View Full Version : There Is A Difference Between A Dem. And A Rep.
jinelson
06-14-07, 09:41 AM
Simple lesson illustrating the difference between the two parties. Fred Thompson and Hillary were walking down the street when they came upon a homeless person. The Republican, Fred Thompson, gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person. Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Thompson's pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.
Now, do you understand the difference
killerinstinct
06-14-07, 09:54 AM
HAHAHAHA i like that
jetdawgg
06-14-07, 09:56 AM
Thompson never hired the homeless man though. he gave the job to an illegal immigrant:D
10thzodiac
06-14-07, 09:57 AM
The difference between a Republican and a Democrat:
Yes gets 1 point. If you have more than 6 points, you are probably a Democrat.
- A Balanced Budget vs. Lower Taxes - Is a balanced Federal budget more important to you than lower taxes?
- Tolerance vs. Morality - Is tolerance of other lifestyles more important than a moral code of conduct in our society?
- Individual Security vs. A Gun Free Society - Is a country without guns more important to you than a secure home?
- Prison vs. Capital Punishment - Do you favor imprisonment for life over capital punishment?
- Socialism vs. Capitalism - Do you favor a society with a big social safety net over a society where people get to keep more of what they make for themselves?
- Statesmanship vs. Unilateralism - Do you believe the US should always work in concert with other countries instead of "going it alone" when it needs to?
- Public vs. Private Education - Do you think the federal government should only fund public schools?
- Judicial Freedom - Do you think that judges should be free to "interpret" the laws of our country?
- Scientific Advances - Do you think science should be allowed to advance unchecked by our moral code?
- Environment vs. Business - Do you think the environment should be protected even if its harmful to business?
thedrifter
06-14-07, 10:47 AM
:D
Ellie
OLE SARG
06-14-07, 12:02 PM
I am STILL WAITING for the hildabeast's big plan to save all our souls and put us all in paradise ------ ****ING NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As jet said previously she couldn't spell P L A N if we gave her P L A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a wasted piece of whatever!!!
SEMPER FI,
drumcorpssnare
06-14-07, 12:19 PM
OLE SARGE- Hillary's Plan, if she was allowed to implement it would be thus:
"The working class would fill labor camps, working 50 hr. weeks. The govt. would provide housing and meals, on-site. The liberal Democrats would then levy a 90% tax on these wages. This tax money would be used to care for the sick, lazy, uneducated, incompetent, and the illegal aliens and criminals."
That would be our "Paradise.":thumbdown
drumcorpssnare:usmc:
OLE SARGE- Hillary's Plan, if she was allowed to implement it would be thus:
"The working class would fill labor camps, working 50 hr. weeks. The govt. would provide housing and meals, on-site. The liberal Democrats would then levy a 90% tax on these wages. This tax money would be used to care for the sick, lazy, uneducated, incompetent, and the illegal aliens and criminals."
That would be our "Paradise.":thumbdown
drumcorpssnare:usmc:
Oh, well then it's a good thing that the Republicans have already built these camps. I dislike democrat policies just as much as I dislike big-government republicans because they are exactly the same thing, despite what Sean Hannity tells you.
jetdawgg
06-14-07, 05:28 PM
Oh, well then it's a good thing that the Republicans have already built these camps. I dislike democrat policies just as much as I dislike big-government republicans because they are exactly the same thing, despite what Sean Hannity tells you.
http://blog.wired.com/biotech/images/sean_hannity.png
"They believe everything that I say"
http://www.erichufschmid.net/ThreeSheeple.JPG
FOX Noise Channel Viewers
The difference between a Republican and a Democrat:
Yes gets 1 point. If you have more than 6 points, you are probably a Democrat.
3 Ys and 7 Ns :thumbup:
So, does that make me;
a) Republican
b) Independant
c) Opinionated Veteran Marine
d) Paranoid at what our government has in store for us
e) rightwinggunhuggingflagwavingsteakeatingJohnWayneh ugging redneck
Hmmmm.... maybe that should be mutiple choice in the answers to !! :banana:
(can't get the space out of h ugging) ??
003XXMarineDAD
06-14-07, 06:14 PM
The unwashed...
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u295/dparris/fd61d57a.jpg
Ah, that's intelligent. I'm sure the IVFP appreciates someone like you calling them hippes.
003XXMarineDAD
06-14-07, 06:38 PM
I have counter protested many of the moonbats around here and have spoke to some of your IVFP ones. I also thanked them for serving.
But I have had ones from these protests that have told me that they hope my son comes home in a box.
