Family 'Thanks' Bush for Death of Son

[DLR'sCock]

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=23207


Family 'Thanks' Bush for Death of Son
WKYC-TV


Wednesday 08 September 2004

THOMPSON - In Geauga County, anger and frustration over the death of a young soldier inside Iraq has prompted one family to send a personal message to President Bush.

Ken and Betty Landrus have put up a large sign outside their home near Thompson, Ohio that is sharply critical of the Bush administration.

The sign reads "Thanks Mr. Bush for the death of our son."

Their son, Staff Sgt. Sean Landrus was killed near Fallujah in January.

They believe the president misled the country about the reasons for invading Iraq and that their son died for nothing.

"Yes I do feel lied to because they kept saying there's mass destruction and nobody's found anything yet," father Ken Landrus said.

Sean Landrus also left behind a wife and three young children.

His youngest daughter, Kennedy, was born just before Sean left to serve inside Iraq.

-------

http://truthout.org/imgs.art_01/sign.jpg

[FORD]

Thanks Junior, you fucking bastard :mad:

[Sgt Schultz]

This man would not be nearly as much pain if the left in this country were not poisoning his mind regarding why the war was and is being fought. They are cheaply playing on emotion only and taking advantage of this guy for political purposes. The left and the Democrats are the ones who ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Landrau was a 31 year old VOLUNTEER Staff Sergeant. He wasn't an 18 year old draftee yanked from his parents' crib and shoved to the front as cannon fodder, as the left would have you think (and make no mistake, it is the LEFT in this country that wants a draft - just so they can exploit this very sort of thing). Staff Sergeant Landrau benefitted greatly, at taxpayer expense, for years as he deserved to. Every person in the military, which I'll reiterate - is an all-volunteer army - is trained, fed and paid for war. If they never fight in one great. Sometimes they do.

Every occupations has benefits and risks.

[JCOOK]

Nice try, but the last time I checked you ENLIST in the armed forces. One of the possibilities is that you will be called on to fight. I have a nephew that is in Iraq now and he knew the deal going in.

[FORD]

What does a volunteer army volunteer to do?

To serve THEIR country, correct?

And that's the pitch given by the recruiters.... Serve YOUR country for 4 years and we'll pay for your college. Or we'll teach you this skill while you're signed up.

Except the military doesn't hold up their end of the deal. Iraq is not their country. Neither was Vietnam. Or Korea. Or Grenada. Or Panama. Or Lebanon. Or whatever other countries PNAC has in mind.

It's time the US military holds up their end of the deal and only requires their volunteers to serve THEIR country. Not Halliburton, Texaco, and Israel.

Maybe if that were the case, the inevitable PNAC draft would cease to be inevitable.

[Sarge]

They are trying to come to grips with the death of their son...
Which was for nothing.
It wasn't for a noble cause.
They feel like they were lied to.. and they were.

I would say that their son went to IRAQ so we could be free to put signs in our yards.. but they would be a lie in itself.
This was isn't about American Independence.. or about protecting our freedoms.

[Warham]

I wonder if this means that I can blame Kennedy, one of the Democrats' biggest heroes, for the 56,000 service men we lost in Vietnam who were not protecting our country or freedoms.

[famac]

No one was lied to, Sarge. If you were a police officer, and you dispatcher told you a car you were about to pull over was considered armed and dangerous, would you dismiss the information or take it seriously?

Sadam Hussein used chemical weapons on his people. He refused and delayed inspections long enough to hide weapons anywhere he wanted to. When you don't let a cop search your car, they assume you have something illegal, right?

So how is it a lie that after repeated refussals (10 years worth) Bush was lying? You can only lie about things you know, not things you don't know about.

Anyway, in the time Bush spent trying to get all of our cowardly allies to support their own resolutions, Saddam could have shipped his entire aresonal to Kalamazzo Michigan if he wanted to.

Not finding weapons in that situation is completly understandable, both from the perspective of no inspections, then the huge amount of time Bush spewnt trying to gather our "allies."

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
I wonder if this means that I can blame Kennedy, one of the Democrats' biggest heroes, for the 56,000 service men we lost in Vietnam who were not protecting our country or freedoms.

There's plenty of blame to go around for Vietnam. Start with Eisenhower, because the war started in the 50's. LBJ probably deserves a big share, and apparently he thought so himself, bowing out of the 1968 election. Nixon for continuing the war and expanding it into Cambodia and Laos.

Kennedy probably deserves the least blame of all, because he was committed to stopping the war long before it escalated. Because the CIA was profitting greatly from the "Golden Triangle" heroin trade route in Asia, they needed the Vietnam war as a cover, and that's why Vietnam was at the top of the list of reasons for JFK's murder. :(

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by FORD
What does a volunteer army volunteer to do?

To serve THEIR country, correct?

And that's the pitch given by the recruiters.... Serve YOUR country for 4 years and we'll pay for your college. Or we'll teach you this skill while you're signed up.

Except the military doesn't hold up their end of the deal. Iraq is not their country. Neither was Vietnam. Or Korea. Or Grenada. Or Panama. Or Lebanon. Or whatever other countries PNAC has in mind.

It's time the US military holds up their end of the deal and only requires their volunteers to serve THEIR country. Not Halliburton, Texaco, and Israel.

Maybe if that were the case, the inevitable PNAC draft would cease to be inevitable.

Sooo, U.S. troops can only fight in a war, on U.S. soil, if a foreign army invades?

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Warham
I wonder if this means that I can blame Kennedy, one of the Democrats' biggest heroes, for the 56,000 service men we lost in Vietnam who were not protecting our country or freedoms.

Firtst off I am a Republican who doesn't like BUSH.
Kennedy is dead. You can blame the guy all you want to.

Bush is still in office... still the President and still sending people to die everyday under the guise of National Defense.
The horseshit that happened in Vietnam was 35-40 years ago.. you can bring that up all you want.
What we are facing now is even worse and is still happening in a daily basis.

I am at lunch.. let me return back to my job here at FORT HOOD Darnall Army Community Hospital
.. where over 100 soldiers have died since the war has started and take care of my patients.. who are riddled with shrapnel and missing limbs.
This war is a bunch of horseshit and most people are not educated on what the fuck is going on unless it effects them.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by famac
No one was lied to, Sarge. If you were a police officer, and you dispatcher told you a car you were about to pull over was considered armed and dangerous, would you dismiss the information or take it seriously?

Sadam Hussein used chemical weapons on his people. He refused and delayed inspections long enough to hide weapons anywhere he wanted to. When you don't let a cop search your car, they assume you have something illegal, right?

So how is it a lie that after repeated refussals (10 years worth) Bush was lying? You can only lie about things you know, not things you don't know about.

Anyway, in the time Bush spent trying to get all of our cowardly allies to support their own resolutions, Saddam could have shipped his entire aresonal to Kalamazzo Michigan if he wanted to.

Not finding weapons in that situation is completly understandable, both from the perspective of no inspections, then the huge amount of time Bush spewnt trying to gather our "allies."

LBJ is responsible for the war, period. Nixon ended the war.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by famac
No one was lied to, Sarge. If you were a police officer, and you dispatcher told you a car you were about to pull over was considered armed and dangerous, would you dismiss the information or take it seriously?



