there is no LOW, LOW enough for the Liberal scum to sink to. just when you think you have seen the most scummy thing they have to offer, they top it with lie filled garbage.

they top it with lie filled garbage.

Correction - an Unbiased source as I was just admonished on another thread.

Liberal scum are people too.

yea, but they are not protected under the endangered species act yet.

They're breeding quite well.

Keep abortion legal!

Oh, my, this guy must've been in the navy--he knows his silhouettes. Or does he? My impression is a helicopter is a helicopter. The imagery was correct and rather imaginative.

My impression is a helicopter is a helicopter.

Sitting in the rear of a column of 150 fuel tankers...setting out across the berm...a helicopter is a helicopter except when the helicopter is a Hind...a flying tank that can absorb more damage from small arms up to and including 50 caliber APIT than a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and is armed with rockets and miniguns...and which BTW, is owned and operated by the ENEMY...then the difference is significant.

did any soviet-operated hinds engage us troops? or are you meaning those piloted by iraqis for a short time during gulf l?

not to mention ironic considering this very same "flying tank that can absorb more damage from small arms up to and including 50 caliber APIT than a Bradley Fighting Vehicle and is armed with rockets and miniguns" proved to be so vulnerable to afghani peasants who'd once seemed hopelessly doomed by their invaders' superior technology, overwhelming force, aggressive imperialism and unabashed hubris.

if nothing else, that russian chopper on the cover of 'time' musta been one of a modest number that lucked out, escaped the mujahideen and made it home.

it's a more than a lil unkind of you to make sport of those whom--through no fault of their own--weren't gifted with your uncanny ability to identify military helicopters solely by silhouette.

rather than harrassing that poor sap, why don't you amaze him by correctly naming all three of these?



i'm sure we can trust you to do so without referring to any source material other than your own memory. just as i'm sure we can count on your buddies here to refrain from assisting you in any way.

in any event--whether you succeed and show up the dummies at 'time'--it might not be too bad an idea to adjust your indignation quotient. someone made an error. happens alla time to us mere mortals.

one has to be pretty bored or bereft of any sense of proportion to consider it anything close to some sorta blogging milestone

My impression is a helicopter is a helicopter. The imagery was correct and rather imaginative.

To a layman, sure is.  just like to a layman, A dog is a dog is a dog.  But if you are a vet, you had better know the difference, right?  Or keep your professional opinions to yourself.

Some people are just too stupid to understand that their ignorance is a reflection on their professionalism.

and which BTW, is owned and operated by the ENEMY...then the difference is significant.

And then they scream "friendly fire scandal" when a soldier or sailor makes a mistake in the heat of battle.  Like these people are supposed to be perfect, even when the detractors, given the luxury of hindsight (pun intended) and an air conditioned office, cannot.

did any soviet-operated hinds engage us troops? or are you meaning those piloted by iraqis for a short time during gulf l?

The soviets (and now Russians) have sold those around the world, often to tin plated dictators like Chavez.  Many who could not keep them out of the hands of black marketeers to save their lives.  And almost all assuredly not on kissing terms with the US.

Which makes your snide comment not only seem juvenile, but also kind of ignorant.