Seriously? Would the world be speaking german and hailing der furher? Millions of civilians died in that war too, should the US and UK have pulled out?
It sickens me to see the bleeding heart liberal BS on this board, with no support for the men and women in uniforms overseas (if you did support the troops, you wouldnt be constantly whining to bring them home, rather, supporting thier mission and giving them the knowledge a nation is fighting in spirit with them).
If we had the bleeding hard liberals of today in the 30s, would the world be speaking German today?
Well, most of the people on the internet and here are probably younger. And most yunger people can not think for themselves. They usually listen to what the tv tells them to think and whatever else anyone tells them to think. They don't research or look for facts themselves. They listen and trust that what others say and accept it for truth without a second thought. Let's just hope that with time these people will gain knowledge before they actually get out in the real world.
Reply:shut the hell up...seriously you are proof that in the end Hitler did win the war..America has become the 4th reich he dreamed off where any differing opinion is punishable by death.
I support the troops because I want them to come home instead of dying to be policemen in another country.
You want them to all die a horrible and painful death so America is vulnerable for you and all your littel bastid pals to come invade..I see thru your little 'Oh my support the troops and keep them away from their country and look our plans are achieveing 0% success so let's just keep throwing more and more troops at it....if they die fast enough maybe we can fail a little slower"
Listen you dip for thousands of years military has learned "if you don't succeed you try ANOTHER way" not keep at it till you are all dead to prove just how brave and stupid u r.
Addition%26gt; so you now change the question and after creating an attack on one side you bemoan their reponse attacking you....why don't you lay out your specific detailed plan for US since you want one from everyone. I say that because right now i see our strategy as "keep catching bullets with our troops until they run out"
Sangria%26gt; I have to disagree since the muslims would be just as much different from the master race as jews. I think they would have been the next targets for the Nazis
Reply:ja wohl.. das ist sicher
Reply:Thank God true liberals (who today oppose the occupation of Iraq, NOT because of US military casualties, but because it was, and is still, wrong) led the US during both World Wars. The NATO Jihad, in both Bosnia Herzegovina %26amp; Kosovo Metohija, was a crime, though the US sustained less military casualties.
Reply:You've got it all wrong, bud. It's the conservatives that are turning a blind eye to the truth and are living in denial. They refuse to see the lies %26amp; deceit created by this administration. THAT'S what happened in Germany!
PS, don't be lazy, check your spelling before posting.
Record of Iraq War Lies to Air April 25 on PBS
By David Swanson
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041207...
The cost of war
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?...
Deaths in Iraq
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/12261/42...
.
Reply:Failing the test: That would be spelling errorS, actually. Bleeding hard is the funniest, of course, but German deserves a capital other than Berlin, as does Fuehrer. A comma is not sufficient to separate two sentences. And that's (note the apostrophe) just the first paragraph. The question does not merit a more substantive response.
Reply:Actually we did have one, his name was Joe Kennedy. Kennedy was so outspoken in his resistance to go to war with Nazi Germany, while he was ambassador to Great Britain, that the British asked FDR to get him the hell out of there, which he did !
Reply:As a veteran , I support our military 100%. I do question the administration's planning and the lack of a goal with a strategy to accomplish the job. When the top commander in the field publicly states that the "surge" is not achieving its objectives, one must wonder what we need to do to finish the mission and reduce the demands on our military and the flow of dollars to Iraq. I respectfully suggest that we could use the money here for many needed purposes.
Reply:Franklin Delano Roosevelt was President at the time and he is the father of all liberals, bleeding hearts and hards, included. Then there was Harry Truman. Does that answer your stupid question and visa versa?
What are you, a history major? You could probably get a job as Chief Historian of the Bush Administration.
Reply:No. Try using spell check.
Reply:You are so right. GOD bless the troops!!!!
Reply:Actually, the way the world has turned, I think it would have been better if Germany had won, but Japan had lost. I doubt that the Nazi would put up with the islamic antics for more than a day, then all their crappy little countrys would look like the eastern front.
Reply:Absolutely!
Reply:I doubt it. Your definition contradicts itself... If Liberals are such "bleeding hearts", how could they tolerate the massive death campaign against the Jews?
My husband is military and I'm glad that he's home. We both support our troops, but not their mission (which has yet to be thoughtfully articulated), which is why we want them home. Why do you wish to send them off with no clearly defined goal? Please don't say, "to kill the terrorists" because, obviously, that plan(!) hasn't worked in spite of 4 years of stubborn and foolhardy persistance.
Cladius --%26gt; Actually, the Nazis were more likely to put the Muslim extremists in power, because they ALSO had an agenda to exterminate the Jewish people and their state. Visit the link and see.
http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/musnazi....
Reply:We wouldn't, but Europe would be.
Reply:Are you trying to make a point? If you compare apples to donuts and say, look there is a difference, what are you actually saying?
