A war we can't win...

[HighRoller]

That's what they said about WWII. First there were the Germans' buzzbombs, unguided terror weapons that were launched to attack morale, not targets. But we overcame them.
Then there were the Kamikazes. They killed 5000 of our boys in 3 months. Let me say that again. 5000 IN THREE MONTHS. Yet we overcame that. But Harry Reid says because we've lost 3000 troops in 4 years that we've lost the war. We've never seen tactics like this. We should withdraw the troops and not put any of our boys in harm's way. Excuse me, but what is the purpose of our military? Is it not to step into harm's way and defend us?
Anyone who says we CAN'T win this war is delusional. If we lose this war it's because we WON'T do what is necessary to get it done. Yeah, the enemy's tactics are unique, albeit effective. But we know Iran is sending sophisticated IED's to Al Quaeda in Iraq and that these weapons are killing our troops. What are doing about this? Nothing. Well, we're asking to talk to Iran about security in Iraq, which is like talking to a bank robber about a cash flow problem.
And Syria is shuttling in truckloads of "insurgents" (how can you be an insurgent if you're from somewhere else?) to fight our troops. What is being done about this? Well, Syria is the second stop on the "talking to our enemies like they are our friends" tour that Democrats and the U.N. have embarked on. I guess John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi want to thank Iran and Syria for helping Al Quaeda kill our troops. If not, what are they doing there?

[Old Texan]

If there is ever a book published with the title: "What's Wrong with America", Pelosi, Reid and Kerry will be on the cover.
Treason:idea: If the glove fits........

[Oldschool427]

We can't win a war by being nice to our enemy, it didn’t happen in WWII. The only winners hear is the American Media.

[bigq]

I think this sentence says it all ...
"Anyone who says we CAN'T win this war is delusional. If we lose this war it's because we WON'T do what is necessary to get it done."
I have family in Iraq and it has improved, but the killing continues. War is a nasty proposition and we are trying to have a nice war which does not work. Everyone knows that they jacked it up from the the second day we rolled into Baghdad and now 3 4 years later they figure out we need more people. Is it to late? i don't know only time will tell. A few major problems that they have had.
- Not enough troops and the correct equipment to secure the country after we rolled in.
- Trying to be nice. Like I said war in nasty and if you engage you should engage to win not be nice about it. We should have stopped right there when someone said we need to minimize collateral damage. I don't even know if this is possible in the political world today.
- The American people are not behind the war like they were in world war II. It is to distant and really does not affect our daily lives. Were is our sacrifice? We worry about the price of gas and if it will stop our river trips while Sargent good guy gets his lower body blown off.
- The Islam religion does not separate church and state and they have been fighting about this for centuries. Islam is what divides the region and the Muslim people.
Will we win....not by September:(

[Moneypitt]

This "civil war" has been going on for generations. Seems to me the future generations are in question as far as where their loyalities are......By being PC in this "war" are we just allowing the next generation of terrorists to flurish...As far as troop losses, we have the technoligy to win this war after we withdraw all our troops. Just use it.......And if we happen to kill a few future terrorists in the carpet bombing, so be it.....Maybe tell Iran if they continue to supply war machine items to Iraq, we will bomb Iraq into the stone age and then give the country to the jews....To watch over Iran from a better vantage point.....These people do not understand warfare, only their Jahad...........No rules........Time to win or leave, simple.......I guess we learned nothing in So East Asia..................MP

[ULTRA26 # 1]

This "civil war" has been going on for generations. Seems to me the future generations are in question as far as where their loyalities are......By being PC in this "war" are we just allowing the next generation of terrorists to flurish...As far as troop losses, we have the technoligy to win this war after we withdraw all our troops. Just use it.......And if we happen to kill a few future terrorists in the carpet bombing, so be it.....Maybe tell Iran if they continue to supply war machine items to Iraq, we will bomb Iraq into the stone age and then give the country to the jews....To watch over Iran from a better vantage point.....These people do not understand warfare, only their Jahad...........No rules........Time to win or leave, simple.......I guess we learned nothing in So East Asia..................MP
Yes Sir

[widowmaker]

I think this sentence says it all ...
"Anyone who says we CAN'T win this war is delusional. If we lose this war it's because we WON'T do what is necessary to get it done."
- The Islam religion does not separate church and state and they have been fighting about this for centuries. Islam is what divides the region and the Muslim people.
Will we win....not by September:(
They've been killing eachother in the sand for 100's of years, they are going to be killing eachother in the sand for 100's of years to come.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Yes Sir
Like you have the slightest idea about fighting a combat action. :rolleyes:

[Steve 1]

It could be over tomorrow all that is needed is someone with balls to declare that entire chit hole a Free Fire Zone.

[3 daytona`s]

every time I read it or hear it I go ballistic,are you nuts? The Viet Nam War would have been a piece of cake with criss- crossing the pitiful place with B-52`s The smart bombs/missles we have smoke this disgusting haven for hate and terror. Then pack up come home after notifying all if any problew what so ever there again the wrath will continue.:mad:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I have the same feelings. Unfortunately, we have a bunch of nutless politicians and civilians who make noise every time we move and will not LET us win this war. :mad:

[3 daytona`s]

I have the same feelings. Unfortunately, we have a bunch of nutless politicians and civilians who make noise every time we move and will not LET us win this war. :mad:
Flower Power Peace Brother:rolleyes:

[Baja Big Dog]

every time I read it or hear it I go ballistic,are you nuts? The Viet Nam War would have been a piece of cake with criss- crossing the pitiful place with B-52`s The smart bombs/missles we have smoke this disgusting haven for hate and terror. Then pack up come home after notifying all if any problew what so ever there again the wrath will continue.:mad:
Read it three times......WTF are you saying?
We could eliminate our PROBLEWS with some more MISSLES?

[bigq]

Read it three times......WTF are you saying?
We could eliminate our PROBLEWS with some more MISSLES?
:D :D :D

[OKIE-JET]

Read it three times......WTF are you saying?
We could eliminate our PROBLEWS with some more MISSLES?
I read it as "If ya kick that ass correct the first time, chances are, there wont be a second go round"....Germany anyone?:D

[Moneypitt]

I read it as "If ya kick that ass correct the first time, chances are, there wont be a second go round"....Germany anyone?:D
Or that other "we're bad asses" place, what was it, Oh yeah, Japan.......

[ULTRA26 # 1]

We will never win in Iraq, as we are not at war with Iraq. IMO the longer we are in Iraq, the worse the situation there will get. We invaded this Country with no plan of how to win, and it doesn't seem to me that we have a plan on how to win today..
I believe that it would be more effective to study the movement of the terrorist groups, follow them and take them out quietly rather than standing out in the open and waiting for the crazies to strike.
Seems we are trying to fight at their level instead of of using the intelligence this Country is made of and stands for.

[Poster X]

When you armchair junior Patton's get through high-fiving and slapping each other on the ass perhaps you could explain to us how you'd know if we even won the war?

[centerhill condor]

Glad to see the Poster has returned....perhaps your humor and wit will help rescue us.
As for how we are or are not winning the war...well, Al Sadr and Al queda are now being fought and shot by the very same tribes and groups that only a year ago were supporting them..funny how things change.
The tribes and villages quickly realized that those two groups kill everybody they can since any target is a good target for them...to quote the Eagles, "every form of refuge has its price".
Al Sadr and Al queda of course over played their hands and now they are being cut off. They could always make a come back...but they would have to fill another function than death delivery.
Some time ago, when one mosque was attacked hundreds of sunni mosques were destroyed and thousands of sunnis slaughtered. Now, not so much. It appears as if the pendelum swings there as it does everywhere else. Everybody tires of murder....even religous fanatics.
As far as victory is concerned, there are many different measures. The same things that worked in Phillipines, Japan, Germany, South Korea and those other never mentioned success stories.
Security, economic growth, gov't functions, sharing oil revenues, etc.
Our army is spending some money on economic projects to improve employment. Presumably, if you have a stake in the New Iraq you'll be less likely to help blow up your employer's shop.
One gauge of success is how much the Persians/Syrians feel the need to interfere. If they think Iraq will collapse into civil war they wouldn't be sending in trouble makers and supplies.
There are 50 measures of success..some more applicable than others.
You'd do well to find other sources of info than national news. They are only focused on one thing...selling stomach elixirs.
I'm optimistic 'cause I think we underestimate the Iraqi people. Something tells me they'd rather be griping about their congress and spending more time on the boat! Ahh the American dream!

[Old Texan]

Glad to see the Poster has returned....perhaps your humor and wit will help rescue us.
As for how we are or are not winning the war...well, Al Sadr and Al queda are now being fought and shot by the very same tribes and groups that only a year ago were supporting them..funny how things change.
The tribes and villages quickly realized that those two groups kill everybody they can since any target is a good target for them...to quote the Eagles, "every form of refuge has its price".
Al Sadr and Al queda of course over played their hands and now they are being cut off. They could always make a come back...but they would have to fill another function than death delivery.
Some time ago, when one mosque was attacked hundreds of sunni mosques were destroyed and thousands of sunnis slaughtered. Now, not so much. It appears as if the pendelum swings there as it does everywhere else. Everybody tires of murder....even religous fanatics.
As far as victory is concerned, there are many different measures. The same things that worked in Phillipines, Japan, Germany, South Korea and those other never mentioned success stories.
Security, economic growth, gov't functions, sharing oil revenues, etc.
Our army is spending some money on economic projects to improve employment. Presumably, if you have a stake in the New Iraq you'll be less likely to help blow up your employer's shop.
One gauge of success is how much the Persians/Syrians feel the need to interfere. If they think Iraq will collapse into civil war they wouldn't be sending in trouble makers and supplies.
There are 50 measures of success..some more applicable than others.
You'd do well to find other sources of info than national news. They are only focused on one thing...selling stomach elixirs.
I'm optimistic 'cause I think we underestimate the Iraqi people. Something tells me they'd rather be griping about their congress and spending more time on the boat! Ahh the American dream!
A voice of reason from someone that "understands the show". Very good points CC.