Bad analogy.
A police officer pulling over a car and someone invading a foreign country with 145,000 troops is totally different.

IRAQ was not a threat to us.
Bin Laden was and is a direct threat to us. This guy killed 3,000 of our people on our soil but we put forth a half assed effort to try and get him.
Sadamm was doing the same thing he had been doing for years... running his mouth...

We were lied to. IRAQ was not a direct threat to us.
In the mean time we are waging a extended war in IRAQ that can't be won except with major American bloodshed and the initial target of the war on terror, Bin Laden runs free.


I, as with everyone who wears the uniform takes the risk of death when they take the oath.

There isn't anyone here who would be willing to send their loved ones to IRAQ.. to die..
And for what?

I am sure those familes are doing a lot of soul searching.
I don't blame the families of servicemembers one bit for questioning their child's death.
That is only normal.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Sarge
Firtst off I am a Republican who doesn't like BUSH.
Kennedy is dead. You can blame the guy all you want to.

Bush is still in office... still the President and still sending people to die everyday under the guise of National Defense.
The horseshit that happened in Vietnam was 35-40 years ago.. you can bring that up all you want.
What we are facing now is even worse and is still happening in a daily basis.

I am at lunch.. let me return back to my job here at FORT HOOD Darnall Army Community Hospital
.. where over 100 soldiers have died since the war has started and take care of my patients.. who are riddled with shrapnel and missing limbs.
This war is a bunch of horseshit and most people are not educated on what the fuck is going on unless it effects them.

Worse than Vietnam? 1,000 men were being killed in action every MONTH in 1968. Soldiers are not sent to die, they are sent to win. The U.S. was close to winning Vietnam, and Gen. Giap admitted as much and said that it was the anti-war left wing of this country that encouraged the North Vietnamses to keep fighting, even though they were losing badly. The same thing is happening now.

So, since the left in this country is so in love with themselves over their orchestration of our defeat in Vietnam, thus making all of the deaths and wounds suffered by Americans FOR NOTHING, they want to repeat it now.

You want the war to end now? Then the 1,000 dead in Iraq died for nothing - and that is the ONLY way they wouild have died for nothing. By continuing the fight and WINNING their deaths are not for nothing.

I shudder to think if this country were invlolved in a large scale war. People would freak out and raise the white flag. Yikes.

You may not have wanted the war to happen, but it has, and the U.S. is in it.

Now the question for ALL you anti-Bush left wingers is this - do you want the U.S. to win in Iraq or not? Yes, or no?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Sooo, U.S. troops can only fight in a war, on U.S. soil, if a foreign army invades?

Let me put it this way.... There's only 3 wars in the history of this country that the United States had any business getting involved in.

1) The Revolutionary War - obviously.

2) War of 1812 - When the Brits tried to "undo" #1

3) World War II - after Pearl Harbor, there wasn't a choice in the matter. And keep in mind that without the devastation of WWI (which the US had no reason to be in) and the financing of the BCE, there would have been no Adolf Hitler, and therefore, no WWII.

If 9-11 had been a country attacking America, then a clear cut case for a 4th justified war against that country would exist, As it is, even assuming the "official story" is correct, it is impossible to fight a "war" against an undefinable enemy.

Any other war the US has involved itself in has been for reasons other than defending this country, and that includes the so-called "Civil War", in which even more Americans that died in Vietnam paid the price for a bunch of arrogant lazy sister-fuckers who thought they had the "right" to own fellow human beings.

[Angel]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Now the question for ALL you anti-Bush left wingers is this - do you want the U.S. to win in Iraq or not? Yes, or no?

Please explain what would constitute a win? More Iraqi's dead than American's? US receiving the oil profits? We need more info, please!!!

[jhale667]

Originally posted by Sarge
Firtst off I am a Republican who doesn't like BUSH.
What we are facing now is even worse and is still happening in a daily basis.

I am at lunch.. let me return back to my job here at FORT HOOD Darnall Army Community Hospital
.. where over 100 soldiers have died since the war has started and take care of my patients.. who are riddled with shrapnel and missing limbs.
This war is a bunch of horseshit and most people are not educated on what the fuck is going on unless it effects them.

You guys gonna call THIS a comment from a 'leftist sympathizer'? Get real.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
You want the war to end now? Then the 1,000 dead in Iraq died for nothing - and that is the ONLY way they wouild have died for nothing.


Of course not. We are knee deep in shit over there and we will be there for years to come.
A lot more than 1,000 lives will be lost.

The premise for us invading IRAQ .. was a lie.

It's not about winning or losing..
BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANYTHING TO WIN.
It's a lose-lose situation that BUSH.. and only BUSH got us into.

How could anyone feel comfortable about their loved ones winding up dead in IRAQ?
This war is bullshit.

[Angel]

Originally posted by FORD
2) War of 1812 - When the Brits tried to "undo" #1

What do you mean "tried"? Seems to me you guys lost that one... actually the REAL losers from 1812 were the Native Americans. :(

[Angel]

Originally posted by Sarge
Of course not. We are knee deep in shit over there and we will be there for years to come.
A lot more than 1,000 lives will be lost.

The premise for us invading IRAQ .. was a lie.

It's not about winning or losing..
BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANYTHING TO WIN.
It's a lose-lose situation that BUSH.. and only BUSH got us into.

How could anyone feel comfortable about their loved ones winding up dead in IRAQ?
This war is bullshit.

Sarge, my respect for you has just grown immensely! Keep on trying to get the truth out there, someone needs to educate your fellow citizens! :D

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Sarge

This war is bullshit.

Truer words have never been spoken...

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by FORD
Let me put it this way.... There's only 3 wars in the history of this country that the United States had any business getting involved in.

1) The Revolutionary War - obviously.

2) War of 1812 - When the Brits tried to "undo" #1

3) World War II - after Pearl Harbor, there wasn't a choice in the matter. And keep in mind that without the devastation of WWI (which the US had no reason to be in) and the financing of the BCE, there would have been no Adolf Hitler, and therefore, no WWII.

If 9-11 had been a country attacking America, then a clear cut case for a 4th justified war against that country would exist, As it is, even assuming the "official story" is correct, it is impossible to fight a "war" against an undefinable enemy.

Any other war the US has involved itself in has been for reasons other than defending this country, and that includes the so-called "Civil War", in which even more Americans that died in Vietnam paid the price for a bunch of arrogant lazy sister-fuckers who thought they had the "right" to own fellow human beings.

Where do I start.

Most of the population of the Colonies were loyal to the King, according to your criteria they should not have revolted, right? Those Revolutionaries along with their henchmen propogandists like Adams and their madmen militarists like that traitor Washington trying to form their own country, start a war against the will of the Colonists, how dare they? The Brits could have crushed American forces in both wars had they not been so invlolved with their war against France.

The U. S. had no reason to be in WWI? Huh? Fine for the Brits and French to lose that one?

"the so-called "Civil War", in which even more Americans that died in Vietnam " - more Americans died in the Civil War than all the other wars combined. You don't think the Civil War needed to be prosecuted by the North? You, who think that the Chechans are within their right to secede and form their own country and seperate from Russia, don't think that the South had a right to secede?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Angel
Please explain what would constitute a win? More Iraqi's dead than American's? US receiving the oil profits? We need more info, please!!!