So erased I could give not a Damn how someone could feel.
I supoort the Troops in harms way more then some washed up hippe from the sixties like this one.
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u295/dparris/DSC00100.jpg
What the hell... One of them is bundled up for winter and the other in shorts and a tee shirt...
I personally can't stand the ones that wish harm on the troops, but they don't speak for everyone who opposes the war. A lot of active duty Marines are speaking out against the war at great personal risk. Also, I agree with the signs both men are holding in the last pic you posted. The thing most people fail to see here is that (like in politics) there aren't two well-defined teams here. There are many many different people with different views on the situation. The pro-war people have their virtues as well, I just agree more with those against the war but supportive of our troops.
003XXMarineDAD
06-14-07, 06:47 PM
Tell me what your mission is? Then I will tell you I support you but not your mission.
Now if that is not a oxymoron , tell me how it is not.
It is not an Oxymoron... It is just a Moron...
Don't believe me... Pick up a history book... Start at the revolutionary war and work your way forward from there..
The Bonus Army had trouble with politicians of all breeds... Is wasn't until some SOB needed em for war that they got what they had coming...
I hate baseball, but respect the men who play it as well as their athletic ability.
003XXMarineDAD
06-14-07, 07:22 PM
Here is one I have had in the local paper. It made no freinds of my counter parts we face off against.
Dear Editor
Our group of Support the Troops participants were glad to have you come over and interview some of us at Tuesdays rally.
The one thing I did want to make sure to be understood is that many of us out on Tuesday were parents of young men serving in the military by choice and are proud of them and what they do.
When your reporter asked what the difference was between how we support the troops and how the antiwar groups did I tried to explain to her.
The anti war groups says they support the troops but not the mission, this is a oxymoron .
The troops have a mission just like we have jobs in our civilian life . Theirs is to protect the country and the constitution of the United States. They go on the orders of the President and no matter which party is in power they do this with out fail. They did it When President Clinton sent them to Bosnia and Somalia.
They now do it for President Bush they have but one commander and chief at a time not all of congress and the senate. To micro manage this war is wrong.
These young men and women go into harms way and do a job just as we do here at home. The difference is sometimes they get shot at. They do their jobs and do it well , but it never get recognized here at home in the press.
They have help Iraq hold two elections and are helping the country get started up .
This country took many years to get where we are and it did not happen over night. We have had many growing pains and many were painful. A civil war comes to mind.
We need to remember that freedom and liberty are not free and it is the actions of our armed forces that help give us that right to speak as we seem fit .
The one thing that does bother me is that in our age of instant news and reporting is that our enemy does use it against us faster then we can prevent it.
In the second world war the news took longer to get home and put out. Just think if the country had known on June 6 ,1944 we had lost 4,900 young men and women in one day. Would the ones protesting today done it then?
We have lost over 3,00 in four years and we will lose more. But if we do not succeed in this war we might as just be ready to surrender right afterwards. The radical Islam terrorist’s will not just go away and say we won and you can go home. They will be emboldened and will spread their ideas farther and with more violence then we can comprehend.
We are there and our young men and women serving know this and they are still doing the job.
It is ours to stand behind them and let them complete it.
Dale Parrish
LaSalle , CO
Ok, but that quote forgets to ask at least one thing, namely: What's stopping them from attacking America right now? This is one of the biggest problems I have with supporters of this war. We are not fighting a military. They are not obligated to stay in Iraq and fight us. They could just as easily take a plane and crash it into the White House tommorow or in 15 years. The lives being lost in Iraq are for nothing. At least Halliburton is getting rich off this. I should buy stock.
003XXMarineDAD
06-14-07, 07:34 PM
George Sorros has more stock in Hailburton the Vice President Chenny so He should be thanking him for his big profit these last few years.
The big money behind all the antiwar groups gets his biggest pay for the war.
Boy is not America great.:D
Indeed. What do you know about PNAC and the OSP? I'm interested to see the opinions of Marines about those two groups.
Also, I want to apologize to everyone. I feel like I kinda highjacked this board. I just like the intense (yet fairly civil) discussion and quick responses.
Ok, but that quote forgets to ask at least one thing, namely: What's stopping them from attacking America right now? This is one of the biggest problems I have with supporters of this war. We are not fighting a military. They are not obligated to stay in Iraq and fight us. They could just as easily take a plane and crash it into the White House tommorow or in 15 years. The lives being lost in Iraq are for nothing. At least Halliburton is getting rich off this. I should buy stock.
We are fighting a organized military... But the left would have a cow if we called it that way...
