New Poll shows the uneducated favor Trump.

People much smarter than you argued the same POV before WWII, Sissy Chap, and they were proved wrong by the course of events during WWII.


Ultimately, men and materiel had to invade the shores of Normandy and drive on Berlin to win that war. Air power alone did not win that war, Sissy Chap, just as air power alone will never win a war, Sissy Chap.

Air power employing conventional munitions did not win WWII, Korea, Iraq, and certainly did not win in Vietnam, Sissy Chap, and you have yet to produce an actual example that supports your ignorant POV, Sissy Chap, because you cannot produce such an example, Sissy Chap. Your fall back position of relying on unconventional nuclear weapons to achieve mere political goals has been duly noted, Sissy Chap, and that, you ignorant mutha fucker, is not a position shared by the greater part of either political party.


Originally Posted by I B Hankering

you're the gift that keeps on giving. I do have to admit you try and so I won't be so hard on you I do at least respect the fact you have the balls to actually challenge me. That is impressive in and of itself. (I'm such an uppity Knee Gar)

but in all seriousness let me lay you across my lap and spank your hiney as I give you an online military education.
10 Most Devastating Bombing Campaigns of WWII

10. Osaka (March-August 1945) – 10,000 killed


9. Kassel (February 1942-March 1945) – 10,000 killed


8. Darmstadt (September 1943-February 1944) – 12,300 killed


7. Pforzheim (April 1944-March 1945) – 21,200 killed

6. Swinoujscie (12 March 1945) – 5,000-23,000 killed

5. London (September 1940-May 1941) – 20,000 people killed

4. Berlin (1940-1945) – 20,000-50,000 killed

3. Dresden (October 1944-April 1945) – 25,000 killed

2. Hamburg (September 1939-April 1945) – 42,600 killed

1. Tokyo (November 1944-August 1945) – 100,000-plus killed

Again the point being that when you can kill over 100k people with a single bomb then your point clearly has no merit I don't care who's arguing it. LOL

http://www.onlinemilitaryeducation.o...aigns-of-wwii/

and quite possibly/probable a murderer what with ALLLLL the dead people around these two, coincidence?, hard to even fathom that at this point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwkMfpge3gE

Addendum:

Just to let you know, I do not just listen to Fox, I do listen to all Liberal Media as well, along with many other venues in order to form my "own opinion", just as I would venture say probably 80% of all conservatives do, (how can they not with it being thrown in there faces 24/7), unlike the Liberals who want to hear nothing of what a conservative has to say, unless they have computer between themselves and the conservative, so they can name call. I actually had it happen this weekend while out to dinner, when one of the women said, "I am a Liberal and I want to hear nothing of what you have to say" mind you this woman has gone on other political boards and calls everyone names, like a drunken sailor. I wanted to say, why? because you can't debate your side of the issue??? Originally Posted by Cherie

Hey sweetie I read all of your subsequent responses and why are you pivoting. You're all over the map go back to the original point. Better yet just respond to my feedback to you in red. Stop jumping all over the place like that it confuses the hell out of me and I don't like it. Stay on topic please.

You do know that when you write in that fashion it shows what a racist asshole you are and shows you ran out of anything intelligent to say. Sistine is not gonna be bothered by it anyway. I wonder if you would say it to his face. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

MTP - It doesn't matter to me even if he said it to my face I wouldn't do anything about it. Not because I'm a pussy but rather words have never bothered me and besides I conceal carry pretty heavily and when you conceal carry it comes with great responsibility and required restraint. So unless he posed himself as real physical threat he's free to say whatever it is that he likes. That is my general approach to life.

I have advanced weapons training and so I behave as such and to their chagrin I am member of the NRA. I know they can't understand it. ohh but wait he's a liberal. LOL

I do at least respect the fact you have the balls to actually challenge me. Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

??? Your posts are so lame, semi-articulate, uninformed and full of shit that most of us ask ourselves whether we really want to waste our precious time responding to them. It takes inexhaustible patience to answer your gibberish, not balls.

...to their chagrin I am member of the NRA. Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Stop hallucinating. Nobody on this board reacts with "chagrin" to legal gun ownership. Do you always need to boost your insecure ego by posting this kind of faux macho nonsense?

??? Your posts are so lame, semi-articulate, uninformed and full of shit that most of us ask ourselves whether we really want to waste our precious time responding to them. It takes inexhaustible patience to answer your gibberish, not balls.



Stop hallucinating. Nobody on this board reacts with "chagrin" to legal gun ownership. Do you always need to boost your insecure ego by posting this kind of faux macho nonsense? Originally Posted by lustylad

eat cake . LOL

I eat CUM . LOL Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

ftfy

There ain't been a single war won solely with the use of conventional air power in the history of mankind, Sissy Chap. The theory that air power alone can achieve victory was blown to shit in WWII, Sissy Chap.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The First Gulf War did just that. The ground forces, led by the U.S., essentially moved in just to take whole Iraqi divisions as POWs.

BTW, without first winning it there, the "Overlord" would never have been possible.

The First Gulf War did just that. The ground forces, led by the U.S., essentially moved in just to take whole Iraqi divisions as POWs.

BTW, without first winning it there, the "Overlord" would never have been possible. Originally Posted by andymarksman

wonderful. yet another useless post by the NAZI. been reading your copy of Mein Kampf lately???

The First Gulf War did just that. The ground forces, led by the U.S., essentially moved in just to take whole Iraqi divisions as POWs.

BTW, without first winning it there, the "Overlord" would never have been possible. Originally Posted by andymarksman

That was a bit later in the campaign when the AF pilots decided to cut loose and before Gen Norman Schwarzkopfs division decimated most of the Iraqi military.

The First Gulf War did just that. The ground forces, led by the U.S., essentially moved in just to take whole Iraqi divisions as POWs.

BTW, without first winning it there, the "Overlord" would never have been possible. Originally Posted by andymarksman

Reread your own fucking post, Andy the Little Nazi Boy.

you're the gift that keeps on giving. I do have to admit you try and so I won't be so hard on you I do at least respect the fact you have the balls to actually challenge me. That is impressive in and of itself. (I'm such an uppity Knee Gar)

but in all seriousness let me lay you across my lap and spank your hiney as I give you an online military education.
10 Most Devastating Bombing Campaigns of WWII

10. Osaka (March-August 1945) – 10,000 killed


9. Kassel (February 1942-March 1945) – 10,000 killed


8. Darmstadt (September 1943-February 1944) – 12,300 killed


7. Pforzheim (April 1944-March 1945) – 21,200 killed

6. Swinoujscie (12 March 1945) – 5,000-23,000 killed

5. London (September 1940-May 1941) – 20,000 people killed

4. Berlin (1940-1945) – 20,000-50,000 killed

3. Dresden (October 1944-April 1945) – 25,000 killed

2. Hamburg (September 1939-April 1945) – 42,600 killed

1. Tokyo (November 1944-August 1945) – 100,000-plus killed

Again the point being that when you can kill over 100k people with a single bomb then your point clearly has no merit I don't care who's arguing it. LOL

http://www.onlinemilitaryeducation.o...aigns-of-wwii/ Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Pssst, Sissy Chap, you failed to give an example of a war won without tanks and infantry occupying strategic terrain. Every bombing raid you listed was followed by tanks, artillery and infantry, you self-infatuated jackass. And the U.S. still has troops in Germany and Japan, Sissy Chap.

Battle of Stalingrad, 23 August 1942–2 February 1943: 1,250,000–1,798,619 casualties

Battle of Berlin, 16 April–2 May 1945: 1,298,745 casualties

Battle of Moscow, 2 October 1941–7 January 1942: 1,000,000 casualties

Battle of Narva, 2 February–10 August 1944: 550,000 casualties

Battle of Luzon, 9 January–15 August 1945: 332,330–345,330 casualties

Battle of Kursk, 5 July–23 August 1943: 257,125–388,000 casualties

The Battle of Okinawa, 1 April until 22 June 1945: 367,000 casualties

The Siege of Leningrad, 8 September 1941 until 27 January 1944: 5,000,000+ casualties

you're the gift that keeps on giving. I do have to admit you try and so I won't be so hard on you I do at least respect the fact you have the balls to actually challenge me. That is impressive in and of itself. (I'm such an uppity Knee Gar)

but in all seriousness let me lay you across my lap and spank your hiney as I give you an online military education.
10 Most Devastating Bombing Campaigns of WWII

10. Osaka (March-August 1945) – 10,000 killed


9. Kassel (February 1942-March 1945) – 10,000 killed


8. Darmstadt (September 1943-February 1944) – 12,300 killed


7. Pforzheim (April 1944-March 1945) – 21,200 killed

6. Swinoujscie (12 March 1945) – 5,000-23,000 killed

5. London (September 1940-May 1941) – 20,000 people killed

4. Berlin (1940-1945) – 20,000-50,000 killed

3. Dresden (October 1944-April 1945) – 25,000 killed

2. Hamburg (September 1939-April 1945) – 42,600 killed

1. Tokyo (November 1944-August 1945) – 100,000-plus killed

Again the point being that when you can kill over 100k people with a single bomb then your point clearly has no merit I don't care who's arguing it. LOL

http://www.onlinemilitaryeducation.o...aigns-of-wwii/ Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

"You were right Sissy Chap" - I B Lying.

- I B Lying. Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Pssst, Sissy Chap, U B Lyin' and U B failing to give an example of a war won without tanks and infantry occupying strategic terrain. Every bombing raid U B listing was followed by tanks, artillery and infantry, U B self-infatuated jackass.

Battle of Stalingrad, 23 August 1942–2 February 1943: 1,250,000–1,798,619 casualties

Battle of Berlin, 16 April–2 May 1945: 1,298,745 casualties

Battle of Moscow, 2 October 1941–7 January 1942: 1,000,000 casualties

Battle of Narva, 2 February–10 August 1944: 550,000 casualties

Battle of Luzon, 9 January–15 August 1945: 332,330–345,330 casualties

Battle of Kursk, 5 July–23 August 1943: 257,125–388,000 casualties

The Battle of Okinawa, 1 April until 22 June 1945: 367,000 casualties

The Siege of Leningrad, 8 September 1941 until 27 January 1944: 5,000,000+ casualties

That was a bit later in the campaign when the AF pilots decided to cut loose and before Gen Norman Schwarzkopfs division decimated most of the Iraqi military. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

as a result of a controversy on the slaughter house kill of Iraqi soldiers in the waning days of the gulf war I, AF brass changed the position of the gun port so that AF pilots could not do strafing runs on the ground.

sistine chapel, the bombing campaign in WWII was not all that effective.

the saturation bombing of cities was literally a waste of time & resources.

Arguments that wars are one today with any one service alone are stupid. Ultimately the war must be closed on the ground, but the ground war cannot be won without some degree of winning--at least locally in time and space--the air and space wars (and unless there is a major land path for reinforcements and resupply, the sea).

But that won't stop some here from making those arguments.