Exactly... Junior said the "mission was accomplished" when they pulled down a fucking statue. They didn't even have Saddam Hussein in custody yet, or even any of his minions at that point. Just a rigged event of a statue pulled down by a tank, with Chalabi's Cheerleaders posing as "the grateful people of Iraq".

And about 900 US servicemen and women have died since then. A puppet government is in place, yet very little has really changed. No end in sight?

And with 14 military bases planned for Iraq, it's obvious that the BCE does not have any intention of pulling troops out, but rather using Iraq as a central staging area for future PNAC invasions.

[jhale667]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz

Now the question for ALL you anti-Bush left wingers is this - do you want the U.S. to win in Iraq or not? Yes, or no?

I like how you have to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as a 'Anti-Bush left-wingers', just like W. tries to say that anyone who criticizes him is 'unpatriotic', and then cheney plays on the fear vote and says basically "If you don't re-elect US, we'll get hit by the terrorists again". It's fucking pathetic. Nobody (at least anyone I talk to Repub or Dem) thinks we should just cut and run out of there. The FACT of the matter is W. MISREPRESENTED the reasons for going over there (everyone agrees Saddam is an ass, but as far as being a credible threat, no), but face it...that was all about OIL and Halliburton (oh no, he brought up the 'H' word!) and he LIED. Why can't you admit that? Why are we facing such tough opposition there NOW, when the Iraqis were surrendering to CAMERA CREWS in the Gulf War? Because we were RIGHT to go there then, they SUPPORTED us( my best friend is in the USAF, has been there BOTH times...the Iraqis were HAPPY TO SEE US THE 1st TIME)...and we didn't finish the job. We were supposed to 'liberate' them then...and we didn't. Bush Sr. left that fuck in power, and Junior (on a personal vendetta for daddy, coupled with his oil interests) wanted to go in there BEFORE 9/11!!! Anybody remember that?!?! Go ahead, call me a 'leftist' just because I can see W.'s full of shit.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Sarge
Of course not. We are knee deep in shit over there and we will be there for years to come.
A lot more than 1,000 lives will be lost.

The premise for us invading IRAQ .. was a lie.

It's not about winning or losing..
BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANYTHING TO WIN.
It's a lose-lose situation that BUSH.. and only BUSH got us into.

How could anyone feel comfortable about their loved ones winding up dead in IRAQ?
This war is bullshit.

Wrong, the premise was not a lie. The left in this country has been HOWLING since 9/12/2001 that Bush "didn't connect the dots", they were "asleep at the wheel" they "ignored the obvious" etc etc etc ad nauseum about the attacks fo September 11.

All of U.S. intelligence, the intelligence services of France, Britain, Egypt, Jordan and many other countries said Iraq has and was developing WMDs. Russia knew that Iraq was planning attacks against the U.S. and informed us. Mubarkek told Tommy Franks that U.S. troops would probably be atacked with chemicals weapons if we invaded. Hussein was paying $20,000 to each family of suicide bombers in Israel. Polish troops found a stockpile of chemical weapons in Iraq that terrorists were attempting to buy. The 9/11 commission concluded that there WAS a working relationship of al Queda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. British intelligence has again affirmed that Iraq WAS seeking yellow cake uranium in Niger. Saddam's previous attempts at nuclear weaponry was bombed by Israel int eh 1980s. Iraq used chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds. Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia. Iraq violated every single term of the cease fire of 1991 and all resolutions against it for 12 years. Iraq had many months to transport, bury or destory their WMDs while the U.S. debated the issue at the UN.

So, you can keep saying that Bush didn't connect the dots BEFORE 9/11 and let civilians die in the streets of NY, but that now he should NOT connect any dots no mater what all you want.

But the fact is this. He didn't lie. 9/11 changed everything.

No one should feel "comfortable" about a family member dying - anywhere and I never said they should. However, it's a different story to say that Bush killed their son, which is horseshit.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by jhale667
I like how you have to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as a 'Anti-Bush left-wingers', just like W. tries to say that anyone who criticizes him is 'unpatriotic', and then cheney plays on the fear vote and says basically "If you don't re-elect US, we'll get hit by the terrorists again". It's fucking pathetic. Nobody (at least anyone I talk to Repub or Dem) thinks we should just cut and run out of there. The FACT of the matter is W. MISREPRESENTED the reasons for going over there (everyone agrees Saddam is an ass, but as far as being a credible threat, no), but face it...that was all about OIL and Halliburton (oh no, he brought up the 'H' word!) and he LIED. Why can't you admit that? Why are we facing such tough opposition there NOW, when the Iraqis were surrendering to CAMERA CREWS in the Gulf War? Because we RIGHT to go there then, they SUPPORTED us( my best friend is in the USAF, has been there BOTH times...the Iraqis were HAPPY TO SEE US THE 1st TIME)...and we didn't finish the job. We were supposed to 'liberate' them then...and we didn't. Bush Sr. left that fuck in power, and Junior (on a personal vendetta for daddy, coupled with his oil interests) wanted to go in there BEFORE 9/11!!! Anybody remember that?!?! Go ahead, call me a 'leftist' just because I can see W.'s full of shit.

Show me the quote where Bush said that anyone that disagrees with him is unpatriotic. What Cheney said was nothing different than what the Democrats have been saying – that Cheney and Bush have made the U.S. LESS safe and added to the numbers of terrorists in the world. Just that when Cheney says it , the press pees their pants.

I’m GLAD (seriously) that you agree that we should not cut and run out of Iraq, because Kerry and his party thinks we should and the terrorists and Baathists in Iraq know that.

Bush never misrepresented anything. Like I said in an earlier post, he was doing his job as Commander in Chief – “connecting the dots” as the Dems insisted he do. If your intelligence service tells you something do you believe it or not? If you act on it are you then “lying” when you relate this same intelligence to the world as justification for the invasion of Iraq? That’s lying? Why wasn’t Saddam a credible threat. Don’t you agree that 19 men with box cutters proved to be a devastating threat the U.S.?

Ah, so we’re back to this war being about oil and Haliburton. So why aren’t the profits of the oil being pumped out of Iraq now going into the pockets of the U.S. and/or Bush? Is Cheney still employed by Haliburton? Wasn’t Haliburton used by Clinton in the Balkans?

Why are we facing such tough opposition in Iraq now? Because we control the whole country. I don’t get you, you are contradicting yourself. First you criticize George Bush in 1991 for “not finishing the job” and taking Saddam out – even though he had no mandate from your precious UN to do so. But now, after 12 years of violations of every cease fire and UN resolution, and credible intelligence that he was a gathering threat, it was totally wrong to take out Saddam. If we were facing truly “tough: opposition in Iraq millions of Iraqis would be under arms fighting us – they aren’t. This is a fight against Iranian and al Quaeda - backed terrorist thugs and we are winning. The vast majority of Iraqis are glad we liberated their country.

The Iraqi conscripts that were surrendering to camera crews in 1991 are the same ones who dropped their weapons and ran in 2004. They are just as happy to see us now but since the major media doesn’t want to show anything positive about what is going on in Iraq you think it’s all negative.

Yes, you are a leftist.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Angel
What do you mean "tried"? Seems to me you guys lost that one... actually the REAL losers from 1812 were the Native Americans. :(

Didn't we capture Toronto during that war?

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz

All of U.S. intelligence, the intelligence services of France, Britain, Egypt, Jordan and many other countries said Iraq has and was developing WMDs. Russia knew that Iraq was planning attacks against the U.S. and informed us. Mubarkek told Tommy Franks that U.S. troops would probably be atacked with chemicals weapons if we invaded. Hussein was paying $20,000 to each family of suicide bombers in Israel. Polish troops found a stockpile of chemical weapons in Iraq that terrorists were attempting to buy. The 9/11 commission concluded that there WAS a working relationship of al Queda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. British intelligence has again affirmed that Iraq WAS seeking yellow cake uranium in Niger. Saddam's previous attempts at nuclear weaponry was bombed by Israel int eh 1980s. Iraq used chemical weapons on Iranians and Kurds. Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia. Iraq violated every single term of the cease fire of 1991 and all resolutions against it for 12 years. Iraq had many months to transport, bury or destory their WMDs while the U.S. debated the issue at the UN.



Those are the parts of the story the anti-Bush crowd seems to convienently forget...


:elvis:

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Those are the parts of the story the anti-Bush crowd seems to convienently forget...


And what the Busheep conveniently forget is that UN inspectors, led by a US Marine (and Republican no less) inspected Iraq thoroughly in 1998, found no evidence of weapons, and continued to find no weapons when they returned in 2002.

[jhale667]

[Originally posted by Sgt Schultz]
"I’m GLAD (seriously) that you agree that we should not cut and run out of Iraq, because Kerry and his party thinks we should and the terrorists and Baathists in Iraq know that."

Now, how can I be a true 'leftist' if we AGREE on something? :) I'm probably way more conservative then you think. I have not heard Kerry suggest we should just straight pull OUT though. He's actually FOUGHT in a war remember? Anybody knows that'd be a bad strategy.

"Bush never misrepresented anything. Like I said in an earlier post, he was doing his job as Commander in Chief – “connecting the dots” as the Dems insisted he do. If your intelligence service tells you something do you believe it or not?"

Ok, but this is the same guy who GOT warnings about Al-Quaeda planning to use airplanes against us but did NOTHING because 'they didn't say where or when' ---I said it in a previous thread---does anybody ever get (ultra-specific) advance warning of a 'surprise' attack?

"Why wasn’t Saddam a credible threat."

Ok, perhaps I mis-spoke on that. My buddy DID see WMDs in the gulf war, he figures they're buried like the fighter planes they found. Lotta sand there! So he COULD have become a threat ----farther down the line. But OSAMA was/is the IMMEDIATE credible threat. But W. DID fudge it to make it seem like they were in cahoots moreso than was the actual case. And more than one former administration official has stated he WANTED to go into Iraq BEFORE 9/11. I think we should have finished in Afghanistan first. Now we've got TWO failed states on our hands.

"Don’t you agree that 19 men with box cutters proved to be a devastating threat the U.S.?"

Goes back to my point that they KNEW the nutbags were going to hijack planes, and airline security wasn't massively tightened until after 9/11. Calling it 'the biggest intelligence failure in U.S. history' is NOT an over-statement.

"Ah, so we’re back to this war being about oil and haliburton. So why aren’t the profits of the oil being pumped out of Iraq now going into the pockets of the U.S. and/or Bush? Is Cheney still employed by Haliburton? Wasn’t Haliburton used by Clinton in the Balkans?"

Maybe so, but it's kinda funny that Halliburton's getting ALL the big contracts over there now...gotta admit it looks fishy, huh? And how do YOU know where the money's going? As far as Cheney's 'employment' you and I both know he couldn't run a corporation and be V.P. Obvious conflict of interest. Also notice the FIRST thing they did over there was secure the oil fields. Probably(partially) because it took YEARS to repair the damage Saddam did when he torched them in the Gulf War, but it does show where the priorities were/are.

"Why are we facing such tough opposition in Iraq now? Because we control the whole country. I don’t get you, you are contradicting yourself. First you criticize George Bush in 1991 for “not finishing the job” and taking Saddam out – even though he had no mandate from your precious UN to do so."

'MY' precious U.N.? WTF? And again, didn't say it was wrong to take him out. It was wrong to exaggerate his involvement in 9/11 to justify the invasion. Which even some in W.'s own party are saying he did. And Senior originally fucked it up, mandate or no.

"But now, after 12 years of violations of every cease fire and UN resolution, and credible intelligence that he was a gathering threat, it was totally wrong to take out Saddam. If we were facing truly “tough: opposition in Iraq millions of Iraqis would be under arms fighting us – they aren’t. This is a fight against Iranian and al Quaeda - backed terrorist thugs and we are winning. The vast majority of Iraqis are glad we liberated their country."

Again, Saddam is a piece of shit. No argument there. And your OWN keyword there is 'GATHERING' threat. Not immediate. But you have to admit we're facing WAY more opposition now...if they (whatever segment of the population there) didn't look at us as 'invaders' Al-Queada and Iran couldn't FIND anyone to support their fucked-up cause.



"The Iraqi conscripts that were surrendering to camera crews in 1991 are the same ones who dropped their weapons and ran in 2004. They are just as happy to see us now but since the major media doesn’t want to show anything positive about what is going on in Iraq you think it’s all negative."

I don't think it's ALL negative. I have a friend who just got back from there. He did meet some Iraqis that THANKED him. They caught some of the same people SHOOTING at them the next night, but hey.....I think people make the mistake that just because someone doesn't support W.'s rationale for invading (AT THE TIME) means they don't support the troops. I do. They're there now, and we have to finish the job, or leave an even bigger cluster-fuck behind. I just want W. to admit he lied.

"Yes, you are a leftist."

---Well, fucking SUE me. ;) .

[FORD]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Show me the quote where Bush said that anyone that disagrees with him is unpatriotic.

"You're either with us, or you're with the terra-ists". He said it 9-12-01 and has repeated it several times since.

What Cheney said was nothing different than what the Democrats have been saying – that Cheney and Bush have made the U.S. LESS safe and added to the numbers of terrorists in the world. Just that when Cheney says it , the press pees their pants.

Cheney said that if you don't re-elect the BCE, that the terrorists will attack. That's a direct threat to the American populataion in an attempt to influence a political outcome, and under their own "Patriot" act is considered terrorism

So out of their own mouths, the BCE are terrorists.

I’m GLAD (seriously) that you agree that we should not cut and run out of Iraq, because Kerry and his party thinks we should and the terrorists and Baathists in Iraq know that.

Kerry has said no such thing. Neither has Edwards. The only Democrat who called for any sort of immediate withdrawal of US troops was Dennis Kucinich. And even he was only suggesting they be replaced with UN troops.

Bush never misrepresented anything.

If Bush's lips are moving, he's lying.

Like I said in an earlier post, he was doing his job as Commander in Chief – “connecting the dots” as the Dems insisted he do.

There were NEVER any "dots" connecting Saddam Hussein with 9-11-01.