They are attacking us here... At least they have tried a couple times.. And for the most part they know that in order to be able to launch the large scale attack that they want.. Remember.. "kill all Infidels" They must have their own "Rhineland" secure... ( Different river this time)
If the Iraqis are allowed to do things like vote.. and go to school.. and on and on and on.. it is going to be real hard to keep the same fear that the Nazis had to get folks to go to war..
Not all Germans wanted to Go to war.. But by the time that thought they should speak up it was to damn late...
We just started smacking this "new" Hitler (read that bastard from Iran) around before he had the chance to build a Big ass army..
Did you see the news about Pakistan today.. Moderates in the country are being executed in their homes by the radicals...
Indeed. What do you know about PNAC and the OSP? I'm interested to see the opinions of Marines about those two groups.
Also, I want to apologize to everyone. I feel like I kinda highjacked this board. I just like the intense (yet fairly civil) discussion and quick responses.
My opinion... Don't start that "neo Con" Crapp with me..
It is a DEMOCRAT political name calling game... Neo simply means new.. Some one is playing off of Neo Nazis like it is some kind of a damn joke..
The Truth about the neo con movement is that they are socially left leaning with Strong defense policies..
Truman would have fit the description very well... And was also very much HATED by the democratic base...
yellowwing
06-14-07, 08:32 PM
She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.
Well hey, That's five bucks more than he had. $31 more dollars and he can buy a share in Halliburton.
003XXMarineDAD
06-14-07, 10:15 PM
<TABLE class=tborder cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR title="Post 252526" vAlign=top><TD class=alt2>Well hey, That's five bucks more than he had. $31 more dollars and he can buy a share in Halliburton.</TD></TR><TR><TD class=thead colSpan=2>Today 07:19 PM</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
That is good then he can have one of those professional signs that MoveOn and Anwser have printed by Ole Goergey boy to protest with.
I'am to poor I have to make my own. Thats the downfall of being a proud redneck.
:D
I don't know... I mean... if they really wanted to kill as many Americans as they can, wouldn't they be taking planes left and right to smash into things (since it worked so well before)? Seems to me that even if it is an organized military that two guys could take a plane and cause some damage to keep us scared. About the Neocon thing: (Quoted from wikipedia, don't shoot me)
"
Neoconservatism is a political movement that emerged as a rejection of liberalism and the New Left counter-culture of the 1960s. It coalesced in the 1970s and was influential in the Reagan administration, George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush) administration, and George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) administration. It has received so much attention because it represented a realignment in American politics and the defection of "an important and highly articulate group of liberals to the other side.'<sup id="_ref-Dionne_56_0" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative#_note-Dionne_56)</sup> Because the neoconservatives knew liberalism from the inside, they were more effective than previous conservatives at criticizing the failures of liberalism, and one of their first accomplishments was "to make criticism from the right acceptable in the intellectual, artistic, and journalistic circles where conservatives had long been regarded with suspicion.'<sup id="_ref-Dionne_56_1" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative#_note-Dionne_56)</sup>
The term neoconservative was first used derisively by democratic socialist Michael Harrington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Harrington) to make clear that a group, many of whom called themselves liberal, was actually a group newly conservative ex-liberals. The name eventually stuck, both because it was reasonably accurate, and because neoconservatives came to accept that they were, in fact, conservative.<sup id="_ref-Dionne_55_0" class="reference">[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative#_note-Dionne_55)</sup> The idea that liberalism 'no longer knew what it was talking about" became one of the central themes of neoconservatism,<sup id="_ref-0" class="reference">[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative#_note-0)</sup> and by the 1980s, being considered a conservative was far from an insult.'"
The name-calling part is mostly just lumping people with the Cheneys and Rummys. It may be inaccurate contextually, but it isn't wholly untrue.
The opinions I was hoping for was more on the sheer number of PNAC members in the Bush White House (Some, including Cheney, also served under Nixon), as well as the OSP (and now the Iranian Directorate) which receives intel and adjusts it before analysts see it and disseminate it. The OSP and Iranian Directorate are both staffed by PNAC members. PNAC's own literature alludes to US government complicity with the attacks on 9/11, which is why the "conspiracy nuts" have been having a ball since the end of 2001.
I don't know... I mean... if they really wanted to kill as many Americans as they can, wouldn't they be taking planes left and right to smash into things (since it worked so well before)? Seems to me that even if it is an organized military that two guys could take a plane and cause some damage to keep us scared. About the Neocon thing: (Quoted from wikipedia, don't shoot me)
"
You have got to be kidding don't you... The last thing AQ needs before they launched a major attack would be to reunite the American people with a large number of plane crashes... This is why some around here claim that they won;t follow us here.. But watch the news.. Hamas Hezob.. AQ the taliban.. They DON'T act as independent from each other as they are given credit for..
LOL About the "neocon do some more objective research... You would find that these are Lefties on social policies and Strong anti war..
Truman fit the bill very nicely.. In fact I would argue that the movement was in huge part a response to the "Truman Doctrine"...
When you say 60's and 70's... Take a look at the Presidential politics of the time..
There is no need for the "hate " "neocon" idea that seems to be floating around...
Of course.. the "neocons" were hated from day one.. Because if you study the anti war groups that claim to be so very peaceful.. you will find they have historically been supported by very very violent groups..
For a modern example.. See.."Free Palestine"
OLE SARG
06-15-07, 09:36 AM
I'm still trying to figure out what the **** a "hippes" is!!!!!!
SEMPER FI,
Meant Strong national defense.. not "anti war" on the neo con.. opps..
jinelson
06-15-07, 10:15 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/jinelson/204547.jpg
Help support terrorism cut funding VOTE DEMOCRAT
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v660/jinelson/129956.jpg
If you hate America and;
http://images.cafepress.com/product/78050377v7_240x240_Front.jpg
Sgt Leprechaun
06-15-07, 11:29 AM
Funny.
What, exactly, does the left want? It's a simple question.
We are constantly asked on the right (and, BTW, I'm NOT a neo-con, etc) all these questions about the war, etc etc....but I would like to know what the left's solution to this mess is.
Just....the solution. Pull out? Ok, fine. We leave. Then what? What happens...then? We put our heads in the sand and pretend we didn't just abandon all the good contacts and goodwill that we have (despite the lefts drumbeat otherwise) made over there?
And, hell, while we are at it, lets leave Afganistan as well. Matter of fact, I'll support us leaving EVERYWHERE, as long as we really, do, leave, EVERYWHERE. Iraq. Afganistan. Sudan, Kosovo. Korea. The list is endless. Pull everyone out, come back to our borders, boot out the UN, and I'll support this idea 100 percent.
It's all just talk until then. Because the left has their little pet causes (Sudan, Kosovo, Blood Diamonds, etc etc) that they cannot give up. Anymoreso than the right can.
So, again, lets hear the plan.
yellowwing
06-15-07, 01:07 PM
I saw an interesting documentary on PBS Frontline about the first year in Iraq. They claim Rumsfeld was all for pulling out after our victory. Check it out here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/).
OLE SARG
06-15-07, 01:11 PM
I am still waiting for hildabeast's plan to save the world and all of us hapless inhabitants!!!!!!!!!!
SEMPER FI,
Sgt Leprechaun
06-15-07, 01:21 PM
Looks interesting. I just picked up Ricks's book from the library, interested to read it and see what he says.
I'm still trying to figure out what the **** a "hippes" is!!!!!!
SEMPER FI,
Still don't have a valid point to make, eh?
@jinelson: Linking to all the cute propaganda in the world won't change the fact that both the left and the right in our government fund terrorism. In fact, the US is the only country in history to be convicted in a world court of "state terrorism". Maybe you should read up on how we're arming both Shia and Sunni militias in Iraq.
@holm: "The last thing AQ needs before they launched a major attack would be to reunite the American people with a large number of plane crashes..."
I don't claim to be an expert in terror tactics (or anything for that matter), but united or not, if they wanted to hit us today, they could; whether we're in Iraq and Afghanistan or not.
Sgt Leprechaun
06-15-07, 02:44 PM
Sure....they 'could', but perhaps the better question is, here......"Why haven't they?"
Simple. Because by being on the ground, at the closest point of contact 'over there', the jihadis flock to engage our warriors, who are ready, willing, and able, to send them to their idea of 'paradise'.
As opposed to the much more difficult assignment of getting into this country (open borders notwithstanding), and doing the same thing.
While, no doubt that is forefront on the mind of most of these whackjobs, most at present don't have the means to get here, and why bother when they can just walk down the street and make the attempt?
Hard as that sounds, I'd just as soon have them doing it 'there', against trained and armored troops, with gunships, air support, artillery, and experience, than the local shopping mall, my kids elementary school, or the next major league baseball game.
It's just that simple.
jetdawgg
06-15-07, 03:08 PM
If we don't fight them there.....
http://www.illinoischannel.org/Pictures/GiulianiRudy060607.jpg
Good point. However, I think that it underestimates the intelligence of those we are fighting. I'm fairly certain that they could see that they could do far more damage if they left the fight there and came here. It wouldn't be that hard to do, I imagine. I suppose we could ask the people we blamed for September 11th, who have (reportedly) turned up alive an well throughout the middle ease.
yellowwing
06-15-07, 03:11 PM
This is one that I have personal moral trouble with. Yeah, I really think we were bamboozled into Iraq. But we are there now like it or not. Our Brothers are over there now as we speak doing their job.
I think there are a finite number of terrorist/insurgents wanting to martyr themselves. Deep down I want them to kill themselves in Tikrit and Sadr City rather than Nashville or Denver.
jetdawgg
06-15-07, 03:16 PM
This is one that I have personal moral trouble with. Yeah, I really think we were bamboozled into Iraq. But we are there now like it or not. Our Brothers are over there now as we speak doing their job.
I think there are a finite number of terrorist/insurgents wanting to martyr themselves. Deep down I want them to kill themselves in Tikrit and Sadr City rather than Nashville or Denver.
Anthony Chibara writes "They strap the bombs around their chest and kill a bunch of people, what about us, the civil society? We strap the bombs on to the Jet fighters, and kill a whole lot more. What is the difference? "
Thoughts.....
Sgt Leprechaun
06-15-07, 03:21 PM
Who is Chibara? Basically, equating us on the same levels as the terrs? Sorry, I can't, and won't, buy that sort of rhetorical navel gazing.
It's just not a valid point. The same thing could be said of the Germans bombing Coventry versus us bombing Dresden.
And, I'm with ya YW.
yellowwing
06-15-07, 03:23 PM
Well we are very conscience of collateral damage. Yes it happens often, but it is not our goal to kill innocents. We don't cluster bomb markets.
Sgt Leprechaun
06-15-07, 03:29 PM
Exactly. Well said, sir. Unlike the Muslim extremists, we would bring the little kid accidentally hurt by one of our own bombs, to this country, and pay for his/her medical care.
Hell, we patch up the jihadists on the street NOW, as we've always done.
There is the difference. Thank you, Y/W for spurring my train of thought on that one.
jetdawgg
06-15-07, 03:52 PM
Who is Chibara? Basically, equating us on the same levels as the terrs? Sorry, I can't, and won't, buy that sort of rhetorical navel gazing.
It's just not a valid point. The same thing could be said of the Germans bombing Coventry versus us bombing Dresden.
And, I'm with ya YW.
Blogger
OLE SARG
06-15-07, 06:43 PM
eraser,
A valid point and you still didn't say what the **** a "hippes" is!!!!!!!!!
SEMPER FI,
003XXMarineDAD
06-15-07, 10:23 PM
I think there are a finite number of terrorist/insurgents wanting to martyr themselves. Deep down I want them to kill themselves in Tikrit and Sadr City rather than Nashville or Denver.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->__________________
Yellowwing it will never be Denver, not when their cheerleading group is having their DNC convention there in "08".
It would hurt their cause and the DNC would not let that happen.
Now after the hilldabeast gets in all bets are off.
:D
huey guns
06-15-07, 11:26 PM
erased, you and 10z should get along just fine.
Um... ok... I'm sure I'll get along fine with just about everyone, though.
yellowwing
06-15-07, 11:50 PM
Denver, Boise, Lexington, South Bend, wherever. Let us meet them and destroy them in Ramadi.
huey guns
06-16-07, 12:19 AM
As Patton said, let the other bastard die for his country, or religion in this case.Their just hoping things will change in '08.
Patton said all kinds of good chit... We should have made his GD ass an honorary Marine..
The Damn "cold" war would have gone "hot" frign 60 years ago if they would have let Patton run the show..
That away we wouldn't be fight'n the damn "cold" war in Iraq...
Yeah, nuclear holocaust would've kept us out of Iraq. If only someone would've thought of that sooner.
yellowwing
06-16-07, 06:44 PM
Hey Erased,I thought you were supposed to be getting drunk and getting laid three ways to Sunday!
I'm married. I can do both and still hang out with you guys.
Yeah, nuclear holocaust would've kept us out of Iraq. If only someone would've thought of that sooner.
So I take it.. oh enlightened one... That you have never studied Patton... and why and when he thought we should have took Russia...
If you remember.. All of the stuff Patton said about Russia... was said primarly before he would have known we had a big ole bomb like that... and his comments would have held true even still
And ya oh so intellegent one.. Patton was also dead set against "de- Nazification" Does that sound familair?
