Guest Guest Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Will the real 2smart4u please stand up. Since Bryan and I are the only rational people on KOTW, I would hardly refer to him as a Loony Lefty. I suppose I should be flattered that someone wants to be me. 75845[/snapback] Why not, you're flattered by everything else. Have you ever seen the movie "Sybil?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Here's another movie for you.....Saving Private Bryan ....oh wait, that won't work because in this "war" Bryan does'nt feel the need to serve. He is perfecly content letting someone else fight his battle for him. He said it himself. 75884[/snapback] He probably works at the White House. Used to shine Karl Rove's shoes, but now they have him cleaning the toilets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo. Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Of course you don't."It could be said [Tet] was a surprise attack which brought us a big victory. For a big battle we always figured out the objectives, the targets, so it was the main objective to destroy the forces and to obstruct the Americans from making war. But what was more important was to de-escalate the war -- because at that time the American were escalating the war -- and to start negotiations. So that was the key goal of that campaign." --from interview with Gen. Giap See, even if you help the enemy achieve his goals you're not really helping him. Or is that the excuse of traitors who can't live with themselves without some kind of strained justification? Right, because Paul has thought deeply about the complexity of war and how dissent at home can weaken the will to persist in a protracted war. See the Tet offensive for a counterexample. The success of the Tet offensive was primarily in its propaganda value. The communists got their butts kicked in the battle, but turned the tide of the war with the propaganda victory. Walter Cronkite was in the vanguard of Giap's America Dupes Corps. http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/Cronkite_1968.html Tell that to the thousands of South Vietnamese who were butchered when North Vietnam broke the truce and invaded South Vietnam while congressional Democrats voted to renege on promises of support integral to the original ceasefire agreement. Paul's quite the Democrat. He hasn't lost hope that the U.S. will fail in Iraq. 75751[/snapback] Ok Bryan, what would you tell the families the thousands of innocent dead in Iraq? Dissention is the act of a traitor? What part of "free country" do you not understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest a proud american Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 The movie is "Redacted". A movie that dramatizes the rape and murder of a 14 year old Iraqi girl and her parents. The soldiers involved were convicted in a court martial and received life sentences. Over one million military personnel have served honorably in Iraq and Afganistan, Depalma and Cuban felt a need to make a movie about 2 that disgraced their uniforms knowing the harm the movie would cause. Their vicious, mean-spirited behavior is so typical of the far left (could it be the Kool-aid ??). Do I support a war tax and draft ? There may have to be a tax increase to pay for the war debt. A draft ? Not at this time, all the services are meeting their recruitment goals. Diplomatic solution with Iran ? Their president is a madman bent on developing a nuke and he hates the U.S. and Israel. Oh, yeah, he'll play nice. 75606[/snapback] I 'm sorry that I missed your first mention. However, I read a review of the movie and I wouldn't be to concerned about it. Since I don't plan to see the movie it may be different than what you think from what I read. Actually, Condi is advocating diplomacy with Iran. Since by all information, they are at-least 15 years away from actually having a weapon there is a window of opportunity. While their Leaders are definately nuts, they also view our leaders as nuts also. However, convincing all of our allies in the middle east that it's in their best interest to come up with a diplomatic solution may put the pressure we need on them to sit down and talk. With regards to the war tax and draft, something has got to be done. We can't keep borrowing money from China to finance this debacle. And if we are hell bent on going after Iran, we are going to have to increase the size of the military. There is simply no way to get around it. But in any event, it is good to see that we can actually have a discussion without resorting to name calling. I hope this can continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Ok Bryan, what would you tell the families the thousands of innocent dead in Iraq?Dissention is the act of a traitor? What part of "free country" do you not understand? 75925[/snapback] I would tell them "even though the defeatocrats in the U.S. didn't want us here, we came over and rooted Saddam out of his spider hole. He will not kill any more innocent people in your country". To that, the response would be "thank Allah for President Bush". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 QUOTE(Keith-Marshall @ Mo.,Dec 2 2007, 09:39 AM) Ok Bryan, what would you tell the families the thousands of innocent dead in Iraq? Dissention is the act of a traitor? What part of "free country" do you not understand? I would tell them "even though the defeatocrats in the U.S. didn't want us here, we came over and rooted Saddam out of his spider hole. He will not kill any more innocent people in your country". To that, the response would be "thank Allah for President Bush". 