Occupy what?

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

D'Torchia,

I think the debate was on the reasons why France and England declared war on Germany.

I've stated that when I was in graduate school I and everyone else was taught that the German invasion of Poland was a pretext, and that the reasons were different from that given to the public.

I've already spent way to much time pointing out some of your ridiculous assertions. Including the one above. As if NO historian other than YOURS is capable of figuring out the reason that led to the outbreak of WWII. As if no one in the 60 years since has been able to differentiate between what was told to the public and what actually took place. You know things like, declassified material, transcripts of meetings. The "public" has gotten insights into some of the most secretive meetings that took place during WWII through the release of some of this material, such as what took place inside the Wannsee Conference in regards to implementing the "Final Solution", but only you and your fellow grad students are the ones privy to that sort of info. Well, and Stephen Ambrose.

I've asked you why England and France didn't also declare war on the USSR as well...you have no answer.

When I point out that Keegan and Ambrose have written what the services learned about morale problems during the war you merely dismiss them with ridicule but have no rebuttal to the facts.

Come on man, on one had you want to claim some "inside knowledge" that ONLY a grad student could attain and then you throw out an author like Ambrose to make your case? Is Ambrose required reading in Grad school now? I happen to like his books a lot for entertainment and general info but I certainly wouldn't base any serious research on his books. In fact, let's just get to the AMBROSE situation and why I don't consider him a serious source of detailed WWII history. If my opinion isn't enough for you TAE, maybe you'll accept HIS OWN WORDS below. I took the liberty of highlighting them for you and F-Sharp.


In 2002, Ambrose was accused of plagiarizing several passages in his book, The Wild Blue, by Sally Richardson and others.[22][23] Fred Barnes reported in The Weekly Standard that Ambrose had taken passages from Wings of Morning: The Story of the Last American Bomber Shot Down over Germany in World War II, by Thomas Childers, a history professor at the University of Pennsylvania.[24] Ambrose had footnoted sources, but had not enclosed in quotation marks, numerous passages from Childers' book.[23][25] Ambrose and his publisher, Simon and Schuster, released an apology as a result.[citation needed]
Ambrose asserted that only a few sentences in all his numerous books were the work of other authors. He offered this defense:

I tell stories. I don't discuss my documents. I discuss the story. It almost gets to the point where, how much is the reader going to take? I am not writing a Ph.D. dissertation. I wish I had put the quotation marks in, but I didn't. I am not out there stealing other people's writings. If I am writing up a passage and it is a story I went to tell and this story fits and a part of it is from other people's writing, I just type it up that way and put it in a footnote. I just want to know where the hell it came from.[23]

A Forbes investigation of his work found cases of plagiarism involving passages in at least six books, with a similar pattern going all the way back to his doctoral thesis.[26] The History News Network lists seven of Ambrose's works--The Wild Blue, Undaunted Courage, Nothing Like It In the World, Nixon: Ruin and Recovery, Citizen Soldiers, The Supreme Commander, and Crazy Horse and Custer--that copied twelve authors.[25]

But WAIT TAE, it gets BETTER, trust me!

Factual errors and disputed characterizations

[edit] WWII

In the 1973 ITV television series, The World at War, episode 35, From War to Peace, Ambrose made basic factual errors. He said:

"Manpower losses were almost insignificant; compared to the other combatants, insignificant. Only slightly more than a quarter of a million Americans died during the war. America was the least mobilized of all the nations, of all the major combatants in World War II. Altogether, we had an army and navy and air force of 12 million men out of a total population of 170 million. And of that 12 million, probably less than six million ever got overseas."[27]

