Obviously, you missed the point. I could not care less about spelling errors, nor have I ever pointed them out. I was merely commenting on an issue over your head.

As to the rest of your post...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.:rolleyes:

Re: Re: How come you guys aren't talking about football!??
 

No, I wouldn't have you ignore that fact. I would just have you take it somewhere else if it were up to me. Thats just my opinion, and I feel I'm entitled to it. Opinions are what these boards are all about. Some people feel the need to belittle someone if they don't agree with their (opinion). Do you anyone like that?

Please excuse me if I fail to respond to your next reply. I feel that arguing with one another can get quite boring after a while.

Chiefs in 2003.

When your head makes it to the level of my azz you will have increased your knowledge base a thousand fold. Until then prattle on in your benign lack of political depth.

Re: Re: Re: How come you guys aren't talking about football!??
 

Listen JD, this is the planet. IF you knew the history you would know your comments are ....how shall I say this....ridiculous?

Oh btw, nice try at flaming me, but just say what you want dumbass.

(there is that clear enough JD PREZ)

Re: Re: Re: How come you guys aren't talking about football!??
 

Before I put you on iggy under your new name let me just say that it is the opinion of many, many posters on this Bulletin Board that we would all be better off without any of your opinions on football or otherwise. When it comes to you suggesting what others should or should not post about I suggest you keep your opinion to yourself as this is the Planet. Of course that is just my opinion.

Oh and one more thing JD, this isn't your board, and it isn't up to you.
Thank God.

And make your man jealous? In your dreams, sweetlips.

Oh gay smaque, amazed a liberal would resort to such a politically incorrect form.

Of course being as you probably cannot even get your hand to agree to pleasure you, I would guess that anything remotely resembling affection would be welcomed by you.

Re: Re: Re: How come you guys aren't talking about football!??
 

It's not, nor will it ever be.

You have your very own dictatorship to run, and you're obviously out of your element in a free society.

awww touched a nerve. I'm sorry, Logical. I'll try to be more like you, as we all should.

And my hand says hi, and thanks for thinking of it.

Thanks I missed it's gentle touch as it wiped my azz after a good shit. Guess your hand must have been demoted from restrooms to mortuaries, where the rest of you fit in better.

oh, gay smaque...\


typical hypocrite.

Enjoy your evening, sir. I have a date with Rosie, evidently.:LOL:

Gay smaque???? I guess in your world everyone does not need to have their azz wiped. Well I guess if you are used to living in shit leaving it on your azz is no big deal.

The St. Petersburg Times published this editorial yesterday:

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/26/Op...generals.shtml

A Times Editorial


Ignoring the generals
Civilian ideologues in the Bush administration made optimistic assumptions about the war in Iraq that may have endangered our troops on the ground.

© St. Petersburg Times
published March 26, 2003


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

Richard Perle is the guru of the civilian ideologues who are the architects of the Bush administration's Iraqi war plans. In the months leading up to war, Perle and his allies in the administration pressed for military action by painting a vividly optimistic scenario. Vice President Dick Cheney, a longtime associate of Perle, said American soldiers would be "greeted as liberators" by the people of Iraq. And Perle said most of Saddam Hussein's troops would surrender rather than fight, while Iraqi opponents of Hussein would lead an armed uprising to topple his regime with little or no help from U.S. forces.

Perle, who serves as chairman of the Pentagon's advisory Defense Policy Board, envisioned before the war that U.S. forces would make "a much more modest effort" than in the 1991 Gulf War, needed only to "assist Iraqis in freeing their country." At times, Perle predicted that no U.S. ground forces would be required. At most, he said, only about 40,000 U.S. ground troops would be needed.

Our political and military leaders say the early days of the ground war are going according to plan, but events clearly are not playing out as Perle and his civilian proteges predicted. U.S. forces have met stiff resistance in their advance toward Baghdad, and the civilian reaction to our troops' presence has been mixed at best. Meanwhile, the anticipated anti-Saddam insurgency within Iraq has not yet materialized on a significant scale.

As a result, our ground forces have been left more vulnerable than necessary. Several of the military commanders of the first Gulf War say the current U.S. invasion force of a single heavy division is too small. "In my judgment," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who commanded the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division during the 1991 war, "there should have been a minimum of two heavy divisions and an armored cavalry regiment on the ground."

Other veteran Gulf War commanders agree with McCaffrey, and their views are not mere second-guessing. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 war, said months ago that he was "somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld has made." Schwarzkopf said he feared that Rumsfeld and his civilian advisers had "disregard(ed) the Army" in establishing their quick-strike plans.

A cornerstone of American democracy is our tradition of civilian control over our armed forces. President Bush and other members of his administration, with the advice and consent of congressional leaders, are ultimately responsible for determining when and how our military forces will be deployed. That is as it should be.

However, the lives of American soldiers are put at risk if our battlefield plans are based on the political assumptions of civilian ideologues instead of the expertise of our military leaders. Some of those ideologues within and outside the White House painted a scenario of an easy military victory in Iraq because it fit their broader political goals. Our military planning needs to be based on more clear-eyed calculations.

All Americans hope that the war in Iraq can be concluded as quickly and successfully as possible, minimizing casualties among American troops and Iraqi civilians. If some of the assumptions on which our military plans were based have turned out to be flawed, our government should waste no time in changing plans accordingly and bolstering our forces in ways that can hasten military victory and serve our long-term security interests.

Logical, you are just too much for Chief Ramit to cope with....I am laughing my ass off at your fileting of him....

:LOL: :toast: