How do you respond?

<p>Ignore him. It's all he deserves.</p>

<p>Hopefully, Providence will come down and drop a few AK-47-toting, Allah-u-ackbar-screaming nutcases wherever he is, and while he's sitting there waxing eloquent to them about the virtues of Marx and wetting his pants as they threaten to kill him, he'll see the light.</p>

<p>Until then, take pity on the poor fool, if you waste any time on him at all.</p>

<p>Back to the original topic, it also occurs to me that while the response "Where/What's that?" can be annoying, the fact is that the SA's are in many ways this country's best-kept secrets. Take the opportunity to initiate another product of the pop culture into the knowledge of what the SA's are, and the caliber of the kids who go there. Not only will you be pushing back the frontiers of ignorance (to borrow a phrase), you may even be laying the groundwork for another future applicant! ;)</p>

<p>the one thing everyone on here has in common, including confused23, is that they believe strongly in a cause. the difference is that some on here actually do something about it. confused just hides behind his computer like all tree-hugging, jane fonda-loving, pot-smoking hippie commie liberals. if you hate this country so much, i heard iran was nice. you have no right to criticize anyone on here. u clearly take your freedom for granted. believe me, if you made comments like this to a soldier in person (enlisted, officer or cadet) you likely would get your a$$ kicked (well maybe not officer). not because we cant defend ourselves with words, just because wooping some a$$ sends a better message.</p>

<p>i'll leave it to the words of General Tommy Franks: "When your men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a p****."
-General Tommy Franks</p>

<p>
[quote]
well maybe not officer

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Don't bet on that. :D</p>

<p>
[quote]
"When your men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's dating a p****."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>He said that?</p>

<p>LOL!</p>

<p>My kinda guy! :D</p>

<p>Good post Homer - Love the quote!</p>

<p>Funny you mentioned Iran, as Confused is Iranian. He hasn't yet stated what he is doing in this country - especially since he seems to hate it so much. Of course the freedom & opportunity in America must have something to do with it. If he's here as a student (which I suspect), then I question the climate of the school he is attending. Must be another one of those "Liberal" institutions specializing in Brainwashing 101.</p>

<p>Oh gee, am I "baiting"?? Oops! Sometimes I just can't help stirring the pot! (If we can't take Confused out behind the woodshed, at least we can give him a verbal trouncing - oh that's right, he's already had it! Many times over!).</p>

<p>
[quote]
Confused is Iranian

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Iranians everywhere take exception to that. ;)</p>

<p>First of all I was born here so you're not any more of a citizen and aren't any higher by the rule of the law, although you think you are.</p>

<p>Homer, just to clarify, the following people were/are also passionate about their causes and believe(d) very highly in them:</p>

<p>Lucifer
Hitler
Stalin
McCarthy</p>

<p>the list goes on...</p>

<p>Passion does not equal correctness, nor firmness moral fortitude. It merely means one is so smart as to know what is right or so stupid they can't tell the difference.</p>

<p>Oh Lucifer, why don' you mention the Hulk and the Green Goblin , while we are at it. What a religious idiot! McCarthy and Hitler were right-wingers too, last time I checked.</p>

<p>I like how you failed to mention Stalin...</p>

<p>is he your idol? Are you afraid to bad-mouth your fearless leader?</p>

<p>Stalin wasn't a real "liberal" or any where to the left of the spectrum. Although he called himself a "socialist" and the "man of the people" he wasn't. Based on his policies he would be considered a a right-winger. Oh, and again, the Nazis would still be in power if the USSR didn't fight Hitler since they took the brunt of Germany's war machine.</p>

<p>To explain why Stalin isn't a liberal or a socialist or anything of the sort is the fact that socialist theory predicts that industrialization must take place before the economic gaps widens and the ruling class exploits the workers and USSR at that time wasn't industrailized so most leftists were actually killed by Stalin because they saw Stalin as haphazardly trying to do what couldn't happen yet.</p>

<p>Stalin killed regardless of political preference. He killed to retain power. The Soviet Union survived WW2 for two major reasons</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Material supplied by the West gave him the time to relocate his own factories further east and out of range of german bombers.</p></li>
<li><p>Japan's assurances to Stalin not to attack Russia from the East--this allowed Stalin to pull fresh divisions from Siberia into the fight to defend Moscow.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>The Russian people and army paid a terrible price fighting Hitler for 4 years, but they didn't do it alone.</p>