75943[/snapback] Well, that settles Bryan's identity. Oh, and that guy who lost his entire family because Bush decided to declare war in Iraq --- no doubt he'd be real impressed with a smart-assed answer like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Ok Bryan, what would you tell the families the thousands of innocent dead in Iraq?Dissenion is the act of a traitor? I wouldn't go out of my way to blame Paul for the deaths of their loved ones, if that's what you're asking. What part of "free country" do you not understand? 75925[/snapback] No part, as far as I can tell. Are you free to run stop signs? Neither should you be free to break the duly legislated laws against providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 I would tell them "even though the defeatocrats in the U.S. didn't want us here, we came over and rooted Saddam out of his spider hole. He will not kill any more innocent people in your country". To that, the response would be "thank Allah for President Bush". 75943[/snapback] Ok, I tell you what. I will gladly accept the moniker of "defeatocrat" if you will admit here on this forum that you and those of the same mindset effectly support terrorism. Your delight in the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqi's is perverse. Innocent people who never did anything to you, Bryan or 2dumb4words. While I am outraged by any terroists activities, I would submit that in terms of honor these terroists of which you speak have more honor than you, Patriot. Why? Because at least they are willing to do thier own dirty work and take themselves out in the process. Do you have that much conviction? We know where Bryan stands on the subject. You, like many others refuse to look past "radical Islam" as the reason for terrorism. You refuse to see that although a great country, America is far from perfect and we make mistakes. You refuse to see that maybe, just maybe it's policy and presence that are at the root of these conflicts more than "they hate us for our freedoms" Why are you so afraid of looking in the mirror? Until we as a country are ready to face ourselves then we will be doomed to repeat oursleves. So, if finding all of this distasteful and wanting it to stop makes me a "defeatocrat" , so be it. It's a far cry better than what I consider you to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest a proud american Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Of course you don't."It could be said [Tet] was a surprise attack which brought us a big victory. For a big battle we always figured out the objectives, the targets, so it was the main objective to destroy the forces and to obstruct the Americans from making war. But what was more important was to de-escalate the war -- because at that time the American were escalating the war -- and to start negotiations. So that was the key goal of that campaign." --from interview with Gen. Giap See, even if you help the enemy achieve his goals you're not really helping him. Or is that the excuse of traitors who can't live with themselves without some kind of strained justification? Right, because Paul has thought deeply about the complexity of war and how dissent at home can weaken the will to persist in a protracted war. See the Tet offensive for a counterexample. The success of the Tet offensive was primarily in its propaganda value. The communists got their butts kicked in the battle, but turned the tide of the war with the propaganda victory. Walter Cronkite was in the vanguard of Giap's America Dupes Corps. http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/Cronkite_1968.html Tell that to the thousands of South Vietnamese who were butchered when North Vietnam broke the truce and invaded South Vietnam while congressional Democrats voted to renege on promises of support integral to the original ceasefire agreement. Paul's quite the Democrat. He hasn't lost hope that the U.S. will fail in Iraq. 75751[/snapback] I don't know if you're old enough to remember 1968, but if you are, then you will remember that just prior to Tet, we were told from the President to General Westmorland that the NVA and Viet Cong were being beaten and didn't have the capacity to mount an offensive. In fact, we hadn't given much thought at that time to the Lunar New Year. So when they finally attacked simultaniously every strategic city and hamlet we weren't prepared. My ex-brother in law was an MP guarding the embassy in Saigon which was almost over run before we could mount a counter attack till this day won't talk about it. But to be caught off guard like that showed what the French all ready knew. That our counter parts were a very patient and determined enemy. While it was a strategic victory for the US, it was also the turning point. People who had generally supported the war like Cronkite, started to question whether we were being lied to by the Government about what was really happening. I can only speak for myself. The military didn't lose in Viet Nam the Vietnamese military lost in Viet Nam with our help. When we finally ended ground operations, we turned over to them all of the equipment they needed, and all of the training they required to win. And how did we help them lose? By not forcing them early on to take the initiative. Their attitude was that why fight when we have the US fighting for us. Sound familiar. It should because we are doing the same thing in Iraq today. The South Vietnames weren't slaughtered because we