The population of the United States during the war was 131 million, of which nearly 16.6 million served in the armed forces during World War II, including 241,093 in the Coast Guard, and 243,000 in the Merchant Marine. Military deaths were 416,800, the most of any Allied country except the Soviet Union.[28] According to U.S. census data, 73 percent of military personnel served abroad during World War II.[29] The United States did not create the United States Air Force as a separate branch until passage of the National Security Act of 1947 (Pub. L. No. 235, 80 Cong., 61 Stat. 496, 50 U.S.C. ch.15), two years after the end of World War II.
Veterans of troop carrier units, who transported paratroopers in the American airborne landings in Normandy, have severely criticized Ambrose for portraying them as unqualified and cowardly in several of his works, including Band of Brothers and D-Day.[citation needed] Among the numerous errors he asserts in an open letter posted on the War Chronicle website, Randy Hils notes that Ambrose did not interview a single troop carrier pilot. This becomes highly relevant in light of Ambrose's assertion that the pilots sped up while the paratroopers were trying to jump. Hils hypothesizes that if Ambrose's only sources were inexpert witnesses whose only indication of airspeed were the sound of the engines, the maneuver of using the propellers as an airbrake would have sounded like power being applied.[30]
In the HBO series, Band of Brothers, as well as Ambrose's book, a certain Private Albert Blithe is said to have been shot in the neck while scouting a farmhouse. Ambrose states that Blithe never recovered from his wound and died in 1948, when in actuality, Blithe recovered from a wound to his right shoulder and rejoined Easy Company for Operation Market Garden. Blithe appears to have left Europe shortly after that due to his wound but later continued a career in the Army until his death in 1967.[31]
Two Ambrose accounts in D-Day, of alleged cowardice by British coxswains, have also been challenged as inaccurate. One, in which Sgt. Willard Northfleet is portrayed as drawing his gun on a coxswain when he tried to offload the men 400 yards from shore,[32] is corroborated by Sgt. John Slaughter (who was on the boat) in a C-SPAN video recording veterans' D-Day experiences.[33] It was disputed by Kevan Elsby, however,[34] on the basis of a contemporary debriefing which stated: "Four hundred yards from shore the British coxswain insisted that he could take the craft no farther so the men must swim for it. He started to lower the ramp but Platoon Sgt. Willard R. Norfleet blocked the mechanism and insisted that the boat was going farther."[35] The other, in which Capt. Ettore Zappacosta was portrayed as drawing his gun on a coxswain to make him go in when he protested he could not see the landmarks, was challenged by Pvt. Bob Sales as untrue.[36] Both Ambrose and Sales assert that Sales was the only survivor from that landing craft.[37]
Ambrose asserts, in several works, that the German Panther tank used an 88mm gun. It did not. It used a 75mm gun. The German Tiger I and King Tiger tanks used the 88mm gun as did the Jagdpanther ("Hunting Panther"), a turretless tank destroyer version of the Panther.

Of course now it makes PERFECT sense where you got your info on the cowardice of troops at Normandy and their huge "morale problems". It wasn't "grad school" it was a popular book you read by Stephen Ambrose, many facts of which have been proven to be false and much of his "research" shown to be filled with inaccuracies.

So I'm very sorry that I offended you TAE by not accepting Ambrose as a serious source or your buddy Keegan for that matter whom I've already pointed out is a laughing stock among serious scholars for his treatment and dismissal of Clausewitz in his book.

So if these two are your GRAD SCHOOL sources that you base your WWII history on, then I respectfully have to call BS!


When I point to a scholar like Trita Parsi and his work on Israeli-Iranian relations you ridicule him because his book was published by Yale University....and you've never been to a University.

Some more brilliant clairvoyance on your part? Funny, to this day I'm still in touch with some of my professors. Unlike you, I simply don't have the need to scream...."I went to the University, I went to M.I.T." every time facts fail me in a debate. Second, I'm not sure WHAT Walter Mitty type career you DID have but obviously it couldn't have been much if you go around telling any and everyone who will listen what a "burned-out old intelligence hand" you are. That with all of 4 years of government service IF that.

You imply that because you've been to Iraq recently that you are more qualified than I am to speak on issues of why the Bush administration made the decison to attack Iraq, and lied about the reasons for it.

When you can't support your arguments with facts you imply without any knowledge that I'm not who I say I am, and otherwise resort to your childish gigling, laughing, and pathetic attempts at ridicule.