[Old Texan]

We will never win in Iraq, as we are not at war with Iraq. IMO the longer we are in Iraq, the worse the situation there will get. We invaded this Country with no plan of how to win, and it doesn't seem to me that we have a plan on how to win today..
I believe that it would be more effective to study the movement of the terrorist groups, follow them and take them out quietly rather than standing out in the open and waiting for the crazies to strike.
Seems we are trying to fight at their level instead of of using the intelligence this Country is made of and stands for.
Clandestine assasinations in other lands, some of which aren't to "friendly" to the good old US of A? Is that what I'm hearing?
Please explain how this will fly past "Congress".

[bigq]

When you armchair junior Patton's get through high-fiving and slapping each other on the ass perhaps you could explain to us how you'd know if we even won the war?
The war or Iraq stabilization? I think even if we stabilize the country and they have a functioning government we will still have the terror threat.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Clandestine assasinations in other lands, some of which aren't to "friendly" to the good old US of A? Is that what I'm hearing?
Please explain how this will fly past "Congress".
Seems much cleaner than the way we are doing it now. Not sure if it would fly past congress.

[Poster X]

Although I admire your panache in romanticizing the Iraqi war - I have to wholeheartedly disagree. You seem to forget Al Qaeda is as powerful, or more powerful, than they were six years ago. We've accomplished squat on that horizon according to your own right wing resources. You also forgot Gee (friggin) Dubya sent us there to fight terror and weapons of mass destruction. One of which hasn't subsided in the least. The other apparently forgotten and non-existant?
The measure for any war won is total surrender. But to obtain a surrender you have to have an indentifiable enemy. Perhaps a government and boys in a uniform? So you know who to shoot at. ;)
South Korea was not considered a victory. I'm not sure what book you've been reading but we bailed just like Viet Nam. The Phillipines were a power center for a very identifiable enemy that we defeated and they hooked ass. Not the same at all. Germany again was an identifiable enemy with slick uniforms and shiny buttons. Very easy to know who to shoot. And in Japan it was kinda easy to identify the enemy because they were the short people still alive after we nuked the shit out of the country. If that wasn't enough they wore unique hats and carried swords. But I digress...
For the first time we are fighting an enemy without a face. An enemy born of the people within the community. Some acting alone. Some in pairs. Many in small groups. Men, women, and even children. They walk among the many and the only thing that separates them from the hordes around them is their willingness to act. They can simply not act for six months and you my friend - will think you have won. But their fight is eternal. They don't measure a war in days, weeks, months, or even years. Their war is measured in lifetimes. Generations. Although your poetic rant made me want to carry a flag and limp while I whistle Dixie.. you have no intelligent way to know if you've won this war. All you are doing is sending young people to meet their maker for your reward. Bragging rights. So you can say "we kicked their ass" for a few months.. maybe a year, before the next terror attack and it starts it all over again.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Although I admire your panache in romanticizing the Iraqi war - I have to wholeheartedly disagree. You seem to forget Al Qaeda is as powerful, or more powerful, than they were six years ago. We've accomplished squat on that horizon according to your own right wing resources. You also forgot Gee (friggin) Dubya sent us there to fight terror and weapons of mass destruction. One of which hasn't subsided in the least. The other apparently forgotten and non-existant?
The measure for any war won is total surrender. But to obtain a surrender you have to have an indentifiable enemy. Perhaps a government and boys in a uniform? So you know who to shoot at. ;)
South Korea was not considered a victory. I'm not sure what book you've been reading but we bailed just like Viet Nam. The Phillipines were a power center for a very identifiable enemy that we defeated and they hooked ass. Not the same at all. Germany again was an identifiable enemy with slick uniforms and shiny buttons. Very easy to know who to shoot. And in Japan it was kinda easy to identify the enemy because they were the short people still alive after we nuked the shit out of the country. If that wasn't enough they wore unique hats and carried swords. But I digress...
For the first time we are fighting an enemy without a face. An enemy born of the people within the community. Some acting alone. Some in pairs. Many in small groups. Men, women, and even children. They walk among the many and the only thing that separates them from the hordes around them is their willingness to act. They can simply not act for six months and you my friend - will think you have won. But their fight is eternal. They don't measure a war in days, weeks, months, or even years. Their war is measured in lifetimes. Generations. Although your poetic rant made me want to carry a flag and limp while I whistle Dixie.. you have no intelligent way to know if you've won this war. All you are doing is sending young people to meet their maker for your reward. Bragging rights. So you can say "we kicked their ass" for a few months.. maybe a year, before the next terror attack and it starts it all over again.
Well written, Poster

[bigq]

I'm optimistic 'cause I think we underestimate the Iraqi people. Something tells me they'd rather be griping about their congress and spending more time on the boat! Ahh the American dream!
You mean like picking up arms and fighting along side US and Iraq forces to weed out a few terrorist? I was surprised to hear this the other day, a ray of hope maybe.

[3 daytona`s]

Read it three times......WTF are you saying?
We could eliminate our PROBLEWS with some more MISSLES?
Please read this very carefully YES

[3 daytona`s]

Or that other "we're bad asses" place, what was it, Oh yeah, Japan.......
don`t waste your time they are at starbucks passing out flowers. I love it though "JAPAN" we got their attention

[3 daytona`s]

:D :D :D
Have always wanted to ask this? Are you digging Michael Jackson or something? It looks as in your AVATAR a bad-ass Jackson with a squirt gun :confused: Creepy. Well anyway carry on:idea:

[Old Texan]

So we leave and we sits and we waits. Then when it happens again, we cleans up and say please don't do that again, we don't like it. Then we dig in deeper and we sits and we waits..........each day the costs go up, the jobs go away faster, the houses deteriorate more, the boats grow dusty, and we waits......we all moves in together and many start to "dig" their new rugs they kneel on and how if they ask this new diety, he'll set them up with some neat shit on the other side, and we waits.......

[centerhill condor]

The references to the success stories were "after" the fighting.
Korea, Japan, etc are all economic success stories. Some more than others and we had to fight a faceless enemy that used terror as a tactic. Some even today.
Look at Kosovo today. The Russians are all upset about a treaty granting freedom in Serbai! 30 years ago no one could have imagined freedom flowing through the point of a pen instead of the barrel of a gun.
I can understand some resentment regarding how the war started and how it has gone. All water under the bridge and some of it stained bright crimson.
Do you just not like "W" or is it that you somehow think that the rest of the world can be gummed into submission with thoughts of rainbows and lollipops?
As for Georgy Patton..he didn't like war, he loved it. See where it got him.
Giving up and goin' home hasn't worked for any cause in history...
If we withdraw you'll see a real war between the Turks, Persians, Kurds etc...and it will make you long for the days of "30 killed in roadside attack".
If you just don't like how its going put forth an idea that would be effective. Otherwise, we look like the bafoons in Congress!
CC

[bigq]

Have always wanted to ask this? Are you digging Michael Jackson or something? It looks as in your AVATAR a bad-ass Jackson with a squirt gun :confused: Creepy. Well anyway carry on:idea:
Now that you mention it does in in a way. Not as sexy as yours I'll grant you.
Nice to see a coherent post...sober again ah?:D

[Poster X]

The references to the success stories were "after" the fighting.
Korea, Japan, etc are all economic success stories. Some more than others and we had to fight a faceless enemy that used terror as a tactic. Some even today.
Look at Kosovo today. The Russians are all upset about a treaty granting freedom in Serbai! 30 years ago no one could have imagined freedom flowing through the point of a pen instead of the barrel of a gun.
I can understand some resentment regarding how the war started and how it has gone. All water under the bridge and some of it stained bright crimson.
Do you just not like "W" or is it that you somehow think that the rest of the world can be gummed into submission with thoughts of rainbows and lollipops?
As for Georgy Patton..he didn't like war, he loved it. See where it got him.
Giving up and goin' home hasn't worked for any cause in history...
If we withdraw you'll see a real war between the Turks, Persians, Kurds etc...and it will make you long for the days of "30 killed in roadside attack".
If you just don't like how its going put forth an idea that would be effective. Otherwise, we look like the bafoons in Congress!
CC
Knee jerk reactions and over-committment to unplanned retaliation is hardly the footprint of the most advanced nation on Earth. As we like to deem ourselves "the protectors of freedom" and "the most enlightened society on Earth", we should probably aspire to live up to that? We had an organization that with proper funding and support could fight terror on their own terms. Quietly and with dead certainty. However, their methods would have been quiet. There would have been no bragging on the news about our superiority. There would have been no one person gaining votes by taking credit for every kill. I speak of course, of the CIA. The agency we effectively neutered and rendered ineffective in this war on terror. Any sensible person knows you fight fire with fire. You fight terror with terror. This is old school technique and hardly liberal manifesto. But our President wanted to be "the man who defeated terror." He cared not about the lives he put in harms way. He cared not about the ginormous debt he would create. All he cared about, was who got credit for it. In the end (by either the hard way, or the easy way) we will have to disband Homeland Security and fund the CIA to do what they do so well, covert assassination. We will have to fund the FBI to do what they do so well, quietly protect the home front by infiltrating groups here that seek to harm us by using every dirty trick in the book. No news. No glory. No bragging rights. That's the ONLY way to fight terror. Iraq is lost because we can't stay forever. Whenever you guys decide we can pull out and claim victory it is INEVITABLE Iraq will fall into civil war and the tribes of the Middle East will once again fight for territory and control. All our time, our money, and our children committed to this war was simple waste.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The biggest problem that we face, in the so called war on terror, is identifying the enemy. The methods used recently in London and Glasgow seem far more effective, than US Troops standing tall in the middle of an ongoing civil war, in wait of attack.
With the understanding of the resentment regarding how the war started and how it has gone, should come an understanding and/or knowledge that the level and methods, of our involvement must change. Thankfully, this is becoming more evident among Dems and Reps alike.
I am optimistic that we will learn from our mistakes. Intelligence is the most powerful weapon of all, and in this regard,, the US has a distinct advantage.
IMO, by using our greatest resource, intelligence, we can keep terror in check and bolster our position in the world.
Just my .02

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Knee jerk reactions and over-committment to unplanned retaliation is hardly the footprint of the most advanced nation on Earth. As we like to deem ourselves "the protectors of freedom" and "the most enlightened society on Earth", we should probably aspire to live up to that? We had an organization that with proper funding and support could fight terror on their own terms. Quietly and with dead certainty. However, their methods would have been quiet. There would have been no bragging on the news about our superiority. There would have been no one person gaining votes by taking credit for every kill. I speak of course, of the CIA. The agency we effectively neutered and rendered ineffective in this war on terror. Any sensible person knows you fight fire with fire. You fight terror with terror. This is old school technique and hardly liberal manifesto. But our President wanted to be "the man who defeated terror." He cared not about the lives he put in harms way. He cared not about the ginormous debt he would create. All he cared about, was who got credit for it. In the end (by either the hard way, or the easy way) we will have to disband Homeland Security and fund the CIA to do what they do so well, covert assassination. We will have to fund the FBI to do what they do so well, quietly protect the home front by infiltrating groups here that seek to harm us by using every dirty trick in the book. No news. No glory. No bragging rights. That's the ONLY way to fight terror. Iraq is lost because we can't stay forever. Whenever you guys decide we can pull out and claim victory it is INEVITABLE Iraq will fall into civil war and the tribes of the Middle East will once again fight for territory and control. All our time, our money, and our children committed to this war was simple waste.
Another great post

[bigq]

Knee jerk reactions and over-committment to unplanned retaliation is hardly the footprint of the most advanced nation on Earth. As we like to deem ourselves "the protectors of freedom" and "the most enlightened society on Earth", we should probably aspire to live up to that? We had an organization that with proper funding and support could fight terror on their own terms. Quietly and with dead certainty. However, their methods would have been quiet. There would have been no bragging on the news about our superiority. There would have been no one person gaining votes by taking credit for every kill. I speak of course, of the CIA. The agency we effectively neutered and rendered ineffective in this war on terror. Any sensible person knows you fight fire with fire. You fight terror with terror. This is old school technique and hardly liberal manifesto. But our President wanted to be "the man who defeated terror." He cared not about the lives he put in harms way. He cared not about the ginormous debt he would create. All he cared about, was who got credit for it. In the end (by either the hard way, or the easy way) we will have to disband Homeland Security and fund the CIA to do what they do so well, covert assassination. We will have to fund the FBI to do what they do so well, quietly protect the home front by infiltrating groups here that seek to harm us by using every dirty trick in the book. No news. No glory. No bragging rights. That's the ONLY way to fight terror. Iraq is lost because we can't stay forever. Whenever you guys decide we can pull out and claim victory it is INEVITABLE Iraq will fall into civil war and the tribes of the Middle East will once again fight for territory and control. All our time, our money, and our children committed to this war was simple waste.
I would have to agree, Homeland security is a joke. We had two great divisions that should be fortified and updated to be the best.

[eliminatedsprinter]

South Korea was not considered a victory. I'm not sure what book you've been reading but we bailed just like Viet Nam. The Phillipines were a power center for a very identifiable enemy that we defeated and they hooked ass. Not the same at all. Germany again was an identifiable enemy with slick uniforms and shiny buttons. Very easy to know who to shoot. And in Japan it was kinda easy to identify the enemy because they were the short people still alive after we nuked the shit out of the country. If that wasn't enough they wore unique hats and carried swords. But I digress...
For the first time we are fighting an enemy without a face. An enemy born of the people within the community. Some acting alone. Some in pairs. Many in small groups. Men, women, and even children. They walk among the many and the only thing that separates them from the hordes around them is their willingness to act. They can simply not act for six months and you my friend - will think you have won. But their fight is eternal. They don't measure a war in days, weeks, months, or even years. Their war is measured in lifetimes. Generations. Although your poetic rant made me want to carry a flag and limp while I whistle Dixie.. you have no intelligent way to know if you've won this war. All you are doing is sending young people to meet their maker for your reward. Bragging rights. So you can say "we kicked their ass" for a few months.. maybe a year, before the next terror attack and it starts it all over again.
This was a good digression.
Just add the fact, that we had to distroy almost all of Germany and much of Japan in order to get the those Nazis and Bushi that walked among them. In particular, we had to make the people of Germany suffer enough to reject the Nazis who tried to blend in with the civilians etc and squalsh their insurgency plans (werewolf) etc.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

This was a good digression.
Just add the fact, that we had to distroy almost all of Germany and much of Japan in order to get the those Nazis and Bushi that walked among them. In particular, we had to make the people of Germany suffer enough to reject the Nazis who tried to blend in with the civilians etc and squalsh their insurgency plans (werewolf) etc.
ES,
Your point is understood. However, we were at war with Germany and Japan. and we have not declared war against Iraq. The identify of the enemies, in these cases. was obvious. This is clearly not the case in Iraq. Again, the use of intelligence to quietly eliminate those who are a threat, is much, much cleaner, IMHO

[Poster X]

This was a good digression.
Just add the fact, that we had to distroy almost all of Germany and much of Japan in order to get the those Nazis and Bushi that walked among them. In particular, we had to make the people of Germany suffer enough to reject the Nazis who tried to blend in with the civilians etc and squalsh their insurgency plans (werewolf) etc.
Your fear of looking stupid is only superceded by your fear of being wrong. Therein lies the problem for our children dying in Iraq. Your bravado will be their end.
We all know that in no uncertain terms will their be a nuclear weapon set off in Iraq. We all know there will be no firebombing like Dresden. There is absolutely no viable comparison to past wars when we are in fact fighting a new war, with a new kind of enemy, in modern times. Bragging about the past has no virtue when you are trying to move forward. Modern terrorism and collateral nuclear technologies have changed the way wars are fought. Shared world economies and unilateral treaties have changed the way wars are managed. America has to adapt and lead the way. Not regress and perish.

[Schiada76]

It's not a war we can't win. It's just another war the liberal scum will not fight.:rolleyes:

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
Your point is understood. However, we were at war with Germany and Japan. and we have not declared war against Iraq. The identify of the enemies, in these cases. was obvious. This is clearly not the case in Iraq. Again, the use of intelligence to quietly eliminate those who are a threat, is much, much cleaner, IMHO
I never said otherwise, I was just adding to the analogy.
P.S. You missed my point. Even when the enemy was more clearly defined, defeating them was still far from clean....
P.P.S. Have you seen any of the clips that are going around of what is being shown on the major TV stations in the "Islamic World" it should be getting more and more clear that we are not just fighting a handful of kooks, but rather a culture that has gone nuts (as did Nazi Germany).

[eliminatedsprinter]

Your fear of looking stupid is only superceded by your fear of being wrong. Therein lies the problem for our children dying in Iraq. Your bravado will be their end.
We all know that in no uncertain terms will their be a nuclear weapon set off in Iraq. We all know there will be no firebombing like Dresden. There is absolutely no viable comparison to past wars when we are in fact fighting a new war, with a new kind of enemy, in modern times. Bragging about the past has no virtue when you are trying to move forward. Modern terrorism and collateral nuclear technologies have changed the way wars are fought. Shared world economies and unilateral treaties have changed the way wars are managed. America has to adapt and lead the way. Not regress and perish.
I was simply filling in something that you left out of your analogy, for the sake of enhancing it's accuracy. I see no need for the psudo-psychoanalytical insult.

[Poster X]

Must be your avatars? I always confuse you with Smokeslikeatrain whome merits only vitriolic reparte. Much like Schiada. Both good arguments for limited reproduction legislation.

[eliminatedsprinter]

There is a book titled "Are We All Nazis" by Hans Askenasy. It is a fascinating (and apolitical) read on the psychology of sociopathic behavior in the context of sociopathic societies and or cultures etc...It was written in 1978 and it was a review of all the literature and studies done prior to that date (ie the Havard electical shock and the Stanford prison studies etc) on the influence government and culture can have on sociopathic behavior. It is an attempt to explain how individuals can do such horrible things as happened in Nazi Germany. It also directly applies to what is going on in todays "Islamic World" and what we are fighting. I had a copy of it for years and I used to never have it around because, people always wanted to borrow it.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I never said otherwise, I was just adding to the analogy.
P.S. You missed my point. Even when the enemy was more clearly defined, defeating them was still far from clean....
P.P.S. Have you seen any of the clips that are going around of what is being shown on the major TV stations in the "Islamic World" it should be getting more and more clear that we are not just fighting a handful of kooks, but rather a culture that has gone nuts (as did Nazi Germany).
ES,
No worries. I have not seen any of the clips you refer to.
Must be your avatars? I always confuse you with Smokeslikeatrain whome merits only vitriolic reparte. Much like Schiada. Both good arguments for limited reproduction legislation.
LMAO

[Schiada76]

Must be your avatars? I always confuse you with Smokeslikeatrain whome merits only vitriolic reparte. Much like Schiada. Both good arguments for limited reproduction legislation.
This from a true as shat who has proclaimed communism hasn't worked yet just because humanity hasn't evoled to a high enough level.:rolleyes:
Just how much chronic does it take to come up with logic like that?:idea:

[Schiada76]

Although I admire your panache in romanticizing the Iraqi war - I have to wholeheartedly disagree. You seem to forget Al Qaeda is as powerful, or more powerful, than they were six years ago. We've accomplished squat on that horizon according to your own right wing resources. You also forgot Gee (friggin) Dubya sent us there to fight terror and weapons of mass destruction. One of which hasn't subsided in the least. The other apparently forgotten and non-existant?
We've been fighting this enemy since before Jiminy Catuh rolled over with his ass in the air and gave up an ally under his admin. Which ally would that be Poser?
The measure for any war won is total surrender. But to obtain a surrender you have to have an indentifiable enemy. Perhaps a government and boys in a uniform? So you know who to shoot at. ;)
Did the Soviets surrender to us? I missed that one.
South Korea was not considered a victory. I'm not sure what book you've been reading but we bailed just like Viet Nam. The Phillipines were a power center for a very identifiable enemy that we defeated and they hooked ass. Not the same at all. Germany again was an identifiable enemy with slick uniforms and shiny buttons. Very easy to know who to shoot. And in Japan it was kinda easy to identify the enemy because they were the short people still alive after we nuked the shit out of the country. If that wasn't enough they wore unique hats and carried swords. But I digress...
Bailed? Gee I thought we still had troops there. We actually were fighting China and the Soviet Union in Korea, just like Vietnam.
For the first time we are fighting an enemy without a face. An enemy born of the people within the community. Some acting alone. Some in pairs. Many in small groups. Men, women, and even children. They walk among the many and the only thing that separates them from the hordes around them is their willingness to act. They can simply not act for six months and you my friend - will think you have won. But their fight is eternal. They don't measure a war in days, weeks, months, or even years. Their war is measured in lifetimes. Generations. Although your poetic rant made me want to carry a flag and limp while I whistle Dixie.. you have no intelligent way to know if you've won this war. All you are doing is sending young people to meet their maker for your reward. Bragging rights. So you can say "we kicked their ass" for a few months.. maybe a year, before the next terror attack and it starts it all over again.
For us conservatives we are well aware this will be another fifty plus years in this war. For you liberals do what you always espouse, give up and run away.

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
No worries. I have not seen any of the clips you refer to.
They have kids shows that lionize suicide bombers and actually incourage them to grow up and kill themselves for allah. It's scary to see what islamic culture is becoming in many parts of the world.

[never_fast_enuf]

They have kids shows that lionize suicide bombers and actually incourage them to grow up and kill themselves for allah. It's scary to see what islamic culture is becoming in many parts of the world.
All the more reason for us to be prepared to fight a war we are not prepared to fight. Political correctness WILL kill us all in the end...IF we let it.

[Poster X]

For us conservatives we are well aware this will be another fifty plus years in this war. For you liberals do what you always espouse, give up and run away.
Is there a secret neocon memo written on the back of Limbaughs ties we don't know about? By the way.. you've created more debt than any other country (including this one) in the history of planet earth in just six years. How do you expect to pay for the next 44? And while we're at it.. exactly which war was it that the liberal scum refused to participate in? I must have missed that page of the Young Republicans handbook?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

They have kids shows that lionize suicide bombers and actually incourage them to grow up and kill themselves for allah. It's scary to see what islamic culture is becoming in many parts of the world.
ES,
Sounds like some insane stuff, but for some reason I'm not surprized. As I've stated repeatedly, the longer we stir the pot, in the Mid-East, the worse it's going to get. Iraq was a mess before our invasion and it's a disaster after four years of our presence. The time for intelligence has come as it has become quite clear that our current course is going nowhere but down.

[Schiada76]

U26
The "pot" was stirred in the mid east 3000 years ago.
Most recent "strirring" was at the end of WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. These are not such recent developments or as simple as most make them out to be.
In most simplistic terms it is human nature and will never end, in one form or another, until our extinction, this is humanity and the constant struggle between good and evil.
Almost makes one believe in God doesn't it?

[3 daytona`s]

Now that you mention it does in in a way. Not as sexy as yours I'll grant you.
Nice to see a coherent post...sober again ah?:D
Seem to hit the target once in awhile:) Believe me you are cool:D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

U26
The "pot" was stirred in the mid east 3000 years ago.
Most recent "strirring" was at the end of WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. These are not such recent developments or as simple as most make them out to be.
In most simplistic terms it is human nature and will never end, in one form or another, until our extinction, this is humanity and the constant struggle between good and evil.
Almost makes one believe in God doesn't it?
So that's what it is, a struggle between good and evil. To some involved there may be an arguement regarding which is which. Since it will never end it seems selfish to continue sending our kids to Iraq, to be gunned down or blown up, don't ya think? Also, very simplistic terms.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Here's "simple terms" for you U&ltra, It is a war we cannot afford to loose.
Unfortunately, we are giving it away.
Since Illegal arabs are entering via the Mexican border, get back with me when LA blows up.

[Schiada76]

So that's what it is, a struggle between good and evil. To some involved there may be an arguement regarding which is which. Since it will never end it seems selfish to continue sending our kids to Iraq, to be gunned down or blown up, don't ya think? Also, very simplistic terms.
Well yeah that's why I said "In most simplistic terms".:rolleyes:
I was trying to help the communist poser out.
Here's something even more simplistic for you liberals, we have two choices, fight or die.

[never_fast_enuf]

Here's something even more simplistic for you liberals, we have two choices, fight or die.
Since they will have a difficult time assigning "feelings" to that statement, don't look for much comment from the left leaning posters.

[Poster X]

Well yeah that's why I said "In most simplistic terms".:rolleyes:
I was trying to help the communist poser out.
Here's something even more simplistic for you liberals, we have two choices, fight or die.
Hmm. If you are fighting a war on drugs do you attack Columbia, occupy Bagota and the rest of the major cities turning average Columbians into freedom fighters willing to die to rid themselves of the occupying Army, and thereby alienating the entire Southern Hemisphere taking the focus from your war on drugs and directing it at imperialistic expansionism? Or do you fund covert operations to take out drug Czars and then work your way down the drug hierarchy to the dealers on the streets?
Democrats aren't against the war on terror. They are opposed to antiquated and expensive tactics that not only empower terrorists but unite the Arab and Muslim civilians of the world against the United States. No offence dude but... you are an idiot.

[Schiada76]

Hmm. If you are fighting a war on drugs do you attack Columbia, occupy Bagota and the rest of the major cities turning average Columbians into freedom fighters willing to die to rid themselves of the occupying Army, and thereby alienating the entire Southern Hemisphere taking the focus from your war on drugs and directing it at imperialistic expansionism? Or do you fund covert operations to take out drug Czars and then work your way down the drug hierarchy to the dealers on the streets?
I'll be damned! What a concept! It's worked remarkably well hasn't it?
Democrats aren't against the war on terror. They are opposed to antiquated and expensive tactics that not only empower terrorists but unite the Arab and Muslim civilians of the world against the United States. No offence dude but... you are an idiot.
Poser would, on the other hand, give up and run away.:rolleyes:

[Poster X]

Poser would, on the other hand, give up and run away.:rolleyes:
I see logic and pointed retorts elude you. What a shock. ;)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I'll be damned! What a concept! It's worked remarkably well hasn't it?:
No it hasn't nor will it ever

[never_fast_enuf]

Democrats aren't against the war on terror. They are opposed to antiquated and expensive tactics that not only empower terrorists but unite the Arab and Muslim civilians of the world against the United States. No offence dude but... you are an idiot.
OK, so what "tactics" do democrats support? Why don't democrats actually hold the terrorists responsible for their actions?
I guess you think it's also a woman's fault when she gets raped. :rolleyes:
Damn people, wake the phuck up.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

OK, so what "tactics" do democrats support? Why don't democrats actually hold the terrorists responsible for their actions?
I guess you think it's also a woman's fault when she gets raped. :rolleyes:
Damn people, wake the phuck up.
OK, so what "tactics" do democrats support?
Covert and intelligent.
Why don't democrats actually hold the terrorists responsible for their actions?
This question is over broad and lacks foundation. There has been nothing presented to suggest any factual basis for such a question. Democrats do hold the terrorists responsible for their actions
I guess you think it's also a woman's fault when she gets raped.
Complete and utter stupidity

[never_fast_enuf]

OK, so what "tactics" do democrats support?
Covert and intelligent.
Why don't democrats actually hold the terrorists responsible for their actions?
This question is over broad and lacks foundation. There has been nothing presented to suggest any factual basis for such a question. Democrats do hold the terrorists responsible for their actions
I guess you think it's also a woman's fault when she gets raped.
Complete and utter stupidity
Covert and intelligent? That sounds nice and rosy. How about some real details? Should we offer up some hugs for them as well? How about we just ask the bad men to go away?
How about this...What you suggested is only PART of what we are doing today and it is already and has been taking place from day 1. Damn pal, use some common sense.

[never_fast_enuf]

[B][I]I guess you think it's also a woman's fault when she gets raped.
Complete and utter stupidity
I agree which is why I don't understand how you can apply that logic to the terrorists.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Covert and intelligent? That sounds nice and rosy. How about some real details? Should we offer up some hugs for them as well? How about we just ask the bad men to go away?
How about this...What you suggested is only PART of what we are doing today and it is already and has been taking place from day 1. Damn pal, use some common sense.
Sir, your simple minded sarcasim is truely unbecoming. Coming from the guy who stated "I guess you think it's also a woman's fault when she gets raped", it's obviuos that common sense is something you know nothing about.
Hmm. If you are fighting a war on drugs do you attack Columbia, occupy Bagota and the rest of the major cities turning average Columbians into freedom fighters willing to die to rid themselves of the occupying Army, and thereby alienating the entire Southern Hemisphere taking the focus from your war on drugs and directing it at imperialistic expansionism? Or do you fund covert operations to take out drug Czars and then work your way down the drug hierarchy to the dealers on the streets?
Democrats aren't against the war on terror. They are opposed to antiquated and expensive tactics that not only empower terrorists but unite the Arab and Muslim civilians of the world against the United States.
Well put and easy to understand.
I'm not going to engage in a discussion based purely unfounded and igorant right wing rhetoric. If you find something you can discuss with some intelligence, I will be happy of offer my opinions. If not, you have a nice day.

[never_fast_enuf]

I am sarcastic to you because you are an ignorant fool.
"Covert and intelligent?
Damn, what a novel ideal...you libs are a freaking joke.
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
President Bush's speech to America...Sept 20th, 2001
Wake up and drop your blind hatred of Bush.

[bigq]

[QUOTE=Poster X;2679081]Hmm. If you are fighting a war on drugs do you attack Columbia, occupy Bagota and the rest of the major cities turning average Columbians into freedom fighters willing to die to rid themselves of the occupying Army, and thereby alienating the entire Southern Hemisphere taking the focus from your war on drugs and directing it at imperialistic expansionism? Or do you fund covert operations to take out drug Czars and then work your way down the drug hierarchy to the dealers on the streets?
QUOTE]
Another waste of money, the "drug war" has gone so well so far.:rolleyes:

[bigq]

OK, so what "tactics" do democrats support?
Covert and intelligent.
Are these the same covert and intelligence operations that stopped the planes on sept 11.:confused:
Don't get me wrong I think it is the way to go, but from what I have read we are a little antiquated at the CIA and FBI headquartes right now.

[Schiada76]

I understand my little liberal friends are quite the disadvantage for many reasons
here's one for you nitwits, I have friends in Special Ops. They know more than you will ever dream of knowing about our decades long war against muslim terrorists. They've told me a little bit which puts you poor uninformed louts at a severe disadvantage when you try to debate the issue of covert operations.
If you don't think covert ops have been ongoing for decades you're an imbecile. (Not directed at anyone personally, well except for the resident communist, poser)
Fight them like we do the drug lords? I D I O T:D
If we fight them like we do the drug dealers I'l be able to drive three blocks from my house and buy a bomb from some towel head on a street corner.
Fer ****s sakes liberals are beyond stupid.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Hmm. If you are fighting a war on drugs do you attack Columbia, occupy Bagota and the rest of the major cities turning average Columbians into freedom fighters willing to die to rid themselves of the occupying Army, and thereby alienating the entire Southern Hemisphere taking the focus from your war on drugs and directing it at imperialistic expansionism? Or do you fund covert operations to take out drug Czars and then work your way down the drug hierarchy to the dealers on the streets?
Democrats aren't against the war on terror. They are opposed to antiquated and expensive tactics that not only empower terrorists but unite the Arab and Muslim civilians of the world against the United States. No offence dude but... you are an idiot.
I'm not getting this. What does the purely metaphorical and utterly failed "War on Drugs" have to do with trying to stop a bunch of islamists, that have the support of 100-200,000,000,000 people from killing us?? The "War on Drugs" is only an example of what not to do. Your first example of attacking Columbia etc seems to be an analogy to Iraq, while the second plan seems to be how you think we should fight Islam, even though that has has been tried with the "War on Drugs" and, of course, failed miserably..Am I not reading this correctly, because it's not quite making sense?

[Poster X]

I'm not getting this. What does the purely metaphorical and utterly failed "War on Drugs" have to do with trying to stop a bunch of islamists, that have the support of 100-200,000,000,000 people from killing us?? The "War on Drugs" is only an example of what not to do. Your first example of attacking Columbia etc seems to be an analogy to Iraq, while the second plan seems to be how you think we should fight Islam, even though that has has been tried with the "War on Drugs" and, of course, failed miserably..Am I not reading this correctly, because it's not quite making sense?
You got it right the first time. It's merely a metaphor and not a comparison. If you were to sit down in a room with your Generals and make a plan to eliminate drug Czars you'd implement a plan similar to what I suggested. The reason you would, is because you would know you were at war with organizations and individuals.. not a country. The same is true with terror. We are at war with organizations and individuals. Not a country per se. (Although I'm hot on the idea of bombing the dog shit out of Somalia and Sudan.) We are also NOT at war with Islam. I'm surprised to hear that from you because in the past you've maintained at least an intellectual grasp of the basics of the enemy.
It also shows a complete lack of "being informed" when the brain trust (such as full of Sciada) allude to this war being 3,000 years old. This war is only a half century old and could have been easily avoided had WE backed the original treaty with Palestine after the six-days-war. It is we and Israel that sent Palestinians into the streets bent on revenge. It is, what it is now. But sensible leadership could have curtailed modern terror before it was ever born.
But.. here we are at war with Iraq? Umm.. not Hamas and the other cells managed from Gaza. Not with Somalia who openly supported modern terror from the get go. Not with Sudan who blatantly supports terror. but.. Iraq? How many of you even heard of Al Qaeda before 9/11? I'll bet not many. You'll lie about it but I'll know you're lying because.. well.. I know everything. Al Qaeda supported terror in as much as they were paid to furnish crap land they weren't using for terrorist training. As they were pressured (by us) to relinquish (without an offer of financial compensation for their loss of revenue) they grew closer to those who paid the bills. Blokes like Osama Bin Laden. Remember him? He gave them money and supported their fundamentalism. We just told them what to do. They are cavemen so we can't be too surprised we sent them the other way. To this day none of you can can tie Iraq to any terror attack against America on our soil, or abroad. So you start calling insurgents terrorists and keep on keeping on. If you keep the terminolgy aggressive that must make it right? Right? Well, sensible people disagree. We think terror should be fought with terror. We do not believe (nor ever will) that shooting into the woods at night from your porch is hunting. It's just shooting wild and hoping something falls. A cohesive plan such as I intimated earlier in the thread is the only way I'm willing to sacrifice arbitrary innocent lives. I could care less is you think i'm a pussy, or a Communist, or a Liberal. Any of those are better than being a neocon. Because neocon is the benchmark for regressive stupidity and arrogance in the face of facts. I'll have to pass. Good luck with all that.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

[B][I]Why don't democrats actually hold the terrorists responsible for their actions?
This question is over broad and lacks foundation. There has been nothing presented to suggest any factual basis for such a question.
Head in the sand bullshit ultra. It is presenteed every single time anything happens over in the middle east.
Every news report of a successful terrorist explosion (which is 1 out of 20 or 30 attempts) is met with more "bush lied", "we shouldn't be in (insert country here)", "what a terrible tradgedy that was", etc.
Never, NEVER are there calls to hunt down those who created the act, financed the act, NEVER are the entities that supported the act shunned or pressured in any way. Just6 exactly how the hell did Yasir Arrafat manage to die of OLD AGE while annually sending hundreds of explosive laden walking corpses into Israel? Was ANY of this decried by the Democrats in the year before he died?
No.
Dear emperor Pelosi denies there are Al-Queda terrorists IN Iraq, and that what is going on is a "simple" civil war. Al-Q CLAIMS TO BE IN IRAQ, takes credit for some of the happenings, Al-Q members ARE CAUGHT IN IRAQ, on a regular basis. She is a liar.
Find me some, from some democrats that are in charge of something, the "official" mouthpieces.
How about Howard Dean's "theory" of the inside job on 9/11/01 that was done by the Bush Administration?
Democrats do hold the terrorists responsible for their actions
When?
By whom?
Find me a half dozen instances, by democrats IN LEADERSHIP ROLES.
I can find a hundred where they roll over and ignore.

[eliminatedsprinter]

To this day none of you can can tie Iraq to any terror attack against America on our soil, or abroad.
Terror attack, Hmmm Remember the Achille Lauro? Saddam was providing safe haven for Abbu Abbas. This has never been in doubt, as he was picked up by our special forces in the early days of the invasion.
How about direct military attacks on a near daily basis?
What do you call them shooting their anti aircraft guns at our plans as they patrolled the no fly zones in accordance with the cease fire aggreement? Does not a cease fire mean they should have ceased firing??

[eliminatedsprinter]

To this day none of you can can tie Iraq to any terror attack against America on our soil, or abroad.
Terror attack, Hmmm Remember the Achille Lauro? Saddam was providing safe haven for Abbu Abbas. This has never been in doubt, as he was picked up by our special forces in the early days of the invasion.
How about direct military attacks on a near daily basis?
What do you call them shooting their anti aircraft guns at our plans as they patrolled the no fly zones in accordance with the cease fire aggreement. Does not a cease fire mean they should have ceased firing??

[eliminatedsprinter]

It also shows a complete lack of "being informed" when the brain trust (such as full of Sciada) allude to this war being 3,000 years old. This war is only a half century old and could have been easily avoided had WE backed the original treaty with Palestine after the six-days-war. It is we and Israel that sent Palestinians into the streets bent on revenge. It is, what it is now. But sensible leadership could have curtailed modern terror before it was ever born.
I disagree with both of these timetables. This all started in 712 AD when the Moors invaded Southern Spain.

[Poster X]

Terror attack, Hmmm Remember the Achille Lauro? Saddam was providing safe haven for Abbu Abbas. This has never been in doubt, as he was picked up by our special forces in the early days of the invasion.
How about direct military attacks on a near daily basis?
What do you call them shooting their anti aircraft guns at our plans as they patrolled the no fly zones in accordance with the cease fire aggreement. Does not a cease fire mean they should have ceased firing??
WOW!! I gave you far too much credit.

[eliminatedsprinter]

WOW!! I gave you far too much credit.
As a person who likes Ayn Rand, I would never ask for credit from a disciple of Robert Owen.;)

[Schiada76]

I disagree with both of these timetables. This all started in 712 AD when the Moors invaded Southern Spain.
My reference, for those too dimwitted to comprehend, was a loose timetable of the dawn of civilization in the Middle East, and the dawn of war in the Middle East.:rolleyes:
The dimwitted comment of course only directed to the resident communist, who, in his own words, claims humans haven't evolved enough for communism to work. The dimwit that thinks fighting the war on terror should be fought like the "successful war on drugs.:rolleyes:

[eliminatedsprinter]

My reference, for those too dimwitted to comprehend, was a loose timetable of the dawn of civilization in the Middle East, and the dawn of war in the Middle East.:rolleyes:
The dimwitted comment of course only directed to the resident communist, who, in his own words, claims humans haven't evolved enough for communism to work. The dimwit that thinks fighting the war on terror should be fought like the "successful war on drugs.:rolleyes:
Noted...:D
For about 10,000 years the middle east was either the most or among the most civilizationally advanced and stable of all the regions on earth. Even after many religious and social upheavals, it was still "first world" even during and after Greek and Roman occupations. It was not until 570 AD that the person was born, who created the force, that distroyed the great civilizations and cultures of the middle east and spread lasting chaos throught the region.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

My reference, for those too dimwitted to comprehend, was a loose timetable of the dawn of civilization in the Middle East, and the dawn of war in the Middle East.:rolleyes:
The dimwitted comment of course only directed to the resident communist, who, in his own words, claims humans haven't evolved enough for communism to work. The dimwit that thinks fighting the war on terror should be fought like the "successful war on drugs.:rolleyes:
"successful war on drugs"
Hopefully this comment was just more of the usual HB PR sarcasm. I'm also hopeful that none of you who seem so eager to sacrifice our kids, come up missing and one, lost in combat. My guess, is that none of have your kids on the front lines, cause if you did, you would not be so damn reckless with your idiotic comments.

[eliminatedsprinter]

"successful war on drugs"
Hopefully this comment was just more of the usual HB PR sarcasm.
Of course it was. Schiada 76 was referrancing one of Posters earlier posts, that seems to indicate that he (Poster X) feels "The War on Terrorism" should be fought in a fashion similer to how we are fighting the "War on Drugs". :)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Of course it was. Schiada 76 was referrancing one of Posters earlier posts, that seems to indicate that he (Poster X) feels "The War on Terrorism" should be fought in a fashion similer to how we are fighting the "War on Drugs". :)
ES,
I read Poster's comment with regard to the fighting the war on drugs. Poster used this as an analogy or metaphor and not a comparison. Poster's comment, in this regard, was spot on.
What's up with the folks here? Does Poster intimidate them? I don't know about everything he has posted in the past, but in this thread he has been on the money.

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
I read Poster's comment with regard to the fighting the war on drugs. Poster used this as an analogy or metaphor and not a comparison. Poster's comment, in this regard, was spot on.
What's up with the folks here? Does Poster intimidate them? I don't know about everything he has posted in the past, but in this thread he has been on the money.
Perhaps, but it was a rather odd analogy.
I will agree that this is one of Poster X's best threads, but I still wouldn't go so far as to call it spot on. ;)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Perhaps, but it was a rather odd analogy.
I will agree that this is one of Poster X's best threads, but I still wouldn't go so far as to call it spot on. ;)
That's OK. I called that post spot on and meant it. There is little doubt that Smokin and the boys will give me a rash of sh*t for it and I could give damn.

[eliminatedsprinter]

That's OK. I called that post spot on and meant it. There is little doubt that Smokin and the boys will give me a rash of sh*t for it and I could give damn.
Now I call BS.:eek:
You give a damn. :D As a matter of fact, you would most likely worry (I know I would), if they didn't give you sh*#.;) :) :D
Besides, If they don't I'll have to take the time to do it.:) ;)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Now I call BS.:eek:
You give a damn. :D As a matter of fact, you would most likely worry (I know I would), if they didn't.;) :) :D
ES,
Really, it won't worry me at all. The lefty righty BS has gotten old. While there are still comments made that are thought out and come from concern, the majority of posts in the forum, are nothing more than spiteful jabber. I'm not saying that I haven't spewed my share of the "one up ya" BS, but this isn't the reason I started hanging out here. In the beginning I was intrigued by the different views expressed whether I agreed with them or not. Anymore, the majority of the comments are just more of the same old shit, the right putting down the left, and occasionally vise versa. I'm not going anywhere just yet, but I think you will see far less of the personal "one up ya" BS from me. There are some bright folks who post in here as well as some ignorant angry fools. Limiting my activity so as not to include getting caught up in the nonsensical bickering, will be my PR involvement.
JM

[Schiada76]

"successful war on drugs"
Hopefully this comment was just more of the usual HB PR sarcasm. I'm also hopeful that none of you who seem so eager to sacrifice our kids, come up missing and one, lost in combat. My guess, is that none of have your kids on the front lines, cause if you did, you would not be so damn reckless with your idiotic comments.
U26,
I don't take sacrifice lightly. I have a very good close friend, Spec Op's sniper instructor with two babies that has been in the shit repeatedly.
He's my fu cking stone cold HERO!
We are not reckless with our comments, we are committed, we are at war you are not. NO LIBERALS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE!
There are MEN here that post on this commitment that have served.
Do you want your grandchildren to fight this war? It is not going away. We aren't going to sit down, hit the bong, (like poser thinks) and work things out with the cult of islam. It's fight or die.

[Schiada76]

Ultra,
As an aside.
I'm was a "child of the sixties".
I have buried at least a dozen of my friends from drug and alcohol abuse.
The fuc king liberal embarrassment of the "counter culture" has killed more people and destroyed more lives than any war or wars ever fought by this county.
WHY DON'T YOU RAIL AGAINST THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad: :mad:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

U26,
I don't take sacrifice lightly. I have a very good close friend, Spec Op's sniper instructor with two babies that has been in the shit repeatedly.
He's my fu cking stone cold HERO!
We are not reckless with our comments, we are committed, we are at war you are not. NO LIBERALS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE!
There are MEN here that post on this commitment that have served.
Do you want your grandchildren to fight this war? It is not going away. We aren't going to sit down, hit the bong, (like poser thinks) and work things out with the cult of islam. It's fight or die.
Please educate me. Other than Smokin, who else here has been to or have had children in Iraq? Have you served in the military in Iraq?
I have followed Poster's comments in this thread and his comments differ greatly from what you suggest. Your belief It's fight or die is as extreme as those we are at war with. I am of the belief that this country has and continues to mishandle it's so called war on terror.
BTW I truly hope your buddy and hero comes under his own power. His courage is appreciated, I assure you.
Ultra,
As an aside.
I'm was a "child of the sixties".
I have buried at least a dozen of my friends from drug and alcohol abuse.
The fuc king liberal embarrassment of the "counter culture" has killed more people and destroyed more lives than any war or wars ever fought by this county.
WHY DON'T YOU RAIL AGAINST THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad: :mad:
Graduating class of 1969, Morningside High, in Inglewood CA. No need to tell me about being a child of the sixties. I'm not quite sure I am following you so an assist is needed. Are you blaming the deaths of your 12 friends on liberals?
Based on your second post, (being a child of the sixties) you have not been to Iraq. Considering yourself as being at war, simply because you support the war is very bold. Stating that the Liberals in this Country are not at war, is even more bold. You and I have nothing further to discuss.

[Blown 472]

Head in the sand bullshit ultra. It is presenteed every single time anything happens over in the middle east.
Every news report of a successful terrorist explosion (which is 1 out of 20 or 30 attempts) is met with more "bush lied", "we shouldn't be in (insert country here)", "what a terrible tradgedy that was", etc.
Never, NEVER are there calls to hunt down those who created the act, financed the act, NEVER are the entities that supported the act shunned or pressured in any way. Just6 exactly how the hell did Yasir Arrafat manage to die of OLD AGE while annually sending hundreds of explosive laden walking corpses into Israel? Was ANY of this decried by the Democrats in the year before he died?
No.
Dear emperor Pelosi denies there are Al-Queda terrorists IN Iraq, and that what is going on is a "simple" civil war. Al-Q CLAIMS TO BE IN IRAQ, takes credit for some of the happenings, Al-Q members ARE CAUGHT IN IRAQ, on a regular basis. She is a liar.
Find me some, from some democrats that are in charge of something, the "official" mouthpieces.
How about Howard Dean's "theory" of the inside job on 9/11/01 that was done by the Bush Administration?
When?
By whom?
Find me a half dozen instances, by democrats IN LEADERSHIP ROLES.
I can find a hundred where they roll over and ignore.
It is amazing how you can tie democrates to everything, sad lil man you are.

[never_fast_enuf]

Please educate me. Other than Smokin, who else here has been to or have had children in Iraq? Have you served in the military in Iraq?
[/B]
That is a complete bull$hit deflection that is typical of liberals. Your premise is totally dishonest from the get go. With this bull$hit comment, you immediately imply if you don't have kids in combat, you don't care about the soldiers lives. Total horse $hit and typical Michael More liberal drivel.
Secondly, you stated...
"I am of the belief that this country has and continues to mishandle it's so called war on terror."
Specifics...give specifics. Back it up with hard data. Don't give my fluffy "I feel" bs either. Time to start calling you lay down liberals on your bull$hit "I hate George Bush" rhetoric.
BTW...your comment is very telling..."so called war on terror"...
Go stick that head back in the sand and ask the bad men to leave us alone. I am sure that will work....

[never_fast_enuf]

It is amazing how you can tie democrates to everything, sad lil man you are.
Clearly you haven't kept up with the thread. But hey, what little time I have spent here, I have come to expect this from you.

[Schiada76]

That is a complete bull$hit deflection that is typical of liberals. Your premise is totally dishonest from the get go. With this bull$hit comment, you immediately imply if you don't have kids in combat, you don't care about the soldiers lives. Total horse $hit and typical Michael More liberal drivel.
Secondly, you stated...
"I am of the belief that this country has and continues to mishandle it's so called war on terror."
Specifics...give specifics. Back it up with hard data. Don't give my fluffy "I feel" bs either. Time to start calling you lay down liberals on your bull$hit "I hate George Bush" rhetoric.
BTW...your comment is very telling..."so called war on terror"...
Go stick that head back in the sand and ask the bad men to leave us alone. I am sure that will work....
:D :D :D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

That is a complete bull$hit deflection that is typical of liberals. Your premise is totally dishonest from the get go. With this bull$hit comment, you immediately imply if you don't have kids in combat, you don't care about the soldiers lives. Total horse $hit and typical Michael More liberal drivel.
Secondly, you stated...
"I am of the belief that this country has and continues to mishandle it's so called war on terror."
Specifics...give specifics. Back it up with hard data. Don't give my fluffy "I feel" bs either. Time to start calling you lay down liberals on your bull$hit "I hate George Bush" rhetoric.
BTW...your comment is very telling..."so called war on terror"...
Go stick that head back in the sand and ask the bad men to leave us alone. I am sure that will work....
Since you appear to have nothing intelligent to say, then I suggest you say don't say anything.
Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
A Country can't wage or war against a feeling, such as fear.
At the time Mr. Bush coined the phrase, "war on terror" the definition of the word terror, only related to a feeling as defined by Webster.
As a result of Mr. Bush's less than appropriate definition of the war waged against terrorist activities, Webster has since included in its definition of terror the following:
violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
BTW...your comment is very telling..."so called war on terror"...
I'm not sure what you read into my use of the words "so called" but I hope I have clarified exactly what I meant.
That is a complete bull$hit deflection that is typical of liberals. Your premise is totally dishonest from the get go. With this bull$hit comment, you immediately imply if you don't have kids in combat, you don't care about the soldiers lives. Total horse $hit and typical Michael More liberal drivel. ....
Not sure what I said that caused you to go so far into left field with the statement above. I maybe many things Sir, but I assure you that dishonest is not one of them.
With this bull$hit comment, you immediately imply if you don't have kids in combat, you don't care about the soldiers lives. I don't have kids in combat and I care deeply about our soldiers lives. I never stated or implied anything to the contrary.
Originally Posted by ULTRA26 # 1
Please educate me. Other than Smokin, who else here has been to or have had children in Iraq? Have you served in the military in Iraq? Suggesting that this comment implies if you don't have kids in combat, you don't care about the soldiers lives Is way beyond a strecth
Responding to inuendo when there none, will get you in trouble. Think about that, please.

[never_fast_enuf]

Since you appear to have nothing intelligent to say, then I suggest you say don't say anything.
Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r, 'te-r&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French terrour, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
A Country can't wage or war against a feeling, such as fear.
At the time Mr. Bush coined the phrase, "war on terror" the definition of the word terror, only related to a feeling as defined by Webster.
As a result of Mr. Bush's less than appropriate definition of the war waged against terrorist activities, Webster has since included in its definition of terror the following:
violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>
BTW...your comment is very telling..."so called war on terror"...
I'm not sure what you read into my use of the words "so called" but I hope I have clarified exactly what I meant.
Not sure what I said that caused you to go so far into left field with the statement above. I maybe many things Sir, but I assure you that dishonest is not one of them.
With this bull$hit comment, you immediately imply if you don't have kids in combat, you don't care about the soldiers lives. I don't have kids in combat and I care deeply about our soldiers lives. I never stated or implied anything to the contrary.
Originally Posted by ULTRA26 # 1
Please educate me. Other than Smokin, who else here has been to or have had children in Iraq? Have you served in the military in Iraq? Suggesting that this comment implies if you don't have kids in combat, you don't care about the soldiers lives Is way beyond a strecth
Responding to inuendo when there none, will get you in trouble. Think about that, please.
Wow...I just realized something. You have no idea that war was declared on us years ago and those that declared war on us have followed through with attacks....many well before 911
You might want to understand that little tidbit of information before claiming there is no war.
Here is a little reminder for you...
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc.1core.fall.jpg

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Wow...I just realized something. You have no idea that war was declared on us years ago and those that declared war on us have followed through with attacks....many well before 911
You might want to understand that little tidbit of information before claiming there is no war.
Here is a little reminder for you...
I watched the second plane WTC hit live. No need to remind me.
Generally a man is able to admit when he has made a fool put of himself. I can and have. I have no more time to waste on a political bigot

[eliminatedsprinter]

I have never served in Iraq. However, I see and speak with those who have served there every weekday. Can I still have an opinion??:rolleyes: ;)
P.S. It looks like another thred is turning to shi#.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I have never served in Iraq. However, I see and speak with those who have served there every weekday. Can I still have an opinion??:rolleyes: ;)
P.S. It looks like another thred is turning to shi#.
I asked a simple question if anyone other than Smokin had been or had kids in Iraq. No implicatioin or inuendo indended. What's with all of the reading between the lines? A simple qiestion.
My question was in resposne to this comment mage to me
we are committed, we are at war you are not. NO LIBERALS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE!
If you are reading more into this than I think it's time for my exit, from the PR forums.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I asked a simple question if anyone other than Smokin had been or had kids in Iraq. No implicatioin or inuendo indended. What's with all of the reading between the lines? A simple qiestion.
My question was in resposne to this comment mage to me
we are committed, we are at war you are not. NO LIBERALS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE!
If you are reading more into this than I think it's time for my exit, from the PR forums.
I'm not reading more into it. I'm just using :rolleyes: ;) to lighten up the tension a bit. No need to go anywhere. Without 2 sides there can be no debate and you and Poster are outnumbered as it is...:) ;)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I'm not reading more into it. I'm just using :rolleyes: ;) to ligten up the tension a bit. No need to go anywhere. Without 2 sides there can be no debate and you and Poster are outnumbered as it is...:) ;)
:D :D

[bigq]

I asked a simple question if anyone other than Smokin had been or had kids in Iraq. No implicatioin or inuendo indended. What's with all of the reading between the lines? A simple qiestion.
My question was in resposne to this comment mage to me
we are committed, we are at war you are not. NO LIBERALS IN THIS COUNTRY ARE!
If you are reading more into this than I think it's time for my exit, from the PR forums.
Not directly, but have brothers and sisters kids over there. Many in the past wars also. Father lived a life on wheels because of war. It's a lame argument both ways. If you never were in the military you still have a right to voice opinions and even offer critique of present and past wars just as if you have faught in them and I am sure the majority of people would agree.
I think you bring up a lot of valid points that need to be considered and even poster no matter how smug and patronizing he gets has valid points.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Not directly, but have brothers and sisters kids over there. Many in the past wars also. Father lived a life on wheels because of war. It's a lame argument both ways. If you never were in the military you still have a right to voice opinions and even offer critique of present and past wars just as if you have faught in them and I am sure the majority of people would agree.
I think you bring up a lot of valid points that need to be considered and even poster no matter how smug and patronizing he gets has valid points.
I agree completley. And thank you for at least reading some, if not all of what I have said.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Interesting how "everyone is entitled to an opinion", after:
Smokin, the all seeing all knowing who states that we are in WWIII, is at home in KS with his family. This goes for the rest of you supporters as well. Talk about f'n hypocrites. It's' easy to support such bullsh*t when it isn't your life that is on the line.
The rest of you who talk and only talk about how we need to be at war can kiss my a**.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Interesting how "everyone is entitled to an opinion", after:
Old news Smokin. Only a partial quote from a thread that was closed by Rex. Sorry your feelings got hurt.
An old post I found of Poster's before I was involved here
In responce to the newly transcripted ebonics posted earlier, here's what I'd of done.
First off I would never have freaked out and created homeland security. I would have funded and authorized the CIA to fight fire with fire, or in this case, terror with terror. Iraq was (and is) a low priority when discussing terror. I would have told the American people that there would be a few less terrorists on the Planet and that they'd see it on the news. Sure enough, car bombs and every other kind of imagineable terror would be wreaked upon those responsible. Bin Laden Construction and it's other companies would experience violence similar to the FBI building in Oklahoma City. Terorist leaders would be car bombed, hijacked and all around terrorized every time they stuck their head out of one of their slimy cracks. Hamas' home office in the gaza strip would be blown completely off the map. Using satellite technology I would napalm every terrorist traing camp on the planet which would have included Afghanistan but then would have been directed at Sudan, Somalia and the Gaza Strip.
I would then demand a fixed price on oil from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If they refused then I would cut off all aid, security and other assistances they now enjoy. I would then step up American Production and use our reserves (that I would still have because I wouldn't be importing it to Iraq to fight to protect their oil for the French). I would deport every middle easterner not a citizen immediately and shut off all Visa access until the matter was resolved.

[Old Texan]

We are witnessingthe effects on a couple fellows addicted to snorting fairy dust thye have been throwing in the air of the their little Utopian villages of the mind.......:devil:
How easily "They" could solve the problems created by the evil "W".:rolleyes:

[HighRoller]

Hmm. If you are fighting a war on drugs do you attack Columbia, occupy Bagota and the rest of the major cities turning average Columbians into freedom fighters willing to die to rid themselves of the occupying Army, and thereby alienating the entire Southern Hemisphere taking the focus from your war on drugs and directing it at imperialistic expansionism? Or do you fund covert operations to take out drug Czars and then work your way down the drug hierarchy to the dealers on the streets?
Democrats aren't against the war on terror. They are opposed to antiquated and expensive tactics that not only empower terrorists but unite the Arab and Muslim civilians of the world against the United States. No offence dude but... you are an idiot.
Democrats are opposed to anything and everything Bush does. They whine about how he doesn't help the "poor", yet social spending is 15% higher than in the vaunted Clinton era. Unemployment is at an ALL TIME LOW, which means more poor people have jobs. Yet the Dems keep hammering the "bad economy" button while the stock market reaches a 100% GAIN FROM WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE. I'm not a huge Bush fan because he has sold us out on immigration, but his tax cut policies have allowed America to rebound from the 9-11 doldrums to a robust economy. We did it, but he got government out of the way.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