weren't there. It was because they ran like the cowards most of us knew they were. Now to be fair, there were some good troops that fought like h$%#. There just wasn't very many of them. And in the end, we also found out that the reason for going in in the first place was based on a lie. The USS Maddox was never attacked. It was concocted by Mc Namara and his bunch. And i'm sure you know this, but in 1954 Ho Chi Minh came to the United States and asked for our help. We turned him down. And by the time South Viet Nam fell, it didn't matter what agreement we signed, there was no way the American People would allow us to get mired in that mess again. And in Iraq today, the surge of troops has had some impact to the extent that violence is down. But what was the purpose of the surge? To give the Iraqi Government a chance to work on real progress to form their Government. And their first official act was to go on vacation. To this date they have done nothing except refuse to meet to resolve their own issues. Maliki no longer listens to the US and refused to even send a representative to the talks last week in Annaplois, MD. And this is the country that we are fighting and dying for? And of course now we know that our fearless leader has signed an open ended agreement to keep us in Iraq forever. And the Iraqi troops? Like our little friends from Souteast Asia they're standing on the sidelines, perfectly content to let us do their fighting for them. And if the Democratic Congress and Senate does cut the funding we'll see how serious Maliki is. In the meantime, I would propose that the oil they are producing, which was the real reason for the war, be given to us in lieu of the trillion dollars we've spent so far. Not sold to us but given to us, not to the oil companies but to the american people. To those who want us out of Iraq, keep pressuring your congressional and Senate members. And to Paul, keep posting as often as you want. People like Bryan, while well intentioned, aren't going to change their minds. Facts and evidence are on our side. And just a small note. They are already trying to re-write history. According to Rove, Bush didn't really want to invade when we did, it was the Congress who made him do it. And according to Bush, it was solely the decision of Bremer to disband the Iraqi military and Government. He didn't know anything about it and was never informed. His legacy is, the congress forced me to do it, my Ambassador to Iraq didn't tell me he was going to help escalate the mess we're in, I didn't borrow the trillion plus dollars to fight the war, the treasury department did, and the real budget deficits for the past six years? Again not my fault blame the Congress. But I'll take credit for giving tax cuts to those who needed it the least. The old trickle down theory. And for those who take an oipposite view from us, I believe it was Jefferson who said dissent is the true act of Patriotism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 I would tell them "even though the defeatocrats in the U.S. didn't want us here, we came over and rooted Saddam out of his spider hole. He will not kill any more innocent people in your country". "Instead, we'll pay Blackwater to do it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 I would tell them "even though the defeatocrats in the U.S. didn't want us here, we came over and rooted Saddam out of his spider hole. He will not kill any more innocent people in your country". To that, the response would be "thank Allah for President Bush". 75943[/snapback] The Iraqis know what we did, they are talking, and that's NOT what they're saying. You live in a little fantasy world that you make up in your head. Facts don't matter to you at all, do they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 I would tell them "even though the defeatocrats in the U.S. didn't want us here, we came over and rooted Saddam out of his spider hole. He will not kill any more innocent people in your country". To that, the response would be "thank Allah for President Bush". 75943[/snapback] What a load of PatRat crap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 I don't know if you're old enough to remember 1968, but if you are, then you will remember that just prior to Tet, we were told from the President to General Westmorland that the NVA and Viet Cong were being beaten and didn't have the capacity to mount an offensive. In fact, we hadn't given much thought at that time to the Lunar New Year. So when they finally attacked simultaniously every strategic city and hamlet we weren't prepared. My ex-brother in law was an MP guarding the embassy in Saigon which was almost over run before we could mount a counter attack till this day won't talk about it. But to be caught off guard like that showed what the French all ready knew. That our counter parts were a very patient and determined enemy.While it was a strategic victory for the US, it was also the turning point. People who had generally supported the war like Cronkite, started to question whether we were being lied to by the Government about what was really happening. I can only speak for myself. The military didn't lose in Viet Nam the Vietnamese military lost in Viet Nam with our help. When we finally ended ground operations, we turned over to them all of the equipment they needed, and all of the training they required to win. And how did we help them lose? By not forcing them early on to take the initiative. Their attitude was that why fight when we have the US fighting for us. Sound familiar. It