I try to maintain a sense of humor when dealing with YOU and F-Sharp (though I still suspect you may be the same) because sometimes laughing is the only thing you can do. The alternative would be to take you seriously....you know....when you say things like.....the Holocaust wasn't that big of an event. Yeah, you're right, I will continue to laugh at statements like that.

You've never been to University, have contempt for intellectuals, and are unable to support any of your warlike views with argument or evidence

More clairvoyance. Funny, just like you though, I have my college transcripts. Mine may not state "M.I.T." but if MIT is what got you
your views on the Holocaust and some of the other warped stuff you've thrown around on these boards, I'll stick with my University.
As for evidence, every single source I've ever listed you mock as being "popular" opinion even when it comes from historians with a few more credentials than Ambrose (and less accusations of plagiarism I might add). When facts fail you that's when you resort to "only in grad school would you learn"........Come on! LIST your grad school sources. You paid good money to attend that fine institute of high learning, the least you can do is put it to use by sharing just what author you're quoting in all your WWII assertions. Surely with the thousands upon thousands of dollars you or someone else spent on Grad school you can come up with a better source than Ambrose , whom by the way does NOT mention in his books how it was France and England that forced Germany into the War. So you're gonna have to do better than that. All the anger in the world doesn't make up for some plain, solid facts and sources to accompany those facts. Please share.

I would have to repeat what I've stated before....

You are not a professional soldier. I've worked with SAS, Delta operators, Legionaires and others who are real professionals...WAIT!! I missed that the first time. Did you say Legionnaires (at least get the spelling right) and then talk about being 'real professionals'? Oh yes, you and I definitely need to get together. How much time exactly did you spend with these Legionnaires? I'm VERY curious. Tell us what's located in Les Rousses, (French Foreign Legion related) France and tell me if you've ever been there. Please! You are talking about the organization that prides itself not on how many victories they've obtained but on how many 'last stands to the last man' they've made in the course of their history? You ARE talking about an organization where I witnessed first hand a young Brit who was wanted for robbery and aggravated assault in England sweat out his enlistment interview, only to be granted not only enlistment, but a new french name to go with it. Where I witnessed first hand the dregs of Eastern Europe, many fresh out of prison after being released as "political prisoners" (most of them were actually in for rape, theft, robbery etc but had all claimed "political persecution" when given the opportunity after the collapse of the Soviet East Bloc countries) coming to the Legion in 1990 and turning BACK the professionalism that the LEGION had TRIED to build throughout the 1980's prior to the fall of the Soviet Union.
Yes PLEASE enlighten me with your detailed knowledge of the French Foreign Legion, I'm excited to hear about it.
While there are certainly SOME professional NCO's and Legionnaires in the Foreign Legion, their desertion rate is fairly high compared to modern armies, alcoholism is rampant, and if you EVER, and I mean EVER had spent any time around them you would know just how "professional" they can be when a member from another branch of the French military enters a bar they're in. But I digress. Let me sit and wait to hear about your detailed knowledge of not only the SAS but now the Foreign Legion as well.
Now let's do the math. You yourself claimed you were a "low level intelligence hand that never contributed much of value to anything you participated in". You further claimed this was during the "early 80's". That would mean that all of these "DELTA and SAS OPERATORS" that you claimed to have "worked with" are now retired. It would also mean that the time has long passed for you to be bound by any security clearance. So, tell you what. Give me the name of just ONE, just ONE Delta or SAS operator that you worked with in the early 80's. Ok, tell you what. I know you'll come up with some "secret squirrel" reason why you won't do so on the board. Just commit ONE name of any DELTA or SAS operator to your memory, in what context you met him and you can tell me in person when we meet. To this day USSOCOM is a small community so your claims won't be that hard to verify.

and you are not like they are. You certainly have none of the intellect, maturity or conviction of the West Point grads I went to school with for that matter.

