ideology.

It's tribal. When the Germans appeared at the outskirts of Moscow, old Joe Stalin made desperate speeches to this Russians, invoking not Marx but the greatnesss of Matushka Rossiya, holy Mother Russia.

The NAZIS showed that they were worse masters than the communists had been. IF they had gone into the USSR as liberators the majority of Soviet citizens would have fought with the Germans to destroy the communists. The people greeted the German troops with flowers at first. It was only the NAZI brutality that led the soviet people to turn against them.

The success of communism in parts of the Third World is that it hitched its star to nationalism, the ancient instinct of tribalism.

If the US had continued its material support of the S Vietnam regime, it would have only prolonged the conflict. Because if S Vietnam could have defended itself on its own, it would have done so in the 60s, and not needed US help.

S. Vietnam was winning the war before JFK escalated it. When he did that the communist Chinese and Russians escalated it by giving greatly increased aid to N. Vietnam. The S. Vietnamese soundly defeated the NVA in '72, '73, and '74. Typical DemoCong logic, "is is okay that we sold out our allies because they would have lost anyway".


Do me a favor muther phucker and keep your leftist propaganda to yourself. You don't know what the phuck you are talking bout and I am tired of hearing this bullshit.