should because we are doing the same thing in Iraq today. The South Vietnames weren't slaughtered because we weren't there. It was because they ran like the cowards most of us knew they were. Now to be fair, there were some good troops that fought like h$%#. There just wasn't very many of them. And in the end, we also found out that the reason for going in in the first place was based on a lie. The USS Maddox was never attacked. It was concocted by Mc Namara and his bunch. And i'm sure you know this, but in 1954 Ho Chi Minh came to the United States and asked for our help. We turned him down. And by the time South Viet Nam fell, it didn't matter what agreement we signed, there was no way the American People would allow us to get mired in that mess again. And in Iraq today, the surge of troops has had some impact to the extent that violence is down. But what was the purpose of the surge? To give the Iraqi Government a chance to work on real progress to form their Government. And their first official act was to go on vacation. To this date they have done nothing except refuse to meet to resolve their own issues. Maliki no longer listens to the US and refused to even send a representative to the talks last week in Annaplois, MD. And this is the country that we are fighting and dying for? And of course now we know that our fearless leader has signed an open ended agreement to keep us in Iraq forever. And the Iraqi troops? Like our little friends from Souteast Asia they're standing on the sidelines, perfectly content to let us do their fighting for them. And if the Democratic Congress and Senate does cut the funding we'll see how serious Maliki is. In the meantime, I would propose that the oil they are producing, which was the real reason for the war, be given to us in lieu of the trillion dollars we've spent so far. Not sold to us but given to us, not to the oil companies but to the american people. To those who want us out of Iraq, keep pressuring your congressional and Senate members. And to Paul, keep posting as often as you want. People like Bryan, while well intentioned, aren't going to change their minds. Facts and evidence are on our side. And just a small note. They are already trying to re-write history. According to Rove, Bush didn't really want to invade when we did, it was the Congress who made him do it. And according to Bush, it was solely the decision of Bremer to disband the Iraqi military and Government. He didn't know anything about it and was never informed. His legacy is, the congress forced me to do it, my Ambassador to Iraq didn't tell me he was going to help escalate the mess we're in, I didn't borrow the trillion plus dollars to fight the war, the treasury department did, and the real budget deficits for the past six years? Again not my fault blame the Congress. But I'll take credit for giving tax cuts to those who needed it the least. The old trickle down theory. And for those who take an oipposite view from us, I believe it was Jefferson who said dissent is the true act of Patriotism. 75952[/snapback] Thank you for that insightful and informative response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Ok, I tell you what. I will gladly accept the moniker of "defeatocrat" if you will admit here on this forum that you and those of the same mindset effectly support terrorism. Your delight in the murder of thousands of innocent Iraqi's is perverse. Innocent people who never did anything to you, Bryan or 2dumb4words. While I am outraged by any terroists activities, I would submit that in terms of honor these terroists of which you speak have more honor than you, Patriot. Why? Because at least they are willing to do thier own dirty work and take themselves out in the process. Do you have that much conviction? We know where Bryan stands on the subject. You, like many others refuse to look past "radical Islam" as the reason for terrorism. You refuse to see that although a great country, America is far from perfect and we make mistakes. You refuse to see that maybe, just maybe it's policy and presence that are at the root of these conflicts more than "they hate us for our freedoms" Why are you so afraid of looking in the mirror? Until we as a country are ready to face ourselves then we will be doomed to repeat oursleves. So, if finding all of this distasteful and wanting it to stop makes me a "defeatocrat" , so be it. It's a far cry better than what I consider you to be. 75949[/snapback] Can I be perfectly serious with you for a moment ? Some of these statements you make are beyond stupid . "Support terrorism" ? "Delight in murder" ? "Honorable terrorists" ? You're either on medication or suffer from some mental deficiency (or both). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 I wouldn't go out of my way to blame Paul for the deaths of their loved ones, if that's what you're asking.No part, as far as I can tell. Are you free to run stop signs? Neither should you be free to break the duly legislated laws against providing aid and comfort to the enemy. 75947[/snapback] You have got to be kidding me. . . . Nope, this is Bryan, or Patriot, or 2dim4words, or whoever he is tonight. He really thinks criticizing the war can be considered a crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 I don't know if you're old enough to remember 1968, but if you are, then you will remember that just prior to Tet, we were told from the President to General Westmorland that the NVA and Viet Cong were being beaten and didn't have the capacity to mount an offensive. In fact, we hadn't given much thought at that time to the Lunar New Year. So when they finally attacked simultaniously every strategic city and hamlet we weren't prepared. My ex-brother in law was an MP guarding the embassy in Saigon which was almost over run before we could mount a counter attack till this day won't talk about it. But to be caught off guard like that showed what the French all ready knew. That our counter parts were a very patient and determined enemy.While it was a strategic victory for the US, it was also the turning point. People who had generally supported the war like Cronkite, started to question whether we were being lied to by the Government about what was really happening. I can only speak for myself. The military didn't lose in Viet Nam the Vietnamese military lost in Viet Nam with our help. When we finally ended ground operations, we turned over to them all of the equipment they needed, and all of the training they required to win. And how did we help them lose? By not forcing them early on to take the initiative. Their attitude was that why fight when we have the US fighting for us. Sound familiar. It should because we are doing the same thing in Iraq today. The South Vietnames weren't slaughtered because we weren't there. It was because they ran like the cowards most of us knew they were. Now to be fair, there were some good troops that fought like h$%#. There just wasn't very many of them. And in the end, we also found out that the reason for going in in the first place was based on a lie. The USS Maddox was never attacked. It was concocted by Mc Namara and his bunch. And i'm sure you know this, but in 1954 Ho Chi Minh came to the United States and asked for our help. We turned him down. And by the time South Viet Nam fell, it didn't matter what agreement we signed, there was no way the American People would allow us to get mired in that mess again. And in Iraq today, the surge of troops has had some impact to the extent that violence is down. But what was the purpose of the surge? To give the Iraqi Government a chance to work on real progress to form their Government. And their first official act was to go on vacation. To this date they have done nothing except refuse to meet to resolve their own issues. Maliki no longer listens to the US and refused to even send a representative to the talks last week in Annaplois, MD. And this is the country that we are fighting and dying for? And of course now we know that our fearless leader has signed an open ended agreement to keep us in Iraq forever. And the Iraqi troops? Like our little friends from Souteast Asia they're standing on the sidelines, perfectly content to let us do their fighting for them. And if the Democratic Congress and Senate does cut the funding we'll see how serious Maliki is. In the meantime, I would propose that the oil they are producing, which was the real reason for the war, be given to us in lieu of the trillion dollars we've spent so far. Not sold to us but given to us, not to the oil companies but to the american people. To those who want us out of Iraq, keep pressuring your congressional and Senate members. And to Paul, keep posting as often as you want. People like Bryan, while well intentioned, aren't going to change their minds. Facts and evidence are on our side. And just a small note. They are already trying to re-write history. According to Rove, Bush didn't really want to invade when we did, it was the Congress who made him do it. And according to Bush, it was solely the decision of Bremer to disband the Iraqi military and Government. He didn't know anything about it and was never informed. His legacy is, the congress forced me to do it, my Ambassador to Iraq didn't tell me he was going to help escalate the mess we're in, I didn't borrow the trillion plus dollars to fight the war, the treasury department did, and the real budget deficits for the past six years? Again not my fault blame the Congress. But I'll take credit for giving tax cuts to those who needed it the least. The old trickle down theory. And for those who take an oipposite view from us, I believe it was Jefferson who said dissent is the true act of Patriotism. 75952[/snapback] I remember 1968 (very well) . We left Viet Nam early because of the defeatocratic pressure at home. We left before the South Vietnamese were prepared to defend their country and it resulted in a slaughter of more than a million citizens. The defeatocrats had blood on their hands for their disgraceful actions, and Jane Fonda was the poster girl for their disgrace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 I would tell them "even though the defeatocrats in the U.S. didn't want us here, we came over and rooted Saddam out of his spider hole. He will not kill any more innocent people in your country". To that, the response would be "thank Allah for President Bush". 75943[/snapback] Yeah, your right. We've killed off what's left. The sad fact is the most Iraqi's felt they were much better off with Hussain. Man, you are such a tool! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Can I be perfectly serious with you for a moment ? Some of these statements you make are beyond stupid . "Support terrorism" ? "Delight in murder" ? "Honorable terrorists" ? You're either on medication or suffer from some mental deficiency (or both). 