Compare the two wars. US attacked...(Pearl Harbor) during WWII. Iraq? No but the president "said", then later changed his story and never bother to tell anyone that he was mistaken, thinking that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. In later reports, by the CIA, it was determined that Iraq WAS NOT involved, but that didn't matter.
Allies? WWII All countries were allies either with Germany or the US. In Iraq? Only a couple, and they are leaving, with only the Americans to defend Iraq. Even the Iraq's aren't defending their own country. How many reports have you seen either on CBS, or FOX that shows the number of people coming forward and identifying the terrorists? None.
War plans. WWII, a specific goal was taken on at the start and seen through to the finish. In Iraq. Don't go in with a plan, make it up as you go. Then when it doesn't work, just make up a new one, and pretend that it was the same thing all along. If you recall, at the beginning of the Peace portion, BUSH refused to even discuss separating Iraq into 3 separate states, for each of the 3 "tribes". Today (actually last week), not only are we discussing it, we are actually building walls to separate the 3. Sounds like the commies in Berlin, doesn't it.
You say, "support the mission". How do you support something that changes from day to day? If you recall at the beginning of the war, it was make Iraq a democracy. Then it was to stabilize the country and promote peace. Now, it is make it possible for a lasting peace. Tomorrow, who knows.
Reply:ROFL
Can I suggest you retake 8th grade history.
In case you didn't know FDR was as liberal as it gets.
Reply:I agree that if we did not assert ourselves, then other countries would try to take us over.
However,I am afraid that if we keep doing defensive action and hang our troops out there to dry instead of doing full-blown attack, we will end up having another Vietnam.
We really need to do it or get off the pot, if ya know what I mean.
Reply:I don't know considering it was the republicans who were blocking military action in Europe in WW2.
Reply:You know how many morons ask a question that ends in "....would we be speaking German?"
This isn't WW2. Iraq isn't Germany. Hussein is not Hitler. Iraq doesn't have two other countries as its allies.
Hitler actually invaded other countries and had the capability to dominate Europe.
What a stupid analogy.
Ever notice how big and badass cons are when talking about the war from 4,000 miles away, hiding behind their computers, stuffing twinkies into their pie hole?
You gonna stop the civil war in Iraq with your hot air? haha
Reply:we didnt fail in world war two, you cant even compare the two.
the united states needs to stop being the worlds police force at let this iraqi army that they say they have over 300,000 troops let them fight their own war. we took down saddam and his kids, and what do the soldiers get bombed and shot. any gun toting, 8th grade educated christian who secretly molested small boys can see that
Reply:I am a veteran of 17 years in the Army and Army Reserve, a moderate to liberal democrat, and very much a supporter of our troops.
I do support our troops in every way that I can...from my mission here at home with the Army Reserve, to the potential that I might be sent over to help with the fight. My brothers in arms have been thrust into a fight that will be difficult, at best, to win. The Army that I love and has provided me with opportunities and education that I could not possibly repay in a lifetime is broken, and will take years to fix. Our standards have been lowered to the point where we are allowing felons, high school dropouts and 42 year old privates into our ranks in order to meet our enlistment goals. This bothers me to no end.
I support my commander in chief, mainly due to the fact that as an officer, I am obligated to. I do, however, believe that it is in the best interest of our country and of our military to get our troops home. We broke Iraq, no doubt. Everyone, including the President has admitted to the fact that we underestimated the situation and made mistakes. It's time for us to figure out what we can do, do it, and then get the hell out. Here are my thoughts.
1. We have trained (so they claim) over 300,000 Iraqi military and police. We need to start making them accountable and responsibile for their missions. We take an 18 year old kid from the suburbs whose biggest exposure to violence has been the WWE, train him for 10 weeks plus a few months of AIT, hand him a rifle, and send him to die for someone else's country. Why, after 3+ years of training Iraqis who live with violence day in and day out, can they not field a trained and ready force? I think the reason is that the Iraqi government knows that we'll stay, thus they really don't have an incentive to stand up and be their most effective.
2. The argument is made that if we don't fight the terrorists there, we'll fight them here. This, I believe, is faulty logic. If the bad guys want to come over here, they can do that now. It only took a couple of dozen of them to pull off 9/11...If they want to, they can spare that many from the fight in Iraq to send over...The fact that we have strong intelligence, strong border controls (sort of), and a department of homeland security that is in charge of NOT letting this happen is what is keeping them away from our country...Not the fighting in Iraq.
3. As much as it will hurt the pride of certain individuals, we need to perhaps consider opening dialogue with the UN in order for them to provide some peacekeeping forces to the region.
...anyway, I could go on and on.
To answer your question about the bleeding heart liberals...I'm a liberal, and if you were to call me a bleeding heart to my face, I would stomp yours into the pavement. We want to win this fight just as much as the cons (at least I do), but it's difficult to accept the fact that after 4 years, there will ever be an end to this mess of an asymetric fight that we're stuck in.
Reply:yeah!!!! you bet!!
gordon
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment