• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

This has historical significance...a MUST read

Faster horses

Well-known member
Got this in a email. It is well worth the time to read it.




Historical significance .... what has changed?

SOME OF YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY
> FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WW II . MOST OF YOU DON'T
> REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR. NO TIRES FOR
> OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD,
> NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES. READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE
> WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER BY FOREIGNERS IN 2007.
>>
>> This is an EXCELLENT essay . Well thought out and presented.
>>
>>
>> Historical Significance
>>
>> Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of
> Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat. The
> Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between
> England and America taking food and war materials
>>
>> At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most
> Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war
>>
>> Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 , and in outrage
> Congress unanimously declared war on Japan , and the following day on
> Germany , who had not yet attacked us . It was a dicey thing . We had
> few allies .
>>
>> France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly
> aligned itself with its German occupiers Germany was certainly not
> an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in
> Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning
> and controlling all of Asia..
>>
>> Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada
> and Mexico , as launching pads to get into the United States over our
> northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of
> Asia and Europe.
>>
>> America's only allies then were England , Ireland , Scotland ,
> Canada , Australia, and Russia . That was about it. All of Europe,
> from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under
> the Nazi heel .
>>
>> The US was certainly not prepared for war. The US had drastically
> downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the
> depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were
> training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars
> with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks A
> huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor.
>>
>> Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of
> $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was
> actually the property of Belgium ) given by Belgium to England to carry
> on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact).
>>
>> Actually, Belgium surrendered after one day, because it was unable
> to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into
> rubble the next day just to prove they could
>>
>> Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of
> staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in
> the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany
> only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a
> relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later. Hitler, first
> turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940 at a time
> when England was on the verge of collapse.
>>
>> Ironically, Russia saved America's b*tt by putting up a
> desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin
> hammering away at Germany .
>>
>> Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of
> Stalingrad and Moscow alone . . 90% of them from cold and
> starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers
>>
>> Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his
> entire war effort against the Brits, then America. If that had
> happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war .
>>
>> All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning
> points in history are often dicey things. Now, we find ourselves at
> another one of those key moments in history.
>>
>> There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or
> wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear,
> biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world .
>>
>> The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs
> -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi
> Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe,
> then the world. To them, all who do not bow to their will of
> thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated . They want to
> finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel , and purge the world of Jews .
> This is their mantra . (goal)
>>
>> There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most
> part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its
> Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not yet known which side
> will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists.
>>
>> If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will
> control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US , European, and
> Asian economies.
>>
>> The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not
> an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an
> OPEC dominated by the Jihadis. Do you want gas in your car? Do you
> want heating oil next winter? Do you want the dollar to be worth
> anything? You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition,
> loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.
>>
>> If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who
> believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, live in
> peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century
> into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually
> fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.
>>
>> We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to
> fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al
> Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it
> somewhere. We can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a
> focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing . . .
> . . .. . . in Iraq Not in New York , not in London , or Paris or
> Berlin , but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things.
>>
>> (1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly
> involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that
> Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for
> decades Saddam was a terrorist! Saddam was a weapon of mass
> destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a
> 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians
>>
>> (2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with
> Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are
> killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get
> here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful
> Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of
> the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military
> presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed
>>
>> WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began
> with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It
> began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen
> years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17
> year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in
> Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on
> their own a gain . . a 27 year war.
>>
>> WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a
> full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12
> trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers
> killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.
>>
>> The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about
> $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack
> cost New York. It has also cost about 3,000 American lives, which is
> roughly equivalent to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United
> States) in the 9/11 terrorist attack .
>>
>> The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been
> unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and
> German Nazism
>>
>> This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which
> everything comes out okay . The real world is not like that. It is
> messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It always has been,
> and probably always will be .
>>
>> The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism
> until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we
> ignore it
>>
>> If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then
> we have an ally, like England , in the Middle East, a platform, from
> which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East.
> The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative
> civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates
> to conquer the world.
>>
>> The Iraq War is merely another battle in this ancient and never
> ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about
> to get nuclear weapons. Unless somebody prevents them from getting
> them.
>>
>> We have four options:
>>
>> 1 . We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.
>>
>> 2 . We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons
> (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear
> weapons is what Iran claims it is).
>>
>> 3 . We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the
> Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and
> ultimately in America.
>>
>> OR
>>
>> 4 . We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the
> Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad
> has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of
> Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and
> much bloodier.
>>
>> If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your
> children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the
> Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.
>>
>> The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes,
> cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society
> and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.
>>
>> Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win . The
> pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them .
>>
>> Remember, perspective is every thing, and America's schools teach too
> little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young
> American mind.
>>
>> The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall
> came down in 1989; forty-two years!
>>
>> Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon,
> and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany !
>>
>> World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year
> occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan . World
> War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe
> more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you
> accept.
>>
>> The US has taken more than 3,000 killed in action in Iraq.. The US
> took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944
> , the firs t day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi
> Imperialism.
>>
>> In WW II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most
> of the individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the
> entire Iraq war has done so far
>>
>> The stakes are at least as high . A world dominated by
> representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and
> personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic
> Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia
> (Islamic law)
>>
>> It's difficult to understand why the average American does not
> grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and
> freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.
>>
>> "Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America ,
> where it's safe.
>>
>> Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria ,
> Iraq , Sudan , North Korea , in the places that really need peace
> activism the most? I'll tell you why! They would be killed!
>>
>> The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil
> rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc . , but if the Jihad
> wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human
> rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc.
>>
>> Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the
> side of their own worst enemy!
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Raymond S . Kraft is a writer and an attorney living in Northern
> California who has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Please consider passing along copies of this article to students in
> high school, college and university as it contains information about
> the American past that is very meaningful today -- history about
> America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their
> instructors, too). By being denied the facts of our history, they
> are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking
> through the issues of today. They are prime targets for
> misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and
> beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>

>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>>
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
>> Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria ,
> Iraq , Sudan , North Korea , in the places that really need peace
> activism the most? I'll tell you why! They would be killed!
\


But according to John McCain, he could walk down the streets just like he was walking in Baker MT...safe as in his mommies arms!! Was this Republican wrong????? Surely not????? :???: :???: :???: :roll: :roll:
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Why is it Iraq war is compared to WW2?....sure people are dying and military is involved,but the similarities end there....No one was taking over countries to rule their way?If So who is the hitler in this war?...the cival war in Iraq was not started because of people being surpressed...In all honesty this is an invasion not a war...Why not fight the terriost more like they fight,with stratigic pinpointed attacks....Why bring an entire country to its knees?Or bankrupting your own in the mean time?..It is not fair to those who fought and where leaders in ww2 to compare them to this invasion....The leaders back then did not go to war on their own agenda's,they went as a last resort to keep freedom alive...If your going to respect the time and people of ww2 do it...Please do not dimish their efforts of a war fought for freedom by comparing it to a un-thought out invasion over non excisting WMD's gone bad.. :mad:.

Why do people continue to change the original reason for this invasion?...The reason was WMD's so please stop making this invasion about other issues just cause the egg on that face has dried......
 

Cal

Well-known member
That was very insightful, FH. Thanks. Hope all will read it, am sure it will bring out the kooks.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
We need leaders that will out smart the terriosts not just smash around at them like it is a "Whack-A-Mole" game at your local county fair....It really is time to arm our countries with weapons of terriost destruction...the best way to beat any opponent is to out think them....I will agree we need to "protect us,expose them and then finish them",that is the equation i like best...
 

MoGal

Well-known member
John Hagee has been talking about this for the last couple of years and even wrote a book on it, "Countdown to Jerusaleum". Saddam had enough nuclear to blast the entire world 3 times over before the USA went over there (according to Perry Stone who was a guest speaker).
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
There are a few "facts" wrong that do play a part in the author's argument that our war against Iraq has precedence. One thing wrong and it is a minor thing but, the declaration of war against Japan was not unanimous. There was one vote against it. Also, the declaration of war against Germany did NOT come the next day and it did NOT come without provocation. On the morning of 11 DEC 41, both Germany and Italy declared war on the US. We simply returned the favor by declaring war on them later in the day. Therefore, the war against Iraq is not as favorable as this author would like everyone to think.
 

andybob

Well-known member
>> America's only allies then were England , Ireland , Scotland ,
> Canada , Australia, and Russia. That was about it. All of Europe,
> from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under
> the Nazi heel .


And the rest of the Commonwealth? India, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia and Kenya as well as many smaller countries, not only supplied troops (Rhodesia and New Zealand having the highest per capita contribution), but financed their share of the war effort. No allies should be forgotten when the conflict is over.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
schnurrbart said:
There are a few "facts" wrong that do play a part in the author's argument that our war against Iraq has precedence. One thing wrong and it is a minor thing but, the declaration of war against Japan was not unanimous. There was one vote against it. Also, the declaration of war against Germany did NOT come the next day and it did NOT come without provocation. On the morning of 11 DEC 41, both Germany and Italy declared war on the US. We simply returned the favor by declaring war on them later in the day. Therefore, the war against Iraq is not as favorable as this author would like everyone to think.

Yep-- and the person that voted against WWII was also the first lady Representative in Congress-- and from Montana-- Jeannette Rankin...She also voted against WWI....Only person to vote against both World Wars...

Her crooked attorney brother (Wellington D. Rankin) ran the Montana Republican party for years- altho could not get himself elected to anything...At one time he controlled more land in the US (deeded, BLM, state leases) than anyone else....He had land that neighbored us for some time--altho he wouldn't have known it...Since he was the head of the Parole Board he got Parolees out early if they went and worked his ranchs and linecamps-- treated them like slaves (not even providing them with food and necessities), but their only recourse was go back to the Pen and serve out their time....
Ran his cows like Russell's "last of the 5000"......


And your right Schurrbert-- Germany and Italy declared war on us, before we returned the favor....
 

oldmac

Active member
nonothing said:
Why is it Iraq war is compared to WW2?....sure people are dying and military is involved,but the similarities end there....No one was taking over countries to rule their way?If So who is the hitler in this war?...the cival war in Iraq was not started because of people being surpressed...In all honesty this is an invasion not a war...Why not fight the terriost more like they fight,with stratigic pinpointed attacks....Why bring an entire country to its knees?Or bankrupting your own in the mean time?..It is not fair to those who fought and where leaders in ww2 to compare them to this invasion....The leaders back then did not go to war on their own agenda's,they went as a last resort to keep freedom alive...If your going to respect the time and people of ww2 do it...Please do not dimish their efforts of a war fought for freedom by comparing it to a un-thought out invasion over non excisting WMD's gone bad.. :mad:.


Why do people continue to change the original reason for this invasion?...The reason was WMD's so please stop making this invasion about other issues just cause the egg on that face has dried......

Join with me as we once again find the pink caped crusader from the North as he searches for his not so faithful stick horse who has abandoned him in search of someone who shows some signs of intelligence.

The caped crusader NOnothing is on a soap box 2" tall (afraid of heights)
as he once again almost wets his pink chaps because he does not have a grasp on the over all picture.
So desperate is he to gain some sort of respect he seems to be abandoning his usual tact of calling names and hiding under mommies skirt, instead he wants to know why history repeats its self.
He slowly wipes the tear from his eye as he realizes how screwed up he really is!
the Pink chaps and chartreuse shirt are soiled and there is no one around to help bathe him!
to be contuinued
 

movin' on

Well-known member
You know what amuses me the most about all this?

I have read two wonderfully penned, thought out, informative, logical, rational, reasonable essays about the conflict (or war, invasion, whatever) in Iraq. The start of this thread was obviously one of them and the other one was a hypothetical yet I would presume deadly accurate account of the speech Bush would give if he were to resign. Somebody did some research and put some thought into the pieces. Yet, when somebody from the opposing side responds it's....."Dubya Sucks!!" or "We invaded the WRONG COUNTRY!!" or "There were no weapons of mass destruction!!" or some other lame one liner. Could you people please give some real responses on here! If I were to land on the earth from a different planet and, not knowing anything else, read the inputs in this forum, I would undoubtedly be on the side of the "non-liberals" simply because the "liberals" display very, very little intelligence in their reasonings. So please, I beg you, give us something we can use! Don't be afraid to "use the back side of the test" if your responses go a little long.
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
movin' on said:
You know what amuses me the most about all this?

I have read two wonderfully penned, thought out, informative, logical, rational, reasonable essays about the conflict (or war, invasion, whatever) in Iraq. The start of this thread was obviously one of them and the other one was a hypothetical yet I would presume deadly accurate account of the speech Bush would give if he were to resign. Somebody did some research and put some thought into the pieces. Yet, when somebody from the opposing side responds it's....."Dubya Sucks!!" or "We invaded the WRONG COUNTRY!!" or "There were no weapons of mass destruction!!" or some other lame one liner. Could you people please give some real responses on here! If I were to land on the earth from a different planet and, not knowing anything else, read the inputs in this forum, I would undoubtedly be on the side of the "non-liberals" simply because the "liberals" display very, very little intelligence in their reasonings. So please, I beg you, give us something we can use! Don't be afraid to "use the back side of the test" if your responses go a little long.
:agree:

Thanks for posting this FH.

I've been saying for a ling time that I would rather fight them over there than here.

Liberals are so short sighted.

Maybe noe lib's is a better word? I'm sure there are some good lib's out there, wouldn't want to lump them in with these others. :wink:

And movin' on, that was a great reply, tho' I doubt our caped crusader will agree. :lol: :lol:

Bed wettin', cry baby liberals.

Sure would hate to share a foxhole with one. 'Course, there ain't much chance of that! :x
 

nonothing

Well-known member
movin' on said:
You know what amuses me the most about all this?

I have read two wonderfully penned, thought out, informative, logical, rational, reasonable essays about the conflict (or war, invasion, whatever) in Iraq. The start of this thread was obviously one of them and the other one was a hypothetical yet I would presume deadly accurate account of the speech Bush would give if he were to resign. Somebody did some research and put some thought into the pieces. Yet, when somebody from the opposing side responds it's....."Dubya Sucks!!" or "We invaded the WRONG COUNTRY!!" or "There were no weapons of mass destruction!!" or some other lame one liner. Could you people please give some real responses on here! If I were to land on the earth from a different planet and, not knowing anything else, read the inputs in this forum, I would undoubtedly be on the side of the "non-liberals" simply because the "liberals" display very, very little intelligence in their reasonings. So please, I beg you, give us something we can use! Don't be afraid to "use the back side of the test" if your responses go a little long.


So you sit and judge others who at least pick a side...I could write a long paragrapgh about how your just a fence sitter trying to get in good with your pals here....Honestly if you want better writen threads then try stepping up and getting involved.......I never claimed to be the know it all here,yet you judge me like your so much better than I...All I seen from you so far is an attack nothing more...Anyone that brings in the other planet crap,really does not come across as being all that bright anyways.....good day to you sir...
 

nonothing

Well-known member
oldmac said:
nonothing said:
Why is it Iraq war is compared to WW2?....sure people are dying and military is involved,but the similarities end there....No one was taking over countries to rule their way?If So who is the hitler in this war?...the cival war in Iraq was not started because of people being surpressed...In all honesty this is an invasion not a war...Why not fight the terriost more like they fight,with stratigic pinpointed attacks....Why bring an entire country to its knees?Or bankrupting your own in the mean time?..It is not fair to those who fought and where leaders in ww2 to compare them to this invasion....The leaders back then did not go to war on their own agenda's,they went as a last resort to keep freedom alive...If your going to respect the time and people of ww2 do it...Please do not dimish their efforts of a war fought for freedom by comparing it to a un-thought out invasion over non excisting WMD's gone bad.. :mad:.


Why do people continue to change the original reason for this invasion?...The reason was WMD's so please stop making this invasion about other issues just cause the egg on that face has dried......

Join with me as we once again find the pink caped crusader from the North as he searches for his not so faithful stick horse who has abandoned him in search of someone who shows some signs of intelligence.

The caped crusader NOnothing is on a soap box 2" tall (afraid of heights)
as he once again almost wets his pink chaps because he does not have a grasp on the over all picture.
So desperate is he to gain some sort of respect he seems to be abandoning his usual tact of calling names and hiding under mommies skirt, instead he wants to know why history repeats its self.
He slowly wipes the tear from his eye as he realizes how screwed up he really is!
the Pink chaps and chartreuse shirt are soiled and there is no one around to help bathe him!
to be contuinued


ty for the props OLDMANPA....LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
movin' on said:
You know what amuses me the most about all this?

I have read two wonderfully penned, thought out, informative, logical, rational, reasonable essays about the conflict (or war, invasion, whatever) in Iraq. The start of this thread was obviously one of them and the other one was a hypothetical yet I would presume deadly accurate account of the speech Bush would give if he were to resign. Somebody did some research and put some thought into the pieces. Yet, when somebody from the opposing side responds it's....."Dubya Sucks!!" or "We invaded the WRONG COUNTRY!!" or "There were no weapons of mass destruction!!" or some other lame one liner. Could you people please give some real responses on here! If I were to land on the earth from a different planet and, not knowing anything else, read the inputs in this forum, I would undoubtedly be on the side of the "non-liberals" simply because the "liberals" display very, very little intelligence in their reasonings. So please, I beg you, give us something we can use! Don't be afraid to "use the back side of the test" if your responses go a little long.

I'm sorry that I can't provide literary genius like some of you but, I would like to question your premise that there WERE wmds and that we invaded the wrong country. I will leave "Dubya SUCKS" alone for now. Since we weren't attacked by ANY country, I'm not sure why we started a war with one. The president clearly stated on 912 that we would not stop until the people responsible for 911 were either killed or captured. I say, that for all practical purposes, we have stopped. He pulled the majority of our military resouces away from the active chase of OBL and imbarked on an ill-advised invasion of Iraq. Granted, saddam did need to go but I, for one among millions, feel that he didn't need to go right then. We had a righteous mission ahead of us with virtually the entire world, even many Arab countries, behind us in our quest for justice for the perps of 911. Bush squandered that resource with his invasion of Iraq. So, my thoughts on your "lame, one-liners" comment is that it is an over-used, lame one-liner used by the rightwingers who can't seem to get the fact that this is totally out of hand through their heads.
 

hopalong

Well-known member
nonothing said:
oldmac said:
nonothing said:
Why do people continue to change the original reason for this invasion?...The reason was WMD's so please stop making this invasion about other issues just cause the egg on that face has dried......

Join with me as we once again find the pink caped crusader from the North as he searches for his not so faithful stick horse who has abandoned him in search of someone who shows some signs of intelligence.

The caped crusader NOnothing is on a soap box 2" tall (afraid of heights)
as he once again almost wets his pink chaps because he does not have a grasp on the over all picture.
So desperate is he to gain some sort of respect he seems to be abandoning his usual tact of calling names and hiding under mommies skirt, instead he wants to know why history repeats its self.
He slowly wipes the tear from his eye as he realizes how screwed up he really is!
the Pink chaps and chartreuse shirt are soiled and there is no one around to help bathe him!
to be contuinued


ty for the props OLDMANPA....LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Looks like Oldmac has nailed it pretty close for you to start with the name calling :D :D :D :D :D
 

Jinglebob

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
movin' on said:
You know what amuses me the most about all this?

I have read two wonderfully penned, thought out, informative, logical, rational, reasonable essays about the conflict (or war, invasion, whatever) in Iraq. The start of this thread was obviously one of them and the other one was a hypothetical yet I would presume deadly accurate account of the speech Bush would give if he were to resign. Somebody did some research and put some thought into the pieces. Yet, when somebody from the opposing side responds it's....."Dubya Sucks!!" or "We invaded the WRONG COUNTRY!!" or "There were no weapons of mass destruction!!" or some other lame one liner. Could you people please give some real responses on here! If I were to land on the earth from a different planet and, not knowing anything else, read the inputs in this forum, I would undoubtedly be on the side of the "non-liberals" simply because the "liberals" display very, very little intelligence in their reasonings. So please, I beg you, give us something we can use! Don't be afraid to "use the back side of the test" if your responses go a little long.

I'm sorry that I can't provide literary genius like some of you but, I would like to question your premise that there WERE wmds and that we invaded the wrong country. I will leave "Dubya SUCKS" alone for now. Since we weren't attacked by ANY country, I'm not sure why we started a war with one. The president clearly stated on 912 that we would not stop until the people responsible for 911 were either killed or captured. I say, that for all practical purposes, we have stopped. He pulled the majority of our military resouces away from the active chase of OBL and imbarked on an ill-advised invasion of Iraq. Granted, saddam did need to go but I, for one among millions, feel that he didn't need to go right then. We had a righteous mission ahead of us with virtually the entire world, even many Arab countries, behind us in our quest for justice for the perps of 911. Bush squandered that resource with his invasion of Iraq. So, my thoughts on your "lame, one-liners" comment is that it is an over-used, lame one-liner used by the rightwingers who can't seem to get the fact that this is totally out of hand through their heads.

And you can't seem to get over the fact that you are not the commander in cheif.

If you think you can do a better job of running this country and this war, run for President. I'm sure there are 3 or 4 on these boards who would vote for you.

By the way, are you privvy to what all info the President gets?

If not, maybe you should quit second guessing him.

Every soldier Ive visited with says the same thing. We need to be there. The job is not done.

Wars are messy and when you have a news media who sends back slanted news and cherry picks their stories, you have the mess we all see on TB.

Good thing we didn't have a news media like this in WWII or we would all be speaking Japanese or German. And we wouldn't be doing it on a public talk room.

I'll agree that there are things that are bad about this war, but show me one war where every thing went right.

I'll bet you've never accomplished anything perfect yet, have you?

Cows all perfect? Crops perfect? All your equipment perfect?

Are you perfect?

If not, how do you expect any one or anything else to be perfect?
 

quickdraw

Well-known member
nonothing said:
[


ty for the props OLDMANPA....LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You must really enjoy the attention, because you just beg for more :roll: :roll: :roll:
I bet if you were to ignore oldmac he would just go away.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
quickdraw said:
nonothing said:
[


ty for the props OLDMANPA....LOL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You must really enjoy the attention, because you just beg for more :roll: :roll: :roll:
I bet if you were to ignore oldmac he would just go away.


The thing about you that i dislike is your a very unfair man quickdraw....I have been written about by this man just recently oh about ten different threads in which he tries to demean me...You have never once called him on it yet,Then i write one word and your on me about it...The only reason i can see for this is your need to be liked.....If you were the guy you try to come across as you would not be so one-sided in your threads to me....

Why should i have to ignore anyone just to get them to stop saying S hit about me?Why don't you leave a thread pointing out oldmanpa's behavior and scold him awhile now?I am sick of your high and mighty attitude towards me and no others...If you are the guy you pretend to be,stay on the side of what's right and fair,and if you can not do that,at least leave me alone.....I thank-you in advance....
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
Top