NOT looking for a discussion, just an answer: HILLARY?

[shane27]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

After we had declaired war on Japan, Germany declaired war on the US.
I dont recall any declaration of war signed by Saddam, causing us to scare for our freedom where U boats would be off the coast, in which there would be whole black outs on the shore so that the U boats didnt know exactly how close they were.
Saddam's navy didnt blow up several supply ships trying to get to England.
We attacked Germany in Africa based on a strategic manuver. The approach was set up by Churchill to attack the "soft underbelly" of Africa, Italy, and capture the southern part of Europe. From there, they could launch an attack on the "fortress" of Northern Europe, especially the coast of France.
To compare WWII to this quagmire of crap, an illegal invasion of a soverign nation that never directly attacked us, nor made any major military action towards the US or its allies is, on top of a half hearted war to get this country into a ferver by walking into the disaster of Afganastan only to cut all support and leave our troops there to fight a Taliban and alQuidea forces to DOUBLE in size since the invasion and growing has got to be the dumbest thing I have read on here since Wayfast signed up.

al quidea and taliban are a mess right now idk where u get your sources, i assume the left wing media, if you listen to people over in iraq they will tell you the trie story

and im not comparing the wars, history repeats itself. enouff said im out

[jims69camaro]

about the only comparison i can find between WWII and desert debacle is the number of dead people after a sneak attack by the enemy. 3000 in each instance. sad-ham and his sons may not have directly attacked the US, but they were out of control and could be considered enemies of the US since they liked to invade kuwait so much, and kuwait (since desert shield) had been one of our allies.

we should have attacked our real enemy in the M.E., that being saudi arabia. those sneaks in sheets have been funding al qaeda and the taliban for a long time, long enough that al qaeda and osama bin hiding had enough cash to sponsor the 20 or so soldiers they used to attack the money center of the US: wall street. it's easy to be misled and say there was a connection between the two: iraq and al qaeda, but i see it a lot simpler than that. we goofed by invading iraq before we had osama - he's been hiding in afghanistan and pakistan since he led the attack on US, not iraq.

i get my news from the internet, btw, from as many sources as i can find so i am not getting one tainted view. i remember saying way back when that we would find out who our true enemies were once we started stomping around over there, namely, saudi arabia. we can't just trump up some charges and head into their country like we could with iraq, though, so i wonder how this whole mess is going to be resolved. the war on terror was a complete debacle and has not netted us the desired result of peace in the M.E., nor osama's head.

the next president, in addition to having a mess on his hands with the war over there, is going to have to have strong foreign policy in order to route out our friends from our enemies and then make a statement. i don't know how that is going to unfold, but i know i don't envy who ever gets the reins from bush.

[Savage_Messiah]

Originally Posted by shane27

and im not comparing the wars, history repeats itself. enouff said im out

Exactly, this is vietnam pt 2

[jims69camaro]

Originally Posted by Savage_Messiah

Exactly, this is vietnam pt 2

inasmuch as we won't "win" this war, but not much else can be compared. we owned the skies, we owned the initial ground assault, we crippled them inside of days. the reason it has dragged on so long, unlike viet nam, is that this is urban warfare.

like the viet cong, these al qaeda and taliban members can hide among their people, as there is no uniform or other way of telling who is your enemy and who isn't. that's why when we were kicking ass, and taking names, we were winning. now, trying to route out who is the enemy has basically stalled the military action over there, and our soldiers are nothing more than glorified policemen.

i say recall the majority of the troops. leave behind the seals, rangers and other specialized forces to pick off the enemy (through intel and other means), with a carrier off the coast to provide them with whatever air or other support as needed. that may provide us with a win as opposed to withdrawing the troops and running with our tail between our legs like we did in viet nam.

i think the focus has been lost. it was to route out the leaders of the taliban and al qaeda. then we were sidetracked with this whole iraq debacle, which basically hasn't produced real tangible results.

[johnjzjz]

Originally Posted by Savage_Messiah

Exactly, this is Vietnam pt 2

and you are completely right Vietnam 2 -- WOW -- and because of the direct effect the left had on this country at the time the animals who took over Cambodia < its next store BTW -- executed everyone in their country who had more than a 3 grade education some 5 or 6 million people some estimates said at the time ( and they are still in the stone age ) that BTW was happening when they realized we were not as a real armed force going to be able to do anything to them < political correctness at its best

so because of the strangle hold by the all the leftest who thought they knew better -- ( GEEE it seemed like i was just reading that sort of thing ) the AREA we were in than is not that different an AREA > the place we are in now in the middle east geeeee you think they WHAT < i KNOW they will say its BUSHES fault yep folks thars the reason -- and if this moron makes it > osomha bomma who will pull the USA out the same day he gets in the most liberal douche in congress its bushes fault again the than thousands who will be murdered BUT you don't get that part DO YOU -- i know halaburton and bush were directly responsable for 911 YA THINK --- If you dont have real direct truthfull input please i dont want to hear the latest from AL Frankin and the ILK --jz

[Savage_Messiah]

It's funny how everyone has to shift the blame to someone else.

[87GTA]

if either hilary or obama win the race i can forsee an assassination attempt. the country is due for another one considering the fact that there hasn't been an assassination attempt since reagan. half country wants hillary and the other half wants obama so either way somebody wont be happy at all


i have no vote...

