In case you haven't noticed, Obama is about to lose Iraq

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You nailed that empty suit yussup...

No he didn't, and there's no "empty suite" on my side of the argument. You people are all whisper bark and no bite with no real argument, you people are the empty suites. If your marksmanship was anything close to the inaccuracy of his statement about me, I'd hate to be the person standing behind you as you try to shoot the target in front of you... that'd be suicide.

He spoke using the same illogic that Baghdad Bob used. Since you also speak with the same illogic that Baghdad Bob used, you agreed with what he said. Reading the above quote, along with everything else that you, and your fellow butt pirates say, is like listening to Comical Ali, aka Baghdad Bob, aka Mohammed Saeeed al-Sahaf:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9aW1atFLMM#t=25

Also, let me remind you of what you said earlier in this thread:

Originally Posted by herfacechair

I predict that after this reply, you're going to come here and comment. Your going to prove, through your own actions, that you're wrong about your own actions just as you were wrong like you were majority of times on this thread.

When you do jump on this thread to directly or indirectly address something that I said, or something that someone in my side argument has said, you're going to prove... with your own actions... that I'm right even when I'm talking about your actions in the face of you being wrong.

You're not the first person that repeatedly hinted that he/she was "done" with an argument. Like the others, you're not saying this because you're tired of the argument, but because you're hoping that you're saying this will discourage others or me from challenging your BS.

Once again, you were wrong about what you said with regards to what you were going to do. I was right about what you were going to do. Even when it comes to your actions, you're wrong and I'm right. If you can't get straight what you're going to say, what makes you think that anything else that you talk about is going to be right?

So I'va biggen, were you wrong about you being finished with this "discussion"? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Simply copy and paste this question, and the "yes" and "no" option to your reply. Put an "X" in the box that represents your reply. Add no further nonsense to your reply.

[herfacechair]

flghtr65: 1. According to General Dempsey, Malichi needs to agree to a more inclusive government.

What I said earlier in this thread:

"When we were there, the US ambassador had a lot of say when dealing with Malaki. The US military made sure that Malaki included other sects/groups in the government. When Pres. Obama made it extremely difficult for Iraqis to agree to a SOFA agreement, and when we left, Al Malaki was able to leverage his numeric advantage to exclude the other groups.

"A continued US presence in Iraq, under an agreement that Iraqis were willing to have with us, would make sure that we would've continued to make sure that al Malaki would've continued including the other religious sects/groups in government." -herfacechair

There's no argument there.

flghtr65: 2. The Iraq forces can defend itself.

They weren't able to defend themselves in the north... or they refused to. Nobody is contesting that those around Baghdad were able to defend themselves. The Iraqi military unit that we worked with during our deployment were also capable of defending themselves.

The fact of the matter is that their training deteriorated to the point that those in many areas of the country fled... when they otherwise would've stood their ground and fight had the US been allowed to keep 20,000 to 30,000 troops in the green zone to conduct cycled training and to provide other kinds of support.

In the article, he also said that they don't have the logistical ability to launch an offensive... something that needed to be worked on after we left... something that our forces would've worked to continue to develop had the above amounts of troops been allowed to remain behind.

flghtr65: 3. Use Airstrikes to help the Iraq forces if needed.

What I also said earlier in the thread:

"I'm not arguing that we resort exclusively to airstrikes. Besides, we need somebody on the ground to identify targets in order for us to use airstrikes. This would require fighter jets flying in combat air patrol stations in the sky waiting for call-for-fire missions." -herfacechair

There's no argument there.

flghtr65: 4. He does not call for 20,000 boots on the ground. http://news.yahoo.com/dempsey-iraqi-...-politics.html [/quote]

That's because the conditions on the ground has changed since we left. We needed at least that number, or something a little above that number, to solidify the momentum with the Iraqi Forces after we left. Since we didn't have those forces there since the end of 2011, conditions on the ground changed.

There are a group of service members on the ground there right now, assessing the situation in order to get a better idea of what kind of support we're going to need to give the Iraqi forces moving forward.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by WTF

JD has not been there since 1992 for one and

What I said:

"My bringing up the fact that JD and I have boots on the ground experience in wars that took place in the part of the world that we are arguing about, is me telling you something that your horse blinders are blinding you from... The fact that we know what we're talking about in this argument as opposed to you, and those on your side of the argument, not having a clue about what you're talking about." -herfacecahir

What part of WARS did you not understand? You do realize that with an "s" at the end, I was talking about more than one war, do you? Although conditions on the ground may have changed, the philosophy of the people over there didn't change since then. Also, the basic working knowledge concepts of the symmetrical part of the war didn't change that much.