Of course I don't have the maturity, intellect and conviction when I commit the faux pas of pointing out that someone in your current line of work probably isn't the best judge to determine whether or not someone meet's the criteria of being a "professional" in my line of work. I know you're angered by the fact that based on the things I've learned about you, your Walter Mitty fantasies of being some type of dark, troubled former intelligence agent simply don't add up.

You are little more than a low-level self-appointed hero who travels the world looking for someone to shoot at because you think it's fun, and you convince yourself in your own mind that virtue and honor is on your side when it's clearly not. That's why I've said someone with your beliefs would have been typical of the German police, soldiers and others who perpetrated the holocaust, which you consider was something committed by people morally inferior to yourself.

Again says the owner of The Austin Escort Agency........Yes I know in your mind you were some kind of "burned-out old intelligence hand".
Didn't you brag on this board how you were written about in GQ? As I recall though it wasn't quite in the way you spoke of.
I suggest you pause, take a deep breath and then take a good, looooooong look in the mirror before you decide if you really want to go down this road with me.
By the time I'm done with you, there won't be ANY DOUBT in anyone's mind on who the true "POSER" is on this board.
As I've stated, my work and my career stand at face value. No glorified Pimp can ever change that.

As I've commended you to do before, next time you're in Iraq continue looking for those WMDs you believed so strongly were always there.

A fitting end to your usual posts. When you have no facts to back up your allegations you run around screaming "WMD's", "WMD"s much like your cowardly friend below. Then you want to talk about someone being childish?
Make sure to point to the link too where I stated I went to Iraq because I was looking for WMD's. Guess I went to Afghanistan looking for WMD's too? Oh wait, no....I went because I was "looking for someone to shoot at because you think it's fun". Ahmm yeah! I think that statement pretty much stands on it's own for the level of ignorance it shows on your part.

Your beliefs about those have as much merit as your other opinions.

ps....
Anytime you would like I will meet with you so you can see what the truth really is. We can start by going directly to the UT registrar where my entire record from MIT is found, and then proceed from there. If you're not prepared to do that please refrain from any more insinuations over the internet regarding my career. I'm sure however you would never meet with someone like myself, a real person as opposed to an internet phoney/pretender as you are.

Ahhhhh, really? So you can pull another F-Sharp move? This "pretender" gave your buddy F-Sharp below every opportunity to do just that. I wasted one of my Thursday nights waiting at a bar to see if he would show up after all the s*ht talking he did. Surprise, surprise when the rubber had to meet the road he was nowhere to be found. No, he's much better at hiding behind skirts like yours.
Look TAE, when I'm Texas, I'm not a hard man to find. I've attended a SC social, I've met with posters on here to have some drinks. Usually all it takes is a simple PM to my mail box here stating the time and place and I'm there. I have people here that can vouch for that. So ANY time you want to talk to me face to face, I will be there. Trust me when I say that I'll make sure you're the first to know when I arrive back in the United States a few months from now.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

Now that's some serious "Ground Truth".

Oh, I see.....you got your "intellect" handed to you on the college and CRA debate so you figured you'd pop up here and hide behind TAE's skirt?
Hardly a week goes by that you don't prove my point about what you are.

[kingorpawn]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Oh, I see.....you got your "intellect" handed to you on the college and CRA debate so you figured you'd pop up here and hide behind TAE's skirt?
Hardly a week goes by that you don't prove my point about what you are.

He's got a point Mr. TAE.

[kingorpawn]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

As I've commended you to do before, next time you're in Iraq continue looking for those WMDs you believed so strongly were always there.

I got one for you. Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was making deals with the Chinese to take over undeveloped oil fields in Iraq. The sanctions against Iraq were about to end and china was already sending troops into Iraq to protect them. The US did not want China to take control of that Oil since Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world, so Bush invaded. China could not be allowed to control that much oil.

Saddam did have WMD, but only in limited quantities to keep Iran in check. After the invasion, he shipped them to Syria.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Oh, I see.....you got your "intellect" handed to you on the college and CRA debate so you figured you'd pop up here and hide behind TAE's skirt?
Hardly a week goes by that you don't prove my point about what you are.

I just figured as long as you were going to use my name in every damn post you make, I might as well pop in and say hello.

Now, carry on.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

I just figured as long as you were going to use my name in every damn post you make, I might as well pop in and say hello.

Now, carry on.

It's not my fault you two have such eerily similar posting styles and methods of attack,

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by kingorpawn

I got one for you. Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was making deals with the Chinese to take over undeveloped oil fields in Iraq. The sanctions against Iraq were about to end and china was already sending troops into Iraq to protect them. The US did not want China to take control of that Oil since Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world, so Bush invaded. China could not be allowed to control that much oil.

Saddam did have WMD, but only in limited quantities to keep Iran in check. After the invasion, he shipped them to Syria.

I'm starting to enjoy your sense of humor!
Funny how you never hear many of the liberals talk about going to war in Iraq for Oil anymore like so many of them did from '03-'06. Once it became public knowledge that only TWO American companies got substantial oil contracts while the rest went to Countries that OPPOSED the war, guess they couldn't make that argument. Oh, and then there was the inconvenient war Obama started with Libya that would have called that theory into question as well.

[DTorrchia]

Just in case your memory is failing you TAE.....since you said I know nothing about your career in "intelligence"....from your own posts:

TAE-"Actually I served between 1983 and 1985 in Pakistan during the insurgency against the Soviets. I was in training for two years in graduate school in preparation."

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=103786&page=4

TAE-"When I started over there in 1983 I was convinced that what we were doing was noble, but as the months went on and I learned more about the situation I grew more and more disgusted until in December 1985 when I went home for Christmas I phoned in my resignation. "

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=103786&page=4

Now I will be the first to admit that I have NOT been to Graduate school so my math level may not be on par with yours but let's see......1983-1985 = 2-3 years?

I can certainly see where such an extensive time period could lead to being a "burned-out old intelligence hand".

I also see that in that same post you mention that: TAE-"I was in training for two years in graduate school in preparation". So grad school from 1981-1983?.....Yes, I can certainly see where you would have studied the causes of the Iraq and Afghan wars of 2001 and 2003 in depth while attending your graduate studies.
Isn't that what you said. That you didn't have to have actually gone there to have all this in depth knowledge about the wars? So, we've established you
1. Never went to either place during the wars
2. You couldn't have conducted any in depth studies on the wars in graduate school since that took place....let's see.....TWENTY years earlier......
So tell this old simple soldier, you know, the one who only takes orders, is incapable of independent thought, likes to go around "shooting people for fun" and who would have easily participated in the holocaust (according to you),
where EXACTLY did you gleam all of this wisdom and insight as to the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Inquiring minds want to know.

[DTorrchia]

Of course TAE, you're never one to shy away from contradicting yourself now are you?

So take your point of view from page 2 of this debate. You wrote about me and the German soldiers, and I quote:

"I know you'll never accept this, but I believe if you had lived in Germany during the Nazi years you would have been a Nazi party member, or a loyal German policeman or army soldier who would have participated in the holocaust.
That's not an insult; it's just an observation that most people will do such things when they're sufficiently motivated to do it."

Then you wrote:
"90% of the victims of the holocaust [gypsies, communists, Jews, homosexuals, etc] were killed or captured by ordinary German police, army soldiers, and such, rather than Nazi party members or the SS."

And of course then this little nugget below:

"The aweful truth is that when government people with weapons believe too much in the MORALITY of their cause they will do anything....and I mean anything."

What you forgot in your rush of self-righteousness was that not too long ago you had posted this:
http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=187546

" In the German army many soldiers killed themselves rather than participate in the mass slaughter they would be required to do on the eastern front. You rarely hear about this because militaries seek to hide these facts, but they study them intensively"

Call me crazy TAE, it just seems like a bit of a contradiction don't you think? In one post you try to argue that soldiers who believe in their moral cause will do "anything and.... I mean anything". But you forgot that in other posts you argued that many German soldiers actually killed themselves "rather that participate in mass slaughter".