[qwikz28]

please no religion bashing in this thread. this is a political thread, please keep posts civil. thanks

[Blacdout96]

ok, this whole thread has gottan way out of what the original question was. either you guys keep it to a yes or know ,or dont post. I say lock this b1tch up, everyone is beatinga dead horse, and personally, politics should not be discussed on this board cause it always causes arguments like this.

[Icemansghost]

sorry for getting crazy over this. I deleted my posts. I guess thats what happens when your stuck in a tent.....

[WildBillyT]

Originally Posted by Blacdout96

ok, this whole thread has gottan way out of what the original question was. either you guys keep it to a yes or know ,or dont post. I say lock this b1tch up, everyone is beatinga dead horse, and personally, politics should not be discussed on this board cause it always causes arguments like this.

Exactly right. Usually politics and religion are banned discussions on message boards as all they do is make people bicker and fight. We haven't locked this yet because we want to see if people can handle it here.

[GrandmasterCow]

Originally Posted by WildBillyT

Exactly right. Usually politics and religion are banned discussions on message boards as all they do is make people bicker and fight. We haven't locked this yet because we want to see if people can handle it here.

Yup as as stated above, the topic is NOT looking for a discussion, just an answer: HILLARY? NOT lets start arguing politics/religion.

[jims69camaro]

i don't see any fighting.

[shane27]

ill "fight" with half these people and then ill be drinking with them at paul's or something a week or two later thats all i will say

BTW i just found http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080217/...fghan_violence
ya, we shouldnt be trying to kill these people, we should try to negotiate right?

i also thought the end to the first paragraph was intresting as well

" ...What appeared to be the deadliest terror attack in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.."

[Slow 88]

Originally Posted by shane27

ill "fight" with half these people and then ill be drinking with them at paul's or something a week or two later thats all i will say

BTW i just found http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080217/...fghan_violence
ya, we shouldnt be trying to kill these people, we should try to negotiate right?

i also thought the end to the first paragraph was intresting as well

" ...What appeared to be the deadliest terror attack in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.."

Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Yemen and I know I'm missing one two more should just be Bombed until the sand is covered with 3ft. of water or oil whatever comes first...

Especially Iran!! This joker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if anybody would be considered the anti-christ!! He is along the same lines as Hitler in my book...

There is alot of good articles here about iran.... http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/i...ran/index.html

Oh and Bubba428, that was a stupid ass comment about Hillary being the anti-christ!

[shane27]

we should just make them all a big parking lot and steal their oil

[JerzyIroc]

i think we should all vote for rambo

[johnjzjz]

Originally Posted by BigAls87Z28

After we had declaired war on Japan, Germany declaired war on the US.
I dont recall any declaration of war signed by Saddam, causing us to scare for our freedom where U boats would be off the coast, in which there would be whole black outs on the shore so that the U boats didnt know exactly how close they were.
Saddam's navy didnt blow up several supply ships trying to get to England.
We attacked Germany in Africa based on a strategic manuver. The approach was set up by Churchill to attack the "soft underbelly" of Africa, Italy, and capture the southern part of Europe. From there, they could launch an attack on the "fortress" of Northern Europe, especially the coast of France.
To compare WWII to this quagmire of crap, an illegal invasion of a soverign nation that never directly attacked us, nor made any major military action towards the US or its allies is, on top of a half hearted war to get this country into a ferver by walking into the disaster of Afganastan only to cut all support and leave our troops there to fight a Taliban and alQuidea forces to DOUBLE in size since the invasion and growing has got to be the dumbest thing I have read on here since Wayfast signed up.

has got to be the dumbest thing I have read on here since Wayfast signed up

we have a 14 year old kid who lives for knowledge about car stuff - carbs engine blocks what ever - and you use him as a goof to your post - perhaps you will give stupid advise about a car something and i will have a opportunity to correct you in that sort of goof as well - weak dude -- jz

[Savage_Messiah]

Originally Posted by johnjzjz

has got to be the dumbest thing I have read on here since Wayfast signed up

we have a 14 year old kid who lives for knowledge about car stuff - carbs engine blocks what ever - and you use him as a goof to your post - perhaps you will give stupid advise about a car something and i will have a opportunity to correct you in that sort of goof as well - weak dude -- jz

Wow, nice way of avoiding his points

[Tru2Chevy]

Originally Posted by Savage_Messiah

Wow, nice way of avoiding his points

FWIW, Al's post was directed at Shane I believe....not John.

- Justin

[johnjzjz]

Originally Posted by Savage_Messiah

Wow, nice way of avoiding his points

this guy is my hero do you agree

http://www.dotsub.com/films/moredema...etting=en_1618

[PBodyGT87]

Al, you need spell check, and desperately. Declared, not declaired. And Maneuver, not manuver. Sovereign, not soverign. Fervor, not ferver. Al Qaeda, not alQuidea. Fervor is also not quite used in the appropriate context, because it refers mostly to an emotional willingness to speak, but I get the idea. "Though you stated your opinion with great fervor, your spelling errors made your statement appear less intelligible."
Love,

Grammar Nazi.

(it's ok, you can hate me, i know you do.)

[firebirdcrazy]

I can not believe this post is still going !!!

[Frosty]

and going and going and going

[bubba428]

This isn't even about Hillary anymore its become some kind of monster of the same few people arguing null points....its like the E-Twilight Zone