75986[/snapback] I am being very serious. They kill innocent people - we kill innocent people. When they do they're a labeled terrorists, with good reason. Why is it any different when we do it? Oh, that's right. We're America. We're never wrong, ever. I am of course talking about those who ordered our military to bomb and invade, not the military itself. For some reason I feel the need to point that out before you accuse me of not supporting the troops. So again I ask you. What is the difference. Do you think that Iraqi's who lost family during out initial assualt feel any different than the families of 9/11 victims? Pain is pain, death is death and bullshit is bullshit. If it makes you sleep better at night because in your mind you have manufactured some sort of justification then hooray for you. I can't however because I see it for what it is. Strip away all the politcs, religion and social differences and tell me what makes us any different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 I remember 1968 (very well) . We left Viet Nam early because of the defeatocratic pressure at home. We left before the South Vietnamese were prepared to defend their country and it resulted in a slaughter of more than a million citizens. The defeatocrats had blood on their hands for their disgraceful actions, and Jane Fonda was the poster girl for their disgrace. 75995[/snapback] Yes, by all means let's keep the world in a perpetual state of unnescessary war just to make you feel patriotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 I remember 1968 (very well) . We left Viet Nam early because of the defeatocratic pressure at home. We left before the South Vietnamese were prepared to defend their country and it resulted in a slaughter of more than a million citizens. The defeatocrats had blood on their hands for their disgraceful actions, and Jane Fonda was the poster girl for their disgrace. 75995[/snapback] Typical neo-con BS, blame someone else for your f**k-ups. Jane Fonda was a stupid kid who said stupid things. The bloody hands are on those like McNamara and LBJ who increased our involvement and traitiors like Westmoreland who betrayed the public trust and lied so he could entertain his John Wayne fantansies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 Typical neo-con BS, blame someone else for your f**k-ups.Jane Fonda was a stupid kid who said stupid things. The bloody hands are on those like McNamara and LBJ who increased our involvement and traitiors like Westmoreland who betrayed the public trust and lied so he could entertain his John Wayne fantansies. 76072[/snapback] This is a classic Loony Left spin job; Jane Fonda going to North Viet Nam, posing for pictures with NVN gunners who were shooting down american pilots and criticizing the U.S. on camera, was only "stupid" by a stupid kid (no big deal). She should have been arrested when she returned, charged with giving comfort to the enemy and given 20 years. (no spin) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith's Mom Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 I am being very serious.They kill innocent people - we kill innocent people. When they do they're a labeled terrorists, with good reason. Why is it any different when we do it? Oh, that's right. We're America. We're never wrong, ever. I am of course talking about those who ordered our military to bomb and invade, not the military itself. For some reason I feel the need to point that out before you accuse me of not supporting the troops. So again I ask you. What is the difference. Do you think that Iraqi's who lost family during out initial assualt feel any different than the families of 9/11 victims? Pain is pain, death is death and bullshit is bullshit. If it makes you sleep better at night because in your mind you have manufactured some sort of justification then hooray for you. I can't however because I see it for what it is. Strip away all the politcs, religion and social differences and tell me what makes us any different. 76068[/snapback] You're not Keith, what have you done with my son. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 I remember 1968 (very well) . We left Viet Nam early because of the defeatocratic pressure at home. We left before the South Vietnamese were prepared to defend their country and it resulted in a slaughter of more than a million citizens. The defeatocrats had blood on their hands for their disgraceful actions, and Jane Fonda was the poster girl for their disgrace. 75995[/snapback] In other words, you see the world as you see it. We're not buying it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 This is a classic Loony Left spin job; Jane Fonda going to North Viet Nam, posing for pictures with NVN gunners who were shooting down american pilots and criticizing the U.S. on camera, was only "stupid" by a stupid kid (no big deal). She should have been arrested when she returned, charged with giving comfort to the enemy and given 20 years. (no spin) 76094[/snapback] You're missing the point, dimwit. No matter how foolish Fonda's actions were, they didn't shape the course of the war. God, you right-wingers are stupid. You can't tell what's relevant and what isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo Posted December 4, 2007 Report Share Posted December 4, 2007 This is a classic Loony Left spin job; Jane Fonda going to North Viet Nam, posing for pictures with NVN gunners who were shooting down american pilots and criticizing the U.S. on camera, was only "stupid" by a stupid kid (no big deal). She should have been arrested when she returned, charged with giving comfort to the enemy and given 20 years. (no spin) 76094[/snapback] Who is Valerie Plame? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.