So they were okay with their morality rounding up and exterminating millions of Jews just not with fighting on the eastern front?

Notice any contradictions in your own quotes?
Your own quote above in NO WAY shows that some soldiers think independently and make their own decisions about what they do and do not want to participate in? Of course you somehow KNOW that I would be the exception and therefor would have no problem participating in the killing of innocent civilians?

Like I said TAE, THINK before you type, take a deep breath and consider not only what you want to say, but what your positions on the same subject matter have been not so long ago. Surely with all that powerful graduate level education that's not too much to ask of you......is it?

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

It's not my fault you two have such eerily similar posting styles and methods of attack,

Yeah, eerie huh?

[theaustinescorts]

D'Torchia,

You are not a debater; you are merely a denier.

You've made it your mission on this board to belligerantly, caustically deny particular posts I've made here....but with no factual contradiction...just ridicule. More specifically, there are no contradictions in any of my posts other than in your misinterpretations, save my prior reluctance to reveal my combat history.

If I were to simply state my age on this board, 52, you would likely parse through my posts to find something you could MISINTERPRET as contradicting my newly-stated age.

What your obcession is with my background I will never understand, except that I mantain:

You are a phoney and I am not.
You have no significant government experience and I do.
You have no formal education of any kind in strategic history or the causes of war....any war
You pose yourself as knowedgable on matters of diplomacy and military history when you are not.

AND EVIDENTLY YOU DON'T LIKE THAT.

I am only making these observations because you have repeatedly sought to ridicule myself, Stephen Ambrose, John Keegan, Trita Parsi, et. al.,or anyone of note I cite in support of anything I have to say on any subject. You never argue why someone like Ambrose is incorrect in what he's stated, only that NOTHING HE SAYS CAN BE BELIEVED FOR THIS OR THAT REASON.

I'm sorry that I post facts and opinions that run counter to your cherished beliefs, but you don't have to be a childish rube about it. Grow up.

So this is the challenge:

When you're ready meet me at the registrar's office at UT to see my full transcript.

Then we'll go to my bank where I store my old diplomatic passports I used in my work.

Do you want to see pictures of me in Sierra Leone? I've got them. Do you want to see pictures of me in Honduras, El Salvador, Pakistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, South Africa, etc. I've got them. Do you want to see me with the former National Security Advisor to the President? Fine; just say so.

Until then stop remarking in any manner whatsoever regarding my career.

I can tell what your profession is: private security guard.

[theaustinescorts]

Originally Posted by kingorpawn

I got one for you. Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was making deals with the Chinese to take over undeveloped oil fields in Iraq. The sanctions against Iraq were about to end and china was already sending troops into Iraq to protect them. The US did not want China to take control of that Oil since Iraq has one of the largest oil reserves in the world, so Bush invaded. China could not be allowed to control that much oil.

Saddam did have WMD, but only in limited quantities to keep Iran in check. After the invasion, he shipped them to Syria.

Unless I'm wrong I think the Chinese have most of the oil concessions now in Iraq.

The US never did anything to prevent that from happening after the war, or to help US oil companies to gain oil concessions.

In 1953 the British persuaded the CIA into toppling the government of Iran after it nationalized British oil interests there, but the new Iranian government under the Shah never reversed the situation in favor of Britain.

I don't think there's much controversy now about the motives of the actors in the Bush administration.

It's pretty transparent.

[DTorrchia]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

D'Torchia,

You are not a debater; you are merely a denier.

You used Ambrose in your arguments for your numbers on the WWII draft, for morale of the the troops, for broad statements of cowardice and other opinions on WWII. Remember that? When I then take the liberty to point out that Ambrose was found by his PEERS, by the FACULTY of UNIVERSITIES and by HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS to have plagiarized his work all the way back to his doctoral thesis and made mistakes in numbers by the MILLIONS in regards to his figures on how many people served, the size of the U.S. population, the number or military personnel that served overseas, his percentages of how many were killed etc etc.....then you accuse me of being a "denier" and not a "debater"? Ok, by all means, let's just make up whatever numbers we want in order to "debate".