If your intelligence service tells you something do you believe it or not? If you act on it are you then “lying” when you relate this same intelligence to the world as justification for the invasion of Iraq? That’s lying? Why wasn’t Saddam a credible threat. Don’t you agree that 19 men with box cutters proved to be a devastating threat the U.S.?

19 men with box cutters, assuming you actually believe that steaming crock of shit story, directly attacked the United States of America. Iraq did not, and had no realistic capability of doing so.

Ah, so we’re back to this war being about oil and Haliburton.

That may very well have been part of Bush & Cheney's motivation, but not PNAC's.

So why aren’t the profits of the oil being pumped out of Iraq now going into the pockets of the U.S. and/or Bush? Is Cheney still employed by Haliburton?

He's still drawing a Haliburton paycheck through deferred compensation, and no doubt still owns stock in the company. Not to mention the likelihood of them "holding his chair" for him when he needs a job again, hopefully in January. And BCE/Halliburton is making a fortune off Iraqi oil, by selling it to the Iraqis at 5 cents a gallon and soaking US taxpayers for the rest of the money.

Why are we facing such tough opposition in Iraq now? Because we control the whole country. I don’t get you, you are contradicting yourself. First you criticize George Bush in 1991 for “not finishing the job” and taking Saddam out – even though he had no mandate from your precious UN to do so. But now, after 12 years of violations of every cease fire and UN resolution, and credible intelligence that he was a gathering threat, it was totally wrong to take out Saddam. If we were facing truly “tough: opposition in Iraq millions of Iraqis would be under arms fighting us – they aren’t. This is a fight against Iranian and al Quaeda - backed terrorist thugs and we are winning. The vast majority of Iraqis are glad we liberated their country.

Besides neocon rhetoric, what evidence do you have to support any of that?

the Iraqi conscripts that were surrendering to camera crews in 1991 are the same ones who dropped their weapons and ran in 2004. They are just as happy to see us now but since the major media doesn’t want to show anything positive about what is going on in Iraq you think it’s all negative.


Corporate media coverage of Iraq has been surpressed because showing what a complete fucking failure it is on TV would wake up even the most hopelessly FAUX addicted Busheep to the reality of this Fraudministration's lies, and what they have cost this country.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
[B]Show me the quote where Bush said that anyone that disagrees with him is unpatriotic.

"You're either with us, or you're with the terra-ists". He said it 9-12-01 and has repeated it several times since.

Bush was referring to other countries when he said that, ala Iraq.

[Warham]

11/6/2001 - In a joint news conference with French President Jacques Chirac, Bush said coalition partners would be called upon to back up their support with action. He said he would deliver that message in his speech Saturday to the United Nations.

"A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform," Bush said. "That means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. ... But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something."

Bush said he would not point out any specific countries in his speech.

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." (Full story)

You need to get in the O'Reilly zone, FORD, where the spin stops.

[Warham]

9/21/2001

"Every nation and every region now has a decision to make," Bush said. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

[FORD]

There is no such thing as a "No spin zone" on FAUX News.

[JCOOK]

Ford -- so because these MUSLIM SKUMBAGS werent' a country we should sit back and do nothing?

[Warham]

We know that The Clinton News Network is a big spin zone for the libs.

[jhale667]

Originally posted by JCOOK
Ford -- so because these MUSLIM SKUMBAGS werent' a country we should sit back and do nothing?

Can't speak for FORD, but....

Are there any Al-Quaeda training camps in Iraq? And they were 'Scumbags' regardless of their religion. I don't believe ALL Muslims are 'infidel'-hating terrorists any more than I believe all Christians are bible-thumping zealots or all Republicans are Neo-Nazi Fascist douchebags. I say this because I know a couple of Muslim (Afghani) girls (HOT) and they haven't blown anything up yet.....

[JCOOK]

Have Begala and Carville resigned from CNN, because they are now working directly for Hermans campaign?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
We know that The Clinton News Network is a big spin zone for the libs.

Obviously you haven't watched it since it got taken over by AOLTimeCIAWarner. It's almost as bad as FAUX anymore.

[FORD]

Originally posted by JCOOK
Have Begala and Carville resigned from CNN, because they are now working directly for Hermans campaign?

As soon as FAUX fires every one of the PNAC'ers working for them, and the Bush Bankrolled Clear Channel is taken off the airwaves, I'll insist on it.

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by FORD


If 9-11 had been a country attacking America, then a clear cut case for a 4th justified war against that country would exist, As it is, even assuming the "official story" is correct, it is impossible to fight a "war" against an undefinable enemy.



Maybe that country is Saudi Arabia.....

[DLR'sCock]

I live in Central NJ, and work in an incredibly Cosmopolitan situation. I know tons of muslims(I know people from all over the world), and many are my friends....and they love this country....I love this country, but this Administration has gone too far, and abused it's power and misled the US citizens and lied to us, and now thousands of upon thousands are dead.....

The invasion of Iraq has not helped in the, "War of Terrorism"...shouldn't it be a "War Against Al-Qaeda"???

[FORD]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
Maybe that country is Saudi Arabia.....

It certainly comes damn closer than Afghanistan or Iraq.

[diamondD]

Originally posted by FORD
And what the Busheep conveniently forget is that UN inspectors, led by a US Marine (and Republican no less) inspected Iraq thoroughly in 1998, found no evidence of weapons, and continued to find no weapons when they returned in 2002.


You forgot to add the part about Iraq denying entrance to lots of locations, or the constant delays they stymied the inspectors with. If you are going to defend Iraq's participation in the inspections, let's keep it fair and balanced. ;)

[Sgt Schultz]

Good God I need a beer.

Ever feel like you've said the same thing 100 times but the person refuses to listen?

I give up. For now.

Now since I'm a Wisconsinite maybe I'll have a Brandy Old Fashioned sweet this time......................

[jhale667]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Good God I need a beer.

Ever feel like you've said the same thing 100 times but the person refuses to listen?



Yep, every time I pop on this forum! LOL :p :p :p

[DrMaddVibe]

You're welcome.

Your son isn't any different that the patriots that took their hunting rifles off of their mantels and defeated the greatest army and navy the world had at it time. Your son is no different than the ones that fought back the British in 1812. Your son is no different that the ones that fought against each other to preserve the nation and states rights. Your son is no different that the ones that fought in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Desert Storm and now the others that gave the ultimate sacrifice in Enduring Freedom.

Your son was your hope to the future. He was part of you. Don't diminish what he did with the selfish need to garner a headline. It won't bring back your son. It will only tarnish his memory to others. Others that can't and won't be able to differentiate him from a political smear. He swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. He was trained. He knew what he was doing. Nobody forced him into this volunteer army. There is no draft forcing him, and thank goodness there isn't. If you don't want to be there, then you don't have to be.

[FORD]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
He swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Oh, the fucking irony of that statement........

[Sgt Schultz]

SCHULTZ – “I’m GLAD (seriously) that you agree that we should not cut and run out of Iraq, because Kerry and his party thinks we should and the terrorists and Baathists in Iraq know that.”
FORD – “Kerry has said no such thing. Neither has Edwards. The only Democrat who called for any sort of immediate withdrawal of US troops was Dennis Kucinich. And even he was only suggesting they be replaced with UN troops.”