JD and I have experiences that neither your side nor you have, experience that gives us relevance and credibility on the main topic, and associated topics, on this thread that you guys don't have.

Originally Posted by WTF

(Inductive Fallacy)
for two you two merely being there is no different than a fan who attended the Super telling me he can win the next 100 Super Bowls.

Are Super Bowl fans on the football field playing football in the Super Bowl in lieu of the football players on the football field playing football in the Super Bowl? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste that question and it's "yes" and "no" options to your reply and put an "X" in the appropriate option that represents your reply. Spare me any nonsense reply that you'd want to add to that.

Since it's painfully obvious that you never combat deployed to Iraq, let me spell this out for you. I didn't go there as a spectator, but as one of the "players." I took part in that operation, which required me, as an infantryman, to frequently cross the wire.

A better analogy would be someone that doesn't have a clue about football and has never played it (representing you) arguing with one of the members of the football team that won the Super Bowl (Representing me) about playing in the Super Bowl in a disagreement about playing football.

Originally Posted by WTF

(STRAWMAN ARGUMENT)

The fact that you think any Arab nation could invade this country successfully shows your total ignorance of warfare

WHERE, in any of my posts, did I specifically state that any Arab nation could invade the United States successfully?

First, between the two of us, only one is a war veteran, we both know that you're not that war veteran. Do you realize how much of an idiot you come across as when you tell the actual war veteran that he's "ignorant," quotation marks used strongly, about warfare?

One major point that I got across, that you keep ignoring, is asymmetrical warfare. You're either too stupid to understand the concepts, to brainwashed to see what asymmetrical warfare is really about, or too arrogant to admit that you're wrong.

Second, what I actually said with regards to the US being threatened:

The real reason for entering Iraq was asymmetrical in nature. Under asymmetrical warfare, you don't need to have a military capable of attacking United States to be a threat. With Al Qaeda proving that it was willing to strike within the United States, and with a dictator not coming clean with this the WMD programs, we were in an asymmetrical situation that's comparable to being in the room full of easily flammable liquids with a man playing with matches. We had to go into Iraq, which was a perfect next stop in the war terror.

People who have absolutely no clue, about the threat that the United States faces, don't see that the enemy that we are facing has visible and invisible parts. This enemy uses traditional and nontraditional means of warfare. Iraq under Saddam, the Taliban, Abu Sayef (sp) in the Philippines, Hamas, the Taliban, and any other terror group that believes in killing the infidel, are part of a single entity.

Our enemy does not recognize the borders separating the Arab countries. In their eyes, every predominantly Muslim country is part of the Islamic nation. Their ultimate goal is to establish a global Islamic caliphate. The first step would be to create several Taliban style governments across the Middle East. Once the Middle East is turned into a revived Moorish caliphate, the next step would be to work on the rest of the world.

This war was never just about 9/11, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. These were just symptoms of the real issue. This issue is a radical Islamic war to eradicate the West, and to establish global Islamic caliphate's around the world.

With Saddam Hussein hosting radical terrorist conventions, and making death to America speeches, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who he would choose to side with between the United States or Al Qaeda.

Now, read that 10 times, read it out loud 5 times, then write it out 3 times. BURN that into your head. If you were capable of understanding English written so that even a 5th grader could understand what's being said, you'd realize that I was talking about an entity that's separate from the current Arab governments.

There are other dimensions to asymmetrical warfare that I didn't talk about here, but are also tactics being used... like maintaining the push for Muslims to have large families in non-Muslim countries with low birth rates, in order to leverage the future majority to slowly change a country into Islam.

You need to quit pulling straws with regards to what I'm saying, and actually address what I said. You're taking me out of context, so that you could address an argument or statement that I didn't make. That makes it painfully obvious that you know you can't argue against me, but are pulling shit out of your ass just to stay in this argument.

Originally Posted by WTF

(STRAWMAN ARGUMENT)

and the fact that you think we can afford to build the world in our image tells me you still believe in the Easter Bunny.

WHERE, in any of my posts, did I state that we could afford to build the world in our image? Where do I specifically make that statement?