You've made it your mission on this board to belligerantly, caustically deny each and every statement or opinon I post here....but with no factual contradiction...just ridicule. More specifically, there are no contradictions in any of my posts other than in your misinterpretations, save my prior reluctance to reveal my combat history.

Your prior reluctance? More like your prior admissions to never having been.
I've noticed though that you continue to mention your transcripts and how eager you are to show them yet NEVER mention a DD form 214.
Or was this combat experience you've been "reluctant to reveal" off the books? Were you out there, Chuck Norris style, completely on your own?

The fact that you, as a low level State Department guy, would claim to have worked with "DELTA FORCE" (you do know that's not their name right, do you even KNOW their official name?), SAS AND the FOREIGN LEGION is ludicrous but you already know that, it's why you can't state where, in what context or name a single person within those organizations that would back up your claims.

If I were to simply state my age on this board, 52, you would likely parse through my posts to find something you could MISINTERPRET as contradicting my newly-stated age.

What your obcession is with my background I will never understand,

Well, for starters because you USE it as an argument in every debate. It is YOU that in over a dozen different threads, without any prompting, brings up what you know based on your "government service". What others on these boards could NOT know or could NOT understand because they haven't been in "government service". That my friend is how we started going down this road. That is why I asked you if you had ever BEEN to Iraq or Afghanistan. So when YOU bring your "vast" government service up on the internet as a means of supporting your arguments in a debate, then of course it's going to be scrutinized. Your obvious and constant contradictions in regards to the background you boast about raise the red flags, not me. I simply take the liberty to point them out.

You are a phoney and I am not.

Says the pimp that claims to have worked with "DELTA FORCE, SAS, AND the FRENCH FOREIGN LEGION. Okay Mr. Mitty, I'm the phoney. You're right.

I'll leave it up to the readers to decide who the "phoney" here is. I think there's enough information on these threads for them to draw their own conclusions. I sincerely doubt a pimp going around screaming that someone else is a "phoney" is going to draw much attention on this board.

You have no significant government experience and I do.

LOL, yes, that's already been discussed in the thread above. The one where in your own words you said you got disgusted and "phoned in your resignation Christmas of 1985". I know, I'm misinterpreting what "phoning in a resignation" means and I obviously can't add the years 1983-1985.

You have no formal education of any kind in strategic history or the causes of war....any war
You pose yourself as knowedgable on matters of diplomacy and military history when you are not.

Never claimed to be a historian, never claimed to be a grad student. Yet, low and behold, I'm capable of reading. I just seem to check a little more carefully before I throw names like Ambrose around as my source of WWII history.

AND EVIDENTLY YOU DON'T LIKE THAT.

I don't "like" that you took a "strategic studies" class on the history and causes of war 20+ years ago? I think education is a wonderful thing!! I'm just perplexed how with all that knowledge you only managed to name Ambrose and Keegan as your sources for your opinion on WWII history. So it's not that I don't "like it", I honestly had hoped that you would have access to better sources. That's all. Apparently Keegan and Ambrose is all that Grad school offered up during your time. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe you should go back to school now, since it's been 20 years, and see if maybe they're studying something a little more in depth than Ambrose in today's grad school.

I am only making these observations because you have repeatedly sought to ridicule myself, Stephen Ambrose, John Keegan, Trita Parsi, et. al.,or anyone of note I cite in support of anything I have to say on any subject.

I won't bore you or any other reader with the obvious. See the posts on page 3 as to why Ambrose is not the most credible source. That "et. al." you used? No need for it. Ambrose, Keegan (both of whom have been discredited, not by ME but by other writers, faculty and historical associations and all that is listed above) and Parsi are the only sources you've named. I noticed you never commented that Ambrose has been found to have plagiarized going back all the way to his doctoral thesis. Then there's all the inaccuracies found in his work, not small stuff but getting his numbers wrong by the MILLIONS. Making up who died and who didn't. Kind of inconvenient facts for you considering how much weight you gave him in your WWII arguments here. So two of your three sources have been discredited not by me but by their peers and those with a few more credentials on the matter than either you or I have. I haven't had time to research Parsi yet, but I will.