We are witnessingthe effects on a couple fellows addicted to snorting fairy dust thye have been throwing in the air of the their little Utopian villages of the mind.......:devil:
How easily "They" could solve the problems created by the evil "W".:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poster X
In response to the newly transcripted ebonics posted earlier, here's what I'd of done.
First off I would never have freaked out and created homeland security. I would have funded and authorized the CIA to fight fire with fire, or in this case, terror with terror. Iraq was (and is) a low priority when discussing terror. I would have told the American people that there would be a few less terrorists on the Planet and that they'd see it on the news. Sure enough, car bombs and every other kind of imagineable terror would be wreaked upon those responsible. Bin Laden Construction and it's other companies would experience violence similar to the FBI building in Oklahoma City. Terorist leaders would be car bombed, hijacked and all around terrorized every time they stuck their head out of one of their slimy cracks. Hamas' home office in the gaza strip would be blown completely off the map. Using satellite technology I would napalm every terrorist traing camp on the planet which would have included Afghanistan but then would have been directed at Sudan, Somalia and the Gaza Strip.
I would then demand a fixed price on oil from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If they refused then I would cut off all aid, security and other assistances they now enjoy. I would then step up American Production and use our reserves (that I would still have because I wouldn't be importing it to Iraq to fight to protect their oil for the French). I would deport every middle easterner not a citizen immediately and shut off all Visa access until the matter was resolved.
Tex,
In April 06, your original response to the above post was "I can 't argue that" . Now it's about snorting fairy dust. :confused:
Democrats are opposed to anything and everything Bush does. They whine about how he doesn't help the "poor", yet social spending is 15% higher than in the vaunted Clinton era. Unemployment is at an ALL TIME LOW, which means more poor people have jobs. Yet the Dems keep hammering the "bad economy" button while the stock market reaches a 100% GAIN FROM WHEN BILL CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE. I'm not a huge Bush fan because he has sold us out on immigration, but his tax cut policies have allowed America to rebound from the 9-11 doldrums to a robust economy. We did it, but he got government out of the way.
This is from the same guy who recently stated that the Iraq war has cost the US a 1/2 billion dollars. Please check your facts again and get back to us.

[never_fast_enuf]

[I]
This is from the same guy who recently stated that the Iraq war has cost the US a 1/2 billion dollars. Please check your facts again and get back to us.
The person who made a fool of himself accusing me of being another poster asks someone else to check their facts?
Now THAT is a riot!

[Old Texan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poster X
In response to the newly transcripted ebonics posted earlier, here's what I'd of done.
First off I would never have freaked out and created homeland security. I would have funded and authorized the CIA to fight fire with fire, or in this case, terror with terror. Iraq was (and is) a low priority when discussing terror. I would have told the American people that there would be a few less terrorists on the Planet and that they'd see it on the news. Sure enough, car bombs and every other kind of imagineable terror would be wreaked upon those responsible. Bin Laden Construction and it's other companies would experience violence similar to the FBI building in Oklahoma City. Terorist leaders would be car bombed, hijacked and all around terrorized every time they stuck their head out of one of their slimy cracks. Hamas' home office in the gaza strip would be blown completely off the map. Using satellite technology I would napalm every terrorist traing camp on the planet which would have included Afghanistan but then would have been directed at Sudan, Somalia and the Gaza Strip.
I would then demand a fixed price on oil from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. If they refused then I would cut off all aid, security and other assistances they now enjoy. I would then step up American Production and use our reserves (that I would still have because I wouldn't be importing it to Iraq to fight to protect their oil for the French). I would deport every middle easterner not a citizen immediately and shut off all Visa access until the matter was resolved.
Tex,
In April 06, your original response to the above post was "I can 't argue that" . Now it's about snorting fairy dust. :confused:
This is from the same guy who recently stated that the Iraq war has cost the US a 1/2 billion dollars. Please check your facts again and get back to us.
Going back to April '06 plus centering on "1" post as the key to an observation? Isn't that being quite selective and maybe typical of arranging context to fit the argument?
Well Smokin' can never again accuse you of not doing your research, April '06, my gawd............:rolleyes:

[Old Texan]

The person who made a fool of himself accusing me of being another poster asks someone else to check their facts?
Now THAT is a riot!
I hear Ultra Boats has a new Logo hat out........in aluminum foil. Keeps "W's" spies from reading the minds of their customers out on the lake.....:devil:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I hear Ultra Boats has a new Logo hat out........in aluminum foil. Keeps "W's" spies from reading the minds of their customers out on the lake.....:devil:
You having fun Tex? I would have thought you woukd be full with all of the Bush ass licking you do. Oh that's it you are full.
Ultra Boats has nothing to do with my comments.
I would appreciate it if you left Ultra Boats, out of the mix. I sure you can understand this.

[Old Texan]

You having fun Tex? I would have thought you woukd be full with all of the Bush ass licking you do. Oh that's it you are full.
Ultra Boats has nothing to do with my comments.
I would appreciate it if you left Ultra Boats, out of the mix. I sure you can understand this.
You are really a piece of work. Now it's to "personal" to mention a boat manufacturer in jest on a boat forum.......Please tell the class exactly how this effects anything. But then it's perfectly all right to make a derogatory innuendo involving the President.
Kind of shows the real values of an ultra Lib, I'd think?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You are really a piece of work. Now it's to "personal" to mention a boat manufacturer in jest on a boat forum.......Please tell the class exactly how this effects anything. But then it's perfectly all right to make a derogatory innuendo involving the President.
Kind of shows the real values of an ultra Lib, I'd think?
Tex,
The is a political forum, remember. Bringing up manufacturer at all is inappropriate. It shows that I at least understand the what the PRF is about.

[Old Texan]

Tex,
The is a political forum, remember. Bringing up manufacturer at all is inappropriate. It shows that I at least understand the what the PRF is about.
You are just so fragile. It wasn't about the boat, it was about the composition of the hat. But it's still allright to be derogatory on your part from any angle. I just love how Liberals can justify everything.
Pick out any part that looks like it will work as a diversion and find some way to turn it around into an misjustice.
You really don't see any of that do you? A good reason why our government has so many issues working together on the common good. The main reason why the majority of this country is fed up with the liberal rhetoric, obstructionism, and the Political Correctness crap that ties it all together.
In your liberal minds it's your country and your world and no one but you knows what to do with it in spite of the fact you F up everything you touch.
Half the problem with the recent immigration bill was all the pork and BS tacked on by the Dems, the liberal Dems. There are still a few real Dems left in the party, they just get obscured by the fanatic liberal fringe.
But those issues don't concern someone whose fragile ego gets all hurt every time they get disagreed with or get their feelings bruised. Kinda like that Pelosi lady you disclaim so vehemently, wonder why that is???? If the "aluminum" hat fits.......

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You are just so fragile. It wasn't about the boat, it was about the composition of the hat. But it's still allright to be derogatory on your part from any angle. I just love how Liberals can justify everything.
Pick out any part that looks like it will work as a diversion and find some way to turn it around into an misjustice.
You really don't see any of that do you? A good reason why our government has so many issues working together on the common good. The main reason why the majority of this country is fed up with the liberal rhetoric, obstructionism, and the Political Correctness crap that ties it all together.
In your liberal minds it's your country and your world and no one but you knows what to do with it in spite of the fact you F up everything you touch.
Half the problem with the recent immigration bill was all the pork and BS tacked on by the Dems, the liberal Dems. There are still a few real Dems left in the party, they just get obscured by the fanatic liberal fringe.
But those issues don't concern someone whose fragile ego gets all hurt every time they get disagreed with or get their feelings bruised. Kinda like that Pelosi lady you disclaim so vehemently, wonder why that is???? If the "aluminum" hat fits.......
Leave Ultra Boats out of your comments, please. Immgration issues are in another thread. Fragile ego, pork, wrong thread.
The main reason why the majority of this country is fed up with the liberal rhetoric, obstructionism,
I guess we will see who the majority is fed up ith in 08, now won't we.
See ya Tex

[never_fast_enuf]

Leave Ultra Boats out of your comments
See ya Tex
Any other rules you want everyone else to follow pal? If someone mentions Ultra boats, does that mean all is even worse in the world?
LMAO!
Lighten up Buhler...your holier than though badge is blinding me.

[OKIE-JET]

I guess we will see who the majority is fed up ith in 08, now won't we.
See ya Tex
Ya know, although i do disagree with most of what you think, there are some points worth taking a closer look at, but do you really think this means anything of substance? The public usually votes the way the T.V. tells 'em too.:confused:

[Old Texan]

Any other rules you want everyone else to follow pal? If someone mentions Ultra boats, does that mean all is even worse in the world?
LMAO!
Lighten up Buhler...your holier than though badge is blinding me.
He lives in a very structured little world it appears. Then again he may just be slow......:devil:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Ya know, although i do disagree with most of what you think, there are some points worth taking a closer look at, but do you really think this means anything of substance? The public usually votes the way the T.V. tells 'em too.:confused:
QJ,
We don't agree on some issues and have agreed on others. I would like to see Pres. election campaigns removed from TV. I have felt strongly about this for years. I'm sorry to say that I don't see this happening.
He lives in a very structured little world it appears. Then again he may just be slow......:devil:
I might be bothered if all of this critique was coming from those who made reasonable and/or respectable comments in the PRF. Tex, I'm bit surprized at you. In the past you've displayed some class. A useless hater starts shooting off his yap, and down you go. True colors or you just playin' follow the neo-con?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I hear Ultra Boats has a new Logo hat out........in aluminum foil. Keeps "W's" spies from reading the minds of their customers out on the lake.....:devil:
Between the hat and the "ultra efficient fuel injection", they'll single-handedly save the world from Global Warming. :idea:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

A useless hater starts shooting off his yap, and down you go.
This from one of the heavy haterade drinkers, as evidenced by:
True colors or you just playin' follow the neo-con?
Not a thing relating anywhere to orriginal thought by the haterade drinker.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

haterade
I like that one