Nowhere in any of my posts do I claim, or even insinuate, that we could make the world in our image, with all the money to do that. What I actually said:

"If you were there, you'd see that the Iraqis, like most anybody in other countries in the world, were rushing head over heal to become like us. The Iraqis were rapidly westernizing when we were there, they WANTED to westernize. What they didn't want was to live the kind of life that those radical Muslims wanted them to live." -herfacechair

Now, let me GOOO REAAALLL SLLLOOOOOOOWWWW FOOOOOR YOOOOUUUU! Oooh Kaaay?

Notice how I said that the Iraqis, like most anybody in the other countries? Here, let me break that down further so that you won't get a headache...

The Iraqis... like people in other countries...

What about them?

They WANTED.

What was it that they WANTED?

Well, they wanted to WESTERNIZE!

Meaning, we're not FORCING them to become like us... they WANT to become like us! And they're doing it without major US occupation.

It has been like that in every country that I've been in... we're talking about countries on 4 continents outside of North America.

Now, if what I had just explained here is still above your head, feel free to hire a retard interpreter so that he/she could break that break down into retard terms so that you could hopefully understand what I just said.

Originally Posted by WTF

(REPEAT POINT)

LL not only thinks like Dick Cheney that the war in Iraq was necessary but that George Custer made the correct move at Little Big Horn.

And the Iraq War WAS necessary. Again:

Our enemy does not recognize the borders separating the Arab countries. In their eyes, every predominantly Muslim country is part of the Islamic nation. Their ultimate goal is to establish a global Islamic caliphate. The first step would be to create several Taliban style governments across the Middle East. Once the Middle East is turned into a revived Moorish caliphate, the next step would be to work on the rest of the world.

This war was never just about 9/11, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. These were just symptoms of the real issue. This issue is a radical Islamic war to eradicate the West, and to establish global Islamic caliphate's around the world.

With Saddam Hussein hosting radical terrorist conventions, and making death to America speeches, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who he would choose to side with between the United States or Al Qaeda.

If you look at the map the Middle East, and see Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan, you'll see that we have turned the Middle East into a checkerboard of countries in different stages of democracy.

Up to 2005, I predicted a ripple effect that would happen as a result of our interventions into Afghanistan and Iraq. I argued that once these two countries progressed on the path that we set them on, the rest of the Arab world would want the same thing.

What I predicted ended up becoming the Arab Spring which started a few years later. The Obama administration failed to capitalize on this Arab spring.

With that...

I'm going to ask you the same thing that I asked your fellow butt pirates. Why are you running away from the question that I asked you? This is a simple, straightforward, non gotcha question.

As long as you keep replying to me, I'm going to keep asking you this question:

If I were to go on an internet forum, and say that one plus one equals two, would it be safe for someone reading that to assume that you were the one that made that post because you also agree that one plus one equals two? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Don't forget to answer the other questions that I've asked you on this post.

[herfacechair]

Originally Posted by bigtex

There is little doubt that he was a "Looney Tunes" enthusiast as a young lad and probably searches for the re-runs even today!

Wrong PunyTex the Impotent. Although I watched that show as part of the Saturday morning cartoon lineup, I wasn't an "enthusiast" about it, and no, I don't search for re-runs of that show.

Your gay band of butt pirates, aka members of your side of the argument, have a bad habit of projecting your own traits onto the opposition... this includes throwing the "looney" label around. You people, and those like you people that I've debated against over the past 10 years, tend to accuse the winning side of having one form of psychological issue or another when your side is unable to shake our side away from your trails.

I'm showing no signs of tiring from this fight, I have every intention of continuing to hammer you guys, and that bothers you people to the point to where you're going to accuse me of having said psychological issues.

That's yet another form of desperation. Since you took a swipe at me, I'm going to go back and ask you questions that you keep ignoring:

"If there was another reason used more to invade Iraq during the spring of 2003 than WMD's, please let me know. Otherwise do us all a favor and STFU!" -- bigtex (Emphasis mine)

What part of your OWN argument do you NOT understand? The thrust of your argument was that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq, te wit:

"WMD's are brought up only because it was THE reason used by the Bush Administration to invade Iraq during the weeks and months leading up to the ill fated and ill advised spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq." -- bigtex (Empahsis mine)

This:

"PHILLIPS: Two soldiers were treated for what Kimmitt calls "minor traces of exposure," but has since been cleared for duty. We also learned today that a shell containing mustard gas turned up a week or so ago. Both are being studied by the survey group, not to mention CNN's national security correspondent, David Ensor." -- CNN article