I'm sorry that I post facts and opinions that run counter to your cherished beliefs, but you don't have to be a childish rube about it. Grow up.

It's not me you have to convince. I simply point out that you have no facts and that your opinions run counter to almost every other human being alive on this planet. But by all means, carry on with your ...."The holocaust wasn't a significant event" theories.
As I stated, my debates with you on these matters have come to an end.

So this is the challenge:

When you're ready meet me at the registrar's office at UT to see my full transcript.

Then we'll go to my bank where I store my old diplomatic passports I used in my work.

Do you want to see pictures of me in Sierra Leone? I've got them. Do you want to see pictures of me in Honduras, El Salvador, Pakistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, South Africa, etc. I've got them.

Well, like we addressed above. I could care LESS where you were educated since I never disputed whether you went to MIT or, whether you had a University education. So your transcripts are meaningless. They don't apply to the matter at hand. That doesn't mean we won't meet though. Your passports mean nothing to me as well. I've held "offical" and "diplomatic" passports. What does that prove? I watched 700 Contractors be issued "Diplomatic Passports" prior to being deployed to Iraq. Yeah, having a Dip passport certainly proves something!
This is what I want to see from you when we meet:
Evidence of what combat you saw and where it took place.
That can be a military form DD 214 or if it wasn't with the military then with whatever country's military you saw this combat with. If you're claiming it was while you were with the "government" well then SOME paperwork should exist. A commendation perhaps? Anything? Just bring what you think would show that.

Until then stop remarking in any manner whatsoever regarding my career.
Or what? I'm just curious. You'll out me? You'll call my mom and tell her what I do for a living?
What exactly will you do? Gonna zap me with you super secret 007 laser gun?

O.k. let me explain to you how this works. Stop saying things like...."I'm an old burned out intelligence hand" or "If you had ever worked in government service like I had", then your "career" probably won't be brought up by anyone here. As long as you throw it out as a qualifier for your arguments and opinions, it's fair game. That's the way it works, whether you like it or not. Now go run get your pictures of you in combat, your DD Form 214 and other paperwork in order. I'll be back in 90 days.

I can tell what your profession is: private security guard.

Well there's little doubt what profession you're in now.... Oh that's right, but that Escort Agency is probably just a "cover"....Isn't that right Mr. TAE or should I say.....Mr. Walter Mitty?

[kingorpawn]

Originally Posted by DTorrchia

I'm starting to enjoy your sense of humor!
Funny how you never hear many of the liberals talk about going to war in Iraq for Oil anymore like so many of them did from '03-'06. Once it became public knowledge that only TWO American companies got substantial oil contracts while the rest went to Countries that OPPOSED the war, guess they couldn't make that argument. Oh, and then there was the inconvenient war Obama started with Libya that would have called that theory into question as well.

Thanks, DT. I agree with all of the above.

[kingorpawn]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

There was no "greatest generation." As I've said before 60% of Americans under arms were drafted because they didn't want to be there. In the army people would do anything they could to avoid being in combat positions, and very often in combat wouldn't particpate. Studies showed that 90% of the Americans landed on Normany never fired their weapons. If it wasn't for the Air Corps smashing the Germans in France the US army would never have advanced.

The US contribution to the war effort in Europe only brought about a communist hegemony over eastern Europe. How anyone could brag about fighting on the same side as Stalin and the Russians in that war is a disgrace.

You are right a lot of the Americans in WWII were drafted, but they fought bravely anyway.

Actually, my father was one of the "greatest generation." He did a number on the Japs.
He volunteered and signed up after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He was 18.

Actually, the US participation help keep the communist in check.

You are right 90% of the Americans landing in Normandy probably did not fire their weapons, but that's because they were getting zapped by machine guns in all directions.