They certainly have. They ARE putting a timeline on our withdrawal. ANY timeline or date of withdrawal gives the terrorists what they want – time to regroup and wait for that moment to renew their strikes. Any idiot who knows anything about military strategy knows that you cannot set an arbitrary deadline for troop withdrawal because you are playing right into the hands of your enemy.

SCHULTZ - “Like I said in an earlier post, he was doing his job as Commander in Chief – “connecting the dots” as the Dems insisted he do.”
FORD – “There were NEVER any "dots" connecting Saddam Hussein with 9-11-01.”

I never said there were, and neither has Bush. This is something the left can’t get through their thick heads. The administration knew and the 9/11 Commission confirmed that there were ties between al Queada and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq however no one has made the claim that Hussein was connected in any way to 9/11. But, since Hussein was working with the organization that DID mastermind 9/11 the correct decision was to act against Hussein also.

SCHULTZ – “The vast majority of Iraqis are glad we liberated their country.”
FORD – “Besides neocon rhetoric, what evidence do you have to support any of that?”

The population of Iraq is 25,374,691. If there was an uprising against U.S. forces, of even ½ of the population it would be a major, devastating war being waged blobk by block in ever city of Iraq and the U.S. would be suffering 1,000 dead every week, not every 1.5 years. Check out some of the many blogs of Iraqis now writing for evidence of their support for U.S. troops and their liberation of Iraq.
Iraq The Model (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/)
Healing Iraq (http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/)
Iraq at a Glance (http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/)
Iraq and Iraqis (http://www.iraq-iraqis.blogspot.com/)
Road of a Nation (http://www.roadofanation.com/blog/)
The Mesopotamian (http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/)
Hammorabi (http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/)

[DrMaddVibe]

Thanks for making my point!

[Angel]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
You're welcome.

Your son isn't any different that the patriots that took their hunting rifles off of their mantels and defeated the greatest army and navy the world had at it time. Your son is no different than the ones that fought back the British in 1812.

Actually, 1812 the US attempted to invade Canada, they pretty much did not fight back, instead they got chased away. And we finished it off by burning down the Whitehouse.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Angel
Actually, 1812 the US attempted to invade Canada, they pretty much did not fight back, instead they got chased away. And we finished it off by burning down the Whitehouse.

What?

You'd better go check the facts there. While we did march into Canada it was the BRITISH army that Hull met resistance with and the BRITISH that burned down the White House. However, the British got their royal asses kicked after the Treaty of Ghent at the Battle of New Orleans.

Get out...and STAY OUT!

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
You're welcome.

Your son isn't any different that the patriots that took their hunting rifles off of their mantels and defeated the greatest army and navy the world had at it time. Your son is no different than the ones that fought back the British in 1812. Your son is no different that the ones that fought against each other to preserve the nation and states rights. Your son is no different that the ones that fought in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Desert Storm and now the others that gave the ultimate sacrifice in Enduring Freedom.

Your son was your hope to the future. He was part of you. Don't diminish what he did with the selfish need to garner a headline. It won't bring back your son. It will only tarnish his memory to others. Others that can't and won't be able to differentiate him from a political smear. He swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. He was trained. He knew what he was doing. Nobody forced him into this volunteer army. There is no draft forcing him, and thank goodness there isn't. If you don't want to be there, then you don't have to be.

LOL!

A couple of points on this...

The greatest army in the world at the time consisted of what 4000 troops in the US with ridiculously stretched supply lines?

Grenada...LMFAO!

20 000 US troops against um noone?:)

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
I wonder if this means that I can blame Kennedy, one of the Democrats' biggest heroes, for the 56,000 service men we lost in Vietnam who were not protecting our country or freedoms.

The most shocking thing about this depressing election is not that a country as rich and advanced as the US cannot produce a decent candidate for the second time running.

It's not that people could for a second time think that a guy like Bush is a good strong leader worthy of the job after him going absent on 9-11. Can you imagine Bush as mayor of New York going to the scene and nearly getting taken out as the towers came down? The guy who ran again like he always has but says 'bring it on' as long as he's fucking safely thousands of miles away?

It's not even that, most laughable of all, the spin doctors have somwhow managed to propogate the myth of Bush as the Texas 'John Wayne' cowboy. That cracks me up. The guy from the US aristocracy. The Yale man. Not even a Yale man. A 'buy a degree' Yale man who then goes off the rails and drinks and takes drugs for 20 years. Have you ever seen Bush ride a fucking horse?

This man of the people.

" People sometimes have to correct my English ? I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger started doing it. Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking." Now and then I come across as a little too blunt and for that we can all thank the white-haired lady sitting right up there."

Give me a fucking break. He's a frontiersman? One of the good guys, fucking Shane, just a straight up go ahead middle American, while his maw and paw, simple folk, brought him up like Little House on the Prarie.

The paw who was head of the CIA and then president. Little 'W' who as he brought those cattle home up in the Northeast was given millions of dollars by good old maw and paw but accidently snorted them.

Fucking hell there are truely no better spin merchants than the guys that are running his campaign. You do realise that even presidents that have a brain don't write their speeches. Picture the scene when the advisor comes up with the Arnie line.

"Hell we need to do something about the 'retard factor'"

"I've got it!"

Anyway as I said the thing that really shocks me about the election is the fact that there seem to be a bunch of rational intelligent Americans out there that think the Vietnam war was
a) Winnable
b) Lost because of all those long haired hippy types protesting
c) A good idea.

I honestly thought that insane shit had long since gone. A war based on the insane premise of the domino effect and the inherent threat of that to the US?

Um...

How many countries went communist in Asia after Vietnam?

How did that damage the US?


If only more Republicans were like Sarge and could see through the bullshit.

This isn't fucking football guys, never give unconditional support to politicians.

This is real life.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Rikk]

Originally posted by Sarge
Bad analogy.
A police officer pulling over a car and someone invading a foreign country with 145,000 troops is totally different.

IRAQ was not a threat to us.
Bin Laden was and is a direct threat to us. This guy killed 3,000 of our people on our soil but we put forth a half assed effort to try and get him.
Sadamm was doing the same thing he had been doing for years... running his mouth...

We were lied to. IRAQ was not a direct threat to us.
In the mean time we are waging a extended war in IRAQ that can't be won except with major American bloodshed and the initial target of the war on terror, Bin Laden runs free.


I, as with everyone who wears the uniform takes the risk of death when they take the oath.

There isn't anyone here who would be willing to send their loved ones to IRAQ.. to die..
And for what?

I am sure those familes are doing a lot of soul searching.
I don't blame the families of servicemembers one bit for questioning their child's death.
That is only normal.

Amen.

Funny how today we reflect on 9-11 and the so-called "War President". He's let REAL terrorists slip away because there was no profit while he lets Americans and Iraqi civilians die for profit, all in the name of the "War on Terror". It's disgusting.

What's even more disgusting is the man doing this got his daddy to make sure he didn't do any fighting himself!!:rolleyes:

[Sgt Schultz]

Sheshmeister wrote; “It's not that people could for a second time think that a guy like Bush is a good strong leader worthy of the job after him going absent on 9-11. Can you imagine Bush as mayor of New York going to the scene and nearly getting taken out as the towers came down? The guy who ran again like he always has but says 'bring it on' as long as he's fucking safely thousands of miles away?”