And these two:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq

"This nation, in world war and in cold war, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom and help OTHERS to find FREEDOM of their own." -- George Bush, 2002 (Emphasis mine)

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/text-of-...un-12-09-2002/

"Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without FREEDOM for both sides." -- George Bush, 2002 (Emphasis mine)

I'm going to keep asking you this question for as long as you insist on replying to me or as long as you insist on replying to something I argued:

So bigtex, were you wrong when you insisted that WMD was the ONLY reason for us going into Iraq? YES [ ] NO [ ]

Copy and paste that question, and answer options, to your reply. Put an "X" in the reply that represents your honest opinion. Don't add any further information to your reply.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

["empty suite"

[color=red][b]So I'va biggen, were you wrong about you being finished with this "discussion"?

You are a simple fuck my comment was not addressed to you , and there was no reply to the other post. Thanks for verifying you are a empty suit or you would not have replied. You and JD must be idiots in law.

[Yssup Rider]

frankly, I think this guy is an IBIdiot wannabe.

[JD Barleycorn]

The point that you missed (and so did Obama) is that Bush's Status of Forces agreement was to prevent what is happening now. It costs so much more in money and lives to try to push back than it would have cost to prevent this.

EVA and his bunch has the same experience that Obama has.... NONE!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

EVA and his bunch has the same experience that Obama has.... NONE!

It's apparent that military experience means nothing to them, except theirs.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by herfacechair

"Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and religious strife that is ancient but not inevitable. In the Middle East, there can be no peace for either side without FREEDOM for both sides." -- George Bush, 2002

I posted the following (related) excerpt from an article a few weeks ago:

"The argument for going to war in Iraq was clearly made. Over and over again, Saddam Hussein was said to be a turn-of-the-millennium Hitler, a madman bent on destroying America with his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, that turned out to be false, but at the time, the justification was no mystery."

"The word "weapons" shows up 1,107 times in the Congressional Record during the period when the House and Senate were voting to grant President George W. Bush the authority to use force against Iraq. The more specific "weapons of mass [destruction or murder]" comes up 368 times."

"The word "freedom" shows up 118 times in the Congressional Record during the authorization votes, but it's generally in reference to securing freedom for America, and only occasionally for Iraqis. The word "liberate" shows up 12 times. And that's mostly in reference to Kuwait."

In fact, Condi took it a step further when she made the following claim:

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Please note: Condi referenced a "mushroom cloud," not "freedom."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr....html?_s=PM:US

My argument all along has been (and still remains) that there would have been justification for an invasion had there been conclusive evidence indicating that Iraq had the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons at the time. And quite frankly, that is the specific reason the UN Inspectors were in place during the months leading up to the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Weapons Inspectors were there specifically to determine whether Iraq had nuclear capability at the time. There was no other reason for them to be in place during the weeks and months leading up to the spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq.

I said at the time (in another forum), let's give the Inspectors time to complete their mission. Hans Blix even put a specific time period on how long it would take (weapons inspectors) to complete their task. That being approximately 6 months. If the Inspectors were to find nuclear capability, a targeted invasion would have been justified (something along the lines of GHW Bush's invasion during the early 90's). Instead the U.N. Inspectors were removed from Iraq, the invasion occurred and the rest is sordid history.

Despite your repeated efforts to portray the spring of 2003 invasion as something noble, it turned into the worst US foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam War. Even Glen Beck now agrees the spring of 2003 invasion proved to be a mistake.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/0...ht-107981.html

The invasion itself ultimately cost us 4500+ American lives and approximately $1 trillion taxpayer dollars. Iraq turned into one of, if not the, leading reason that the Democratic nominee won the next two Presidential elections. You can hide your eyes in the sand if you like.

But the fact remains:

The spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq was a HUGE mistake.

Quit trying to put lipstick on a pig (Darth Cheney), you will never make ol' "Dick" attractive.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

My argument all along has been (and still remains) that there would have been justification for an invasion had there been conclusive evidence indicating that Iraq had the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons at the time. So you support an invasion of Iran.

And quite frankly, that is the specific reason the UN Inspectors were in place during the months leading up to the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Weapons Inspectors were there specifically to determine whether Iraq had nuclear capability at the time. And you determine that from which U.N. resolution? There was no other reason for them to be in place during the weeks and months leading up to the spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq.In your mind, based on your "agenda."