<p>Must----</p>

<p>resist-----</p>

<p>the----</p>

<p>urge----</p>

<p>to-----</p>

<p>remove-----</p>

<p>Ignore----</p>

<p>and----</p>

<p>reply------</p>

<p>:D</p>

<p>japan attacked russia several times and the materials given to the USSR by the West was minimal and I never said the did it alone, I said that the majority of the war was on the Eastern Front.</p>

<p>Somebody say something? :confused:</p>

<p>:D</p>

<p>Our children who are going to service academies for "free" - then giving an obligatory 5 years' commitment are doing so with full knowledge that they will be called upon to be in harm's way. Most cadets who have been accepted at the "free" service academies also had many other "free" opportunities with scholarships in very good schools. The kids who are accepted at the service acadmies are the cream of the crop and have been welcomed with open arms and many, many other nice perks to civilian schools. So, it is not necessarily the "free" college that attracts these young men and women. My daughter had some very lucrative offers at some very good schools. Her desire to serve her country was stronger than going to a civilian school with a lot more freedom. As far as what Confused said about the fact that more enlisted are fighting on the front, does that mean that any sane parent is happy and willing to gamble that their child will be the one that is not injured or killed? It doesn't matter if the odds are less, nobody wants to gamble with the odds with their childrens' lives. I am very proud of the fact that my daughter wants to serve her country and I will worry about her being in harm's way, but she has made a very adult decision and we fully support her and all of our fine, brave men and women in all of our armed services.</p>

<p>
[quote]
As far as what Confused said about the fact that more enlisted are fighting on the front...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well no duh. That's the way it works. There are more enlisted than officers anywhere. Been that way since we were throwing rocks at each other.</p>

<p>Jeez, that guy's an idiot. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>World War II was not fought "mostly" on the Eastern Front. True, the Russians had their share of the battle...Kursk, Stalingrad, defending Moscow, and then leading into Berlin. However, the USA and Great Britain and the other commonwealth countries also had to contribute a LOT of manpower. While these countries did not lose as many people as the USSR did, their contribution to the war effort is amazing. Consider the following: Battle of Britain (if the British had lost here, the war would have undoubtedly been lost); US/British bombing efforts; Battle of the Atlantic; Normandy; Midway; Battle of Leyte Gulf; Iwo Jima; atomic bomb...and the list goes on. Without the USA's production efforts and resources the allied powers would have had a much more difficult time defeating the axis. Consider the lend-lease act. The USA supplied ships, planes, tanks, and even food/bread etc to both the UK and USSR. </p>

<p>While the Russians did indeed have their fair share of the fighting, you have to also remember that being assigned to the Eastern Front was considered a major demotion for a German Officer. Also, Russian aviation was considered inferior to the German Luftwaffe for the longest time. Notice that all three of Germany's 300+ victory aces (Hartmann, for example, and Rudel in the Stuka) fought their entire careers on the Russian Front. The Germans took on the USSR thinking that it would be an easy victory, which is true for the first year or so...until Germany's resources began to be spread too thin on both the Eastern and Western fronts, and the US/UK bombing efforts began to have an effect...Point is, both the USSR and the USA/UK/commonwealth contributed to the defeat of Germany, Italy, and Japan. Without the efforts of all sides, the axis would have won WWII...</p>

<p>No, no, no! Don't you get it?</p>

<p>WE FINANCED Hitler! The great Stalin, in his supreme brilliance and nobility, defeated the spawn of the United States all by himself!</p>

<p>Geez, man! Get with the program, here! :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Oh, and as you should know, the Pacific War was a racist war against the peaceful yellow people. We bombed our own ships at Pearl Harbor. It was Bush's fault. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>
[quote]
It was Bush's fault

[/quote]
</p>

<p>HAHA!! ROFL, it's always Bush's fault these days :rolleyes:. Do people not realize what little effect one person has on the entire nation's policy? Look to Congress to cast blame upon...while Bush has made his mistakes, he's not responsible for every little thing that happens, because most of what happens is out of his control!</p>