No they do think that. Bush ran from nothing. If you knew anything you’d know that the Secret Service’s job is to protect the President and that is why he didn’t race back to Washington or NY minutes after the attack. For the system to work properly people of a democratic nation (and their enemies) need to know that democratically elected heads of state will be protected at all costs against assassination. Bush was in new York when it was still very dangerous to be there. Bush flew the F-102 – a demanding, difficult and often dangerous plane to fly. This took guts – period. “Bring it on” was an invitation to terrorists to engage OUR ARMY instead of our civilians. I wish you simpletons could get that through your heads.

Sheshmeister wrote; “It's not even that, most laughable of all, the spin doctors have somwhow managed to propogate the myth of Bush as the Texas 'John Wayne' cowboy. That cracks me up. The guy from the US aristocracy. The Yale man. Not even a Yale man. A 'buy a degree' Yale man who then goes off the rails and drinks and takes drugs for 20 years. Have you ever seen Bush ride a fucking horse?” “" People sometimes have to correct my English ? I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger started doing it. Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called "walking." Now and then I come across as a little too blunt and for that we can all thank the white-haired lady sitting right up there."

And if you think that people who vote for him are somehow duped and really believe this you are sadly mistaken. When Europeans don’t understand something about America they credit it to stupidity or gullibility. He’s throwing a bone to a few Texans, so what? It is YOU who are blinded by Hollywood and what you perceive as slick packaging which is lapped up by idiot Americans.

“Anyway as I said the thing that really shocks me about the election is the fact that there seem to be a bunch of rational intelligent Americans out there that think the Vietnam war was

No, as usual, you and your ilk don’t get it and never will unless you open your mind. I don’t believe, and most Americans don’t believe, that Lyndon B. Johnson’s War in Vietnam was a war we should have fought. Not necessary and way too costly in lives and treasure. I’ll let Robert F. Turner et al take over from here…………

“In May 1973 they [the peace protesters] persuaded Congress to make it illegal for the president to spend further money on military operations in Indochina.

Ironically, by that point South Vietnam and the United States had essentially won the war in South Vietnam. The Viet Cong had ceased to exist as a meaningful force by 1970, the Easter offensive of 1972 had been decisively blunted, and South Vietnam controlled every population center and most of the territory that had been in Communist hands or contested five years earlier. When the United States finally decided to fight the air war seriously in 1972, our POWs in Hanoi observed firsthand that Hanoi's will was broken.

Hanoi returned to the Paris talks immediately, and a peace accord was signed in less than a month. Four months later, oblivious to the realities of Indochina and succumbing to pressures from ignorant demonstrators, a partisan Congress snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by outlawing further U.S. resistance to communism in Indochina. In response, North Vietnamese premier Pham Van Dong gleefully announced that "the Americans won't come back now even if we offer them candy," and Hanoi sent virtually its entire army to invade and conquer its neighbors, in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter. I still recall the anxiety of fleeing Saigon at the end of April 1975 during the final evacuation because an angry U.S. Congress had refused to authorize the president to rescue even the Americans still in Vietnam.

Most Vietnam "peace activists" no doubt still feel pride in having "ended the war." They simply don't realize that those whom they helped bring to power slaughtered more people in the first two years of "peacetime" following the "liberation" of Indochina than were killed during the previous 14 years of war, including an estimated two million in tiny Cambodia alone.

In his book, Giap clearly indicated that NVA troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually defeated time and again.

By 1968, NVA morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet" '68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and had prepared to negotiate a surrender.

Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by the communist NVA and that the war in Vietnam was now "unwinnable". The North Vietnamese were also amazed at hearing that the US Embassy had been overrun, when, in reality, the NVA had not gained access to the Embassy--a handful of Viet Cong were killed on the Embassy lawn. Further reports indicated the riots and protesting on the streets of America.

According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week, month, and eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. “

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
He swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Yeah, but he didn't know that the greatest enemy to the United States is now holding it's highest office.


There is no draft forcing him, and thank goodness there isn't. If you don't want to be there, then you don't have to be.

That is utter ignorance. Sure, many of them volunteered... ...for the first go around.
But many have come back saying they felt exactly like they had been drafted, because their tour of duty kept getting extended, promises to them broken, and instead of relieving the troops, they just added more and reassigned the already battle-worn to new fronts...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Yeah, but he didn't know that the greatest enemy to the United States is now holding it's highest office.



That is utter ignorance. Sure, many of them volunteered... ...for the first go around.
But many have come back saying they felt exactly like they had been drafted, because their tour of duty kept getting extended, promises to them broken, and instead of relieving the troops, they just added more and reassigned the already battle-worn to new fronts...


You are a silly little man, full of stupid ideas and sheer idiocy. Lunatics like you and FORD and DLR's Cock are the reason why the Democrats are going down in flames this November. Your inflammatory rhetoric is doing nothing but disgusting those sitting on the political fence. Carry on, you are doing a good job......moron. :gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Angel
Actually, 1812 the US attempted to invade Canada, they pretty much did not fight back, instead they got chased away. And we finished it off by burning down the Whitehouse.

Once again, I feel obligated to correct you on this. I've had to do this several times now Angel, both here and on DDRL. Canadian troops did no such thing as burn down the White House. British troops did. Canadian history is rather lacking or downright wrong, isn't it? ;) :gulp:

[Angel]

The War of 1812, which lasted from June 1812 to December 1814, was an .important milestone in Canadian history a fight for survival against American invasion. Officially, the war was between the U.S. and Great Britain, but it focused on Britain's North American colonies rather than on Britain itself. Most of the fighting took place in the border regions between the U.S. and Upper and Lower Canada [Ontario and Quebec].

The brunt of the fighting was borne by professional British soldiers stationed in Canada. They were supported by Canadian militiamen and also by native warriors. The native fighters included Chief Tecumseh and others from the Ohio Valley, and Mohawks from the Grand River in Upper Canada and from Caughnawaga in Lower Canada.

The war ended in a stalemate with neither side being the winner. The Treaty of Ghent, signed in Belgium on December 24, 1814, returned all conquered territory, so that the situation was the same as it had been in 1812. The big difference was that the people in the British colonies, especially Upper and Lower Canada, had gained a sense of nationhood. Together, they had fought to repel an invader, and this gave them a new pride and caused them to think of themselves as Canadians, identifying with the land in which they lived rather than in the countries they had come from.

Our NATIONAL PRIDE was born thanks to the war of 1812 BBB. So, FUCK YOU and your so-called corrections - you don't know what the fuck YOU'RE talking about

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You are a silly little man, full of stupid ideas and sheer idiocy. Lunatics like you and FORD and DLR's Cock are the reason why the Democrats are going down in flames this November. Your inflammatory rhetoric is doing nothing but disgusting those sitting on the political fence. Carry on, you are doing a good job......moron. :gulp:

Coming from a complete idiot like you that means very little. See you in November ya silly little sheep...

[Angel]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Coming from a complete idiot like you that means very little. See you in November ya silly little sheep...

I'll send you some crow to cook up for him Keeyth! ;)

[ELVIS]

Who gives a shit about The War of 1812 ??