I said at the time (in another forum), let's give the Inspectors time to complete their mission.#1 Their mission had gone on for 12-13 years!!! #2 YOU have redefined their U.N. mission to fit your "agenda" and "your opinion."

Hans Blix even put a specific time period on how long it would take (weapons inspectors) to complete their task. That being approximately 6 months. So, your bitch is that the invasion began six months early?

If the Inspectors were to find nuclear capability, a targeted invasion would have been justified (something along the lines of GHW Bush's invasion during the early 90's WTF are you talking about? GHW was operating pursuant to a U.N. resolution. So was his son. ). Instead the U.N. Inspectors were removed from Iraq, the invasion occurred and the rest is sordid history. The inspectors had been kicked out before, and they were "ordered" out for their own safety prior to the invasion. The Bush administration did NOTHING to prevent them from their task based on U.N. resolutions AND NOT BT's agenda!!!

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/03...ing/index.html

December 1998

“….former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said the attacks (1998) did not go far enough: "I would be amazed if a three-day campaign made a decisive difference," Kissinger said just after the operation ended.
[W]e did not do, in my view, enough damage to degrade it [Iraq's programs for weapons of mass destruction] for six months. It doesn't make any significant difference because in six months to a year they will be back to where they are and we cannot keep repeating these attacks. [...] At the end of the day what will be decisive is what the situation in the Middle East will be two to three years from now. If Saddam is still there, if he's rearming, if the sanctions are lifted, we will have lost, no matter what spin we put on it.[26]

I'll take Kissinger over BT, all day long!

I'll also take Kissinger over WTF in the "geo politics" department, all day long!

BT, as for your agenda and "mission" for the U.N. Weapon Inspectors:

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02

In 1991 ... "permanent cease-fire agreement" ...

...Iraq to eliminate under international supervision its BIOLOGICAL, CHEMICAL, AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMS .."

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/4

RESOLUTION 687 (1991)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting,
on 3 April 1991

The Security Council,

"7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the
Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating,
Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at
Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the
Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and
Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction,
removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all
related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and
manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and
related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of
the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amount
s
and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site
inspection as specified below;

(b) The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate
Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World
Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present
resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan
calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of suc
h
approval:

(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate
on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile
capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of an
y
additional locations by the Special Commission itself;

(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for
destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the
requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragrap
h
8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated
by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 (b) (i) above and the
destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission
,
of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified
under paragraph 8 (b) above;

(iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and
cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic
Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below;"

12 friggin' years ... and you want 6 more months!!!

Bullshit.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The point that you missed (and so did Obama) is that Bush's Status of Forces agreement was to prevent what is happening now. It costs so much more in money and lives to try to push back than it would have cost to prevent this.

EVA and his bunch has the same experience that Obama has.... NONE!

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's apparent that military experience means nothing to them, except theirs.

It would be interesting had Obis signed it without legal immunity for our forces, and there were several standing trial in Iraq courts. the barrage of blame coming from the right.

Bottom line is either way it gives the o'blamers something to whine about.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Bullshit.

Excellent description of your post. Indeed, it was a powerful way to summarize your very own words! I could not have said it better myself!

LLIdiot is still trying to put lipstick on the (Darth Cheney) pig. Despite 12 years of trying, he has yet to make ol' "Dick" (or the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq) attractive. Keep up the futile work, LLIdiot!

It should be noted that the Patriarch of the Idiot Klan, errrr Clan has a very long history of being totally incapable of admitting mistakes. It seems to run rampant in the entire Idiot Family.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The point that you missed (and so did Obama) is that Bush's Status of Forces agreement was to prevent what is happening now. It costs so much more in money and lives to try to push back than it would have cost to prevent this.

EVA and his bunch has the same experience that Obama has.... NONE!

Running around the deck of a ship with Marines that will actually go to combat is not the same as combat experience JD.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's apparent that military experience means nothing to them, except theirs.

It is apparent that actual facts mean nothing to you. You think the 2003 invasion of Iraq was correct just like you still think Custer's charge into Little Big Horn was a good military move.
You still think Portland drafting Bowie over Jordon a sound basketball move.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's apparent that military experience means nothing to them, except theirs.

Since you brought the issue up, please tell us of your vast amount of "military experience."

Please Note: There is no need to share Cub and Boy Scout adventures!