We had no reason to be at war with Russia prior to the Cold War. If you're talking pre-emptive warfare, you've got no audience here.
HAHAHAHAHA...
So you have never read up on Patton? And by the end of ww2. an Attack on Russia damn sure would not have been... "pre-emptive"
Ahh I have to drop at least a couple quotes on this one..
remember this man died in December of 1945... It is high time you picked up a history book or two...
Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to the Russians. This is the only language that they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say that we have had a victory over the Germans, and have disarmed them, but we have lost the war.
If it should be necessary for us to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it, the better.
If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on, we will get weaker and they will get stronger.
The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese. From what I have seen of them I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russians have no regard for human life and they are all out sons of *****es, barbarians, and chronic drunks.
The Russians have a lot of new heavy tanks of which they are very proud. The Marshall asked me how I liked them. I said that I did not and we had quite an argument. Apparently I am the first person ever to disagree with him.
I believe that Germany should not be destroyed, but rather should be rebuilt as a buffer against the real danger, which is Russia and it's Bolshevism
It seems like to me that Russia has a certain sphere of influence in Korea, Manchuria, and Mongolia.
I am very much afraid that Europe is going Bolshevik, which, if it does, may eventually spread to our country.
The Russians give me the impression of something that is to be feared in future world political reorganization.
We promised the Europeans freedom. It would be worse than dishonorable not to see they have it. This might mean war with the Russians, but what of it? They have no Air Force anymore, their gasoline and ammunition supplies are low. I've seen their miserable supply trains; mostly wagons draw by beaten up old horses or oxen. I'll say this; the Third Army alone with very little help and with damned few casualties, could lick what is left of the Russians in six weeks. You mark my words. Don't ever forget them. Someday we will have to fight them and it will take six years and cost us six million lives.
The Russians are mongols. They are Slavs and a lot of them used to be ruled by ancient Byzantium. From Genghis Kahn to Stalin, they have not changed. They never will and we will never learn, at least, not until it is too late.
Poland is under Russian domination, so is Hungary, so is Czechoslovakia, and so is Yugoslavia; and we sit happily by and think that everybody loves us.
We have destroyed what could have been a good race of people and we are about to replace them with mongolian savages and all of Europe with communism
You say it wouldn't be pre-emptive, but then all that you quoted contradicts you.
Do you want the evidence that don't....
There is plenty... Stalin and FDR had been working together on a couple deals though.. So ya don't learn about that in school these days...
Besides that .... Techically under "international" law Russia found themselves in major voilation of MANY of the Geneva laws. And I am not talking about little petty chit here...
Just how exaclty are ya supossed to enforce those?
drumcorpssnare
06-18-07, 02:29 PM
HOLM- You definitely have your poop in a group, re: Patton and his views on the Soviets. Old George knew what he was talking about!!!
But, the world was tired of war, and by the time the Japanese surrendered, everyone just wanted to call it quits. But, at the point where America was at it's strongest, Russia was arguably at it's weakest. That would have been the ideal time to crush the Russians. Think of how different the world might have been, WITHOUT the "Cold War."
drumcorpssnare:usmc:
yeah the Russians were pretty tired of war also...
They lost 20 million to World war 2.. All that would have been required was to act tough.. and Germany wouldn't have undergone years of oppression..
And 10z would not have almost gotten blown to bits down around cuba...
10thzodiac
06-18-07, 06:03 PM
yeah the Russians were pretty tired of war also...
They lost 20 million to World war 2.. All that would have been required was to act tough.. and Germany wouldn't have undergone years of oppression..
And 10z would not have almost gotten blown to bits down around cuba...
Try in Cuba !
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/3/3f/90px-USMCExMed.jpg (http://www.answers.com/topic/usmcexmed-jpg)http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/b/bd/AFEM.gif
jetdawgg
06-18-07, 06:14 PM
10Z and I followed up after you in Cuba 1979-80:
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u17/jetdawgg/11766-1.jpg
See 10z and Jet.. We could have put an end to that 60 years ago..
instead we are still fighting it today..
Give war a chance.. Would ya...
jetdawgg
06-18-07, 06:44 PM
This admin has allowed the Russians to get their Vodka Muscles up again
10thzodiac
06-18-07, 06:49 PM
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wrh2.gif
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/operation_northwoods.htm
This admin has allowed the Russians to get their Vodka Muscles up again
What the hell do you think the Iraq war and the problems we have been having with Iran are all about?