[DrMaddVibe]

Obiously Angel does!

They need it to bolster their confidence. They can't stand for anything by themselves as a nation. If they did the rest of world leaders would look above their glasses and yell out a resounding "Shut the fuck up!". In 1812 they had Great Britain holding their hands, the rest of the time it's been the United States.

When it comes to taking matters into their own hands...well, let's just say the indians are still running the place!

[ELVIS]

Haha!


:D

[FORD]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
.well, let's just say the indians are still running the place!

This country should be so fortunate :(

[ELVIS]

Yeah right...:rolleyes:

You're out of your fucking mind...

[FORD]

Kickin it old school.....

[ELVIS]

Who sold them those guns ??

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Who sold them those guns ??

In those days, they probably traded for them.

[diamondD]

I'm sure you can trace it back to the ICE if you use you imagination as colorfully as saying Rove is sending people here. ;)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Angel
I'll send you some crow to cook up for him Keeyth! ;)

Is that the one you're eating after the History Lesson I gave you on the War of 1812? :confused: :gulp:

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Angel
I'll send you some crow to cook up for him Keeyth! ;)
Eh, thanks, but I'm pretty sure from most of his posts that he only drinks his dinner!:D

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Eh, thanks, but I'm pretty sure from most of his posts that he only drinks his dinner!:D

If you mean alcohol, I rarely consume that at all anymore. Only good wine and good scotch. In other words, probably the stuff you don't drink. :gulp: ;) :p

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by FORD
This country should be so fortunate :(

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/sheshatshiu.html

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-99-582/conflict_war/oka/clip8

Put the crackpipe down! There are programs designed to help the drug abuser, but you have to first admit that you have a problem.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
In those days, they probably traded for them.

Same difference...

Who did they trade with ??

[Angel]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Obiously Angel does!

They need it to bolster their confidence. They can't stand for anything by themselves as a nation. If they did the rest of world leaders would look above their glasses and yell out a resounding "Shut the fuck up!". In 1812 they had Great Britain holding their hands, the rest of the time it's been the United States.

When it comes to taking matters into their own hands...well, let's just say the indians are still running the place!

Another Yank showing his lack of education, you lot are really fucking hilarious, you do know that, don't you?

US holding our hands? Not fucking likely... Why don't you come on up here and I'll PERSONALLY show you what a Canuck ass-kicking is all about!

By the way, if you ask the rest of the world leaders about Canada, the reply you'll most often hear is: "They're the country that gives us food after the US sends its bombs".

[wraytw]

Oh boy. Angel is going to beat you up!!!

It feels like 6th grade all over again!

[Angel]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Same difference...

Who did they trade with ??

Fur Traders. Look up Hudson Bay Company.

[Angel]

Originally posted by wraytw
Oh boy. Angel is going to beat you up!!!

It feels like 6th grade all over again!

Actually, a Canuck ass-kicking involves using intelligence and vocabulary....

[wraytw]

Like I said, it feels like 6th grade all over again!

[freak]

Originally posted by Angel
Actually, a Canuck ass-kicking involves using intelligence and vocabulary....

Explains the Canadian military then. Must be the French influence.

*Runs for dear life*

[Angel]

Whatever... This is an old flame between me and BBB anyway... By the way, FORD is right, it wouldn't hurt you guys to follow our example:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1091762787771_87171987

Clinton praises Canada as a 21st-century model
CTV.ca News Staff

Canada is a good model for where the world needs to go in the 21st century, says former U.S. President Bill Clinton.

"Canada has proved you can be a model of multiculturalism. That people can get together, work together, live together, across religious, ethnic and racial lines," he told Canada AM's Seamus O'Regan in an interview broadcast Friday.

"You can assimilate new immigrants without losing the fundamental character of your country. You can be a very old fashioned, family-oriented, work-oriented country without discriminating against gays"

[Angel]

Originally posted by freak
Explains the Canadian military then. Must be the French influence.

*Runs for dear life*

BUWAHAHAHAHA!!! You could be right there. Seems it's the french politicians that cut the funding, and DESTROYED a great Peace-keeping team!

Sacre Bleu!

[DrMaddVibe]

No thanks...I'd rather keep my ass virginity and not become a full fledged homosexual like yourself!

Come on up here....don't you have some lumberjacking to do?

http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/lumberjk.mp3

[Angel]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
No thanks...I'd rather keep my ass virginity and not become a full fledged homosexual like yourself!

Come on up here....don't you have some lumberjacking to do?

http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/lumberjk.mp3

Yeah, you're right... This WOMAN who has been married for 20 years and raised a child with her MALE husband, is a full-fledged homosexual! :rolleyes:

[freak]

Originally posted by Angel
Whatever... This is an old flame between me and BBB anyway... By the way, FORD is right, it wouldn't hurt you guys to follow our example:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1091762787771_87171987

Clinton praises Canada as a 21st-century model
CTV.ca News Staff

Canada is a good model for where the world needs to go in the 21st century, says former U.S. President Bill Clinton.

"Canada has proved you can be a model of multiculturalism. That people can get together, work together, live together, across religious, ethnic and racial lines," he told Canada AM's Seamus O'Regan in an interview broadcast Friday.

"You can assimilate new immigrants without losing the fundamental character of your country. You can be a very old fashioned, family-oriented, work-oriented country without discriminating against gays"



About 99.99 percent of the differences people have are petty and inconsequential.

If everyone would just mind their own affairs and treat strangers as they would company, there wouldn't be a problem.

[DrMaddVibe]

Get me a beer princess!

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Angel
Fur Traders. Look up Hudson Bay Company.


Yes, I know, smartass...

That was not my point...

[wraytw]

Smartass? How can you insult of one those Canadian intellectuals like that, ELVIS? Ignorant American... :D

[Angel]

Originally posted by ELVIS
smartass...

That's pretty funny coming from you....

Stoyko! ;)

[Angel]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Get me a beer princess!

And just what the FUCK is that supposed to mean? :confused:

[ELVIS]

Yes, I know...

You're welcome, smartass...

[Angel]

Originally posted by wraytw
ELVIS? Ignorant American... :D

Yes, ELVIS is a classic example of an Ignorant American. :D

[Angel]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Yes, I know...

You're welcome, smartass...

:tits: (I was going to give you a kiss and a wink, but you guys don't have any kiss smilies!?)

;)

[wraytw]

Originally posted by Angel
And just what the FUCK is that supposed to mean? :confused:


I thought you were smart?

[Angel]

Extremely, but I don't get beer for NOBODY, especially a man...

[wraytw]

Originally posted by Angel
Extremely, but I don't get beer for NOBODY, especially a man...

Check your grammar, Einstein. :)

[Angel]

I had to make sure y'all would understand now, ya hear? ;)

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Angel
:tits: (I was going to give you a kiss and a wink, but you guys don't have any kiss smilies!?)

;)


We have blowjob smilies...

I'll take that...:D

[wraytw]

Considering that I'm reading what you have to say on a forum, no. I can't "hear." I do see it, though.

[Angel]

ELVIS - Don't push your luck, hon! ;)

WRAY - My apologies, I thought you would hear while reading out loud!

Okay, I'm going to home now.... ;)

[ELVIS]

:D