Read this...
http://www.maoism.ru/alo/eggers.htm
About Afgan...
jetdawgg
06-18-07, 07:05 PM
What the hell do you think the Iraq war and the problems we have been having with Iran are all about?
Read this...
http://www.maoism.ru/alo/eggers.htm
About Afgan...
One of the main issues with the war in Iraq is why are there not more resources in Afghanistan. You support this admin in Iraq.
One of the main issues with the war in Iraq is why are there not more resources in Afghanistan. You support this admin in Iraq.
????????
The fun part comes when you disect that website..
Ya start here...
http://www.maoism.ru/alo/eggers.htm
And read self professed communist German author that is talking about US imperialism in Afgan...
Then you start taking things away
http://www.maoism.ru/ (http://www.maoism.ru/alo/eggers.htm)
Humm.. That is a Russian i-net address...
You don't have to follow to many links from the site before things get interesting
<table cellpadding="5"><tbody><tr><td><center>http://a-l-o.maoism.ru/logo.gif</center> </td> <td align="center"> <center>http://a-l-o.maoism.ru/alo2.gif
</center> <center> <dt>
</dt></center> <center>Welcome to the Home Page of the</center> <center>Afghanistan Liberation Organization (ALO)</center> </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<center> http://a-l-o.maoism.ru/5leaders.jpg</center> Workers of all countries, Unite!
greensideout
06-18-07, 07:33 PM
What can be said?
These are pics of world record holding killers of the past.
It is important that the ALO combines with the revolutionary organizations of all surrounding states and areas at an alliance against the common enemies. It is also necessary to call in the life a Marxist-Leninist alliance of all Moslem people and states to start the revolutionary actions on the base of working out and decide a general line. This also would be an important contribution for the world revolution. The union of all Marxist-Leninist parties of the Moslem world cannot be practiced with a narrow nationalistic viewpoint. Nevertheless all single Arabian people have their own characteristics, their particular history, specific problems, economic, cultural and socially various developments. It is impossible to treat these unusual features in mechanical way. Unity admits nevertheless, admits a common destiny that all of them hold together can instead of fighting occasionally and isolatedly. Particularly against Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the united Arabian Emirate must be fought together, appreciate the Taliban as "lawful" state-power in Afghanistan.
There is no other way to get rid of the barbarism in Afghanistan, as by revolution!
The Afghan people will defeat all their foreign and home enemies and build up the country finally in prosperity, freedom and peace!
Afghanistan belongs to the Afghan peoples!
The future of socialism will belong to the heroically fighting people one day!
Victory to the revolutionary liberation movement in Afghanistan!
Forwards with the ALO!
Long live Proletarian Internationalism and Communism!
Long live Marxism-Leninism!
Now you tell me who the enemy in Afgan and Iraq is...
greensideout
06-18-07, 07:52 PM
Uh, no one if we were not there?
Sgt Leprechaun
06-18-07, 08:07 PM
Yeah, right. Let's ignore the evidence and keep trundling down the path wearing our rose colored glasses, why don't we?
Cripes.
Are we all that anti-Bush that we would willingly cede Afganistan back to either the Taliban or a Communist group? Are we all that anti-Bush that we think by leaving Iraq all the problems there will go away, and our status in the world will somehow improve?
I'll make another goofy prediction. If, by some miracle, either Hillary! or Obama gets the presidency, you'll see Dems suddenly sounding like conservatives and saying we have to 'stay the course' etc etc etc. Sure, right now, the anti war crowd is perhaps driving the ding dongs on the bus of anti-Bush hatred, but IF the left gets into power, they will realize what the Republicans already know; leaving now would cause more long term problems than they would solve. Oh, sure, they will make noises to appease (yes, appease) the socialist wing of the party.....but NEITHER Clinton, nor Obama, is stupid in the political sense. NEITHER one wants to be thought of as the Dems next Jimmy Carter. And, that is what they face. I disagree with their politics, but I respect them for having cunning and smarts. They also want to have a 'legacy', and being perceived as a 'loser'....ain't it.
JCam0331
06-18-07, 08:39 PM
Simple lesson illustrating the difference between the two parties. Fred Thompson and Hillary were walking down the street when they came upon a homeless person. The Republican, Fred Thompson, gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his office for a job. He then took $20 out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person. Hillary was very impressed, so when they came to another homeless person, she decided to help. She walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. She then reached into Thompson's pocket and got out $20. She kept $15 for her administrative fees and gave the homeless person $5.
Now, do you understand the difference
This wasn't even funny it was just a sloppy old rip on Democrats typical of neocons.
Funny how I always see neocons blaming liberals for all their woes, yet I never hear liberals blaming our country's woes on conservatives (yes the ream GWB's policies, but not the viewpoints of conservatives)
Obviously you have not studied economics, or else you'd understand the concept of the law of Marginal Utility.
$20 to Thompson or Hillary is simple loose change in the grand scheme of their budget, so it'd be worth perhaps one util...while to the homeless person, it could supply them with 3 days worth of food, thus the $20 is worth much more to the homeless man than to Hillary or Thompson.
That is why we tax, and why we fund the welfare system with revenue from a graduated tax bracket that forces high income people to pay proportionately more than lower income citizens.
Oh yeah, I don't see a neocon offering a job and 20 dollars. I see a neocon sneer at the man, not knowing a damn thing about his situation - "go get a damn job you lazy bum !!"
seen it over and over again.
HAAHHAHAHAHA More with the "neo cons"
You need to get a grip.... The enemy you face is yourself..
JCam0331
06-18-07, 08:54 PM
HAAHHAHAHAHA More with the "neo cons"
You need to get a grip.... The enemy you face is yourself..
don't really have an enemy. Just sick of neocons *****ing about how liberals are ruining the country.
Especially Rush Limbaugh. His radioshow is a grand old *****fest.
Sgt Leprechaun
06-18-07, 09:19 PM
You have personally witnessed the dreaded neocons 'sneering at bums' 'over and over again'????
Wow.
While I don't consider myself one of the 'neocons' per se, I have never 'sneered at a bum'.
I think you DO have an enemy. The invidious NEOCON.
And, liberals aren't ruining the country. They are merely ATTEMPTING to ruin the country.
If you don't like to listen to Rush....then don't. It's still a free country. I don't listen. Big whoop.
JCam0331
06-18-07, 09:24 PM
You have personally witnessed the dreaded neocons 'sneering at bums' 'over and over again'????
Wow.
While I don't consider myself one of the 'neocons' per se, I have never 'sneered at a bum'.
I think you DO have an enemy. The invidious NEOCON.
And, liberals aren't ruining the country. They are merely ATTEMPTING to ruin the country.
If you don't like to listen to Rush....then don't. It's still a free country. I don't listen. Big whoop.
1. I've seen many hardcore conservatives who take that attitude - that bum should stop being lazy and go get a job.
2. Nah, I don't consider neocons enemies at all. They're just fellow Americans who I disagree with.
3. Liberals are free thinking people who are trying to constantly make changes for the better.
4. I don't listen to Rush, I just hear his crap sometimes when I'm riding in a car with someone who happens to like him. It will continue to be a free country.
Sgt Leprechaun
06-18-07, 09:35 PM
1. While I've never said it, I've dealt with plenty of those bums. 90 percent couldn't work if they wanted to due to mental illness, drug/alcohol addictions, and the like. The remaining 10 percent choose to be homeless for the freedom it offers. The people who WANT to work, will work. Those who don't, won't. It's just that simple. Liberal panaceas won't get 'the bums' off the street. And, BTW, when 'mental illness' was de-criminalized by the left leaning courts, circa 1970-71, (meaning that nuts couldn't be institutionalized or forced to take their meds), the "homeless" increased tenfold.
2. Good. Neocons aren't your enemy.
3. "Constantly trying to make changes for the better". Nice thought, but I prefer to think of Liberals as people who constantly want to meddle in my business (no smoking, no fatty foods, that list is endless) while thinking with their feeeeeelings instead of having sense. They can be decent folk, but they are the ultimate in socialist sheep.
4. Let's hope it does continue to be a free country. I don't want to be forced to listen to either Rush, or Al Franken, or couric, or Rosie, or anyone I don't like (including O'Reilly, Hannity, etc). It's up to me. Not some 'do gooder' who thinks they know what's best for me.
JCam0331
06-18-07, 09:40 PM
I'm loving the 4 points.
Conservatives and Liberals should not be such a great divide in the United States. We need to compromise and make this country stronger and the world a better place for all.
The only enemies I have that I can think of are the Islamic Extremists that are plaguing the world today. This is not going to be ane asy problem to solve.
Sgt Leprechaun
06-18-07, 09:48 PM
True on your last point.
greensideout
06-18-07, 09:49 PM
I had all the answers when I was young, then was lucky enough to live to learn that I didn't have a clue!
greensideout
06-18-07, 10:10 PM
Having all the answers was a lot more fun. ;)
:thumbup::thumbup: <br />
<br />
<br />
guilty as charged...