{OT}: Dingy Harry strikes again

#41

Yup, permanent force in Iraq is probably what is needed. We needed it in
Germany after WWII and in Korea after that conflict. Both those places have
been peaceful and prospersous since.

Harry's words are absolutely costing US lives but unfortunately some people
just can't connect these dots...

"ToMh" <tlhumm (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

On Apr 20, 4:30 pm, "dbu.," <question*m... (AT) einp (DOT) com> wrote:
In article <MpidnYYGHckn1bTbnZ2dnUVZ_q2pn... (AT) comcast (DOT) com>,

"n5hsr" <n... (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:
'Twas bad enough when he said the war in Iraq was lost.

Man the Dims really do want to replay Vietnam, don't they?

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And the
Dims
never seem to learn.

Loose lips harry. He's taken back those words a little bit.

All about politics Charles. It will go on until the democrats regain
the White House. If and when that happens then the Iraq debate will
take on yet another set of legs. They will have some explaining to do
when the shit happens in the aftermath.

--

It will happen, just a matter of when. You want a permanent force in
Iraq?

#42

mack wrote:

Quote:

And YOU are, Mike?

Please. Don't feed the troll.

#43

On Apr 21, 8:08 pm, "Sherlock" <svgula... (AT) juno (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Yup, permanent force in Iraq is probably what is needed. We needed it in
Germany after WWII and in Korea after that conflict. Both those places have
been peaceful and prospersous since.

Harry's words are absolutely costing US lives but unfortunately some people
just can't connect these dots...

Actually Iraq has very little in comman with WWII, we won in Germany.

Iraq is more like Vietnam, totally un-winnable. BTW it's peaceful over
there now too after we finally got our asses out of there.
How are Reids comments costing lives? Bush's incompentence is what has
cost lives. Not admitting tha the war is a lost cause, and that we
need to get out is what
is costing lives. We also cannot afford the hundreds of billion of
dollars a year that this war is costing, with no end in sight. The
USSR went broke and collasped spending money they didn't have on the
millitary, don't think it can't happen to the US.

#44

Scott in Florida wrote:

Quote:

I love the sight of mushroom clouds in the Middle East...

You love your little blue "helper" pills even more.

#45

mack wrote:

Quote:

Bush is an evil idiot.

He's evil but doesn't realize that he is, and I doubt that he can.

#46

Scott in Florida wrote:

Quote:

Bush's numbers are low because the leftist media and the Dims have
been waging war on Bush for 6 years.

So why were his numbers high during the first year or two of the Iraqi
war? The media didn't shift ownership during those six years.

Give a straight answer this time, Scott. You can be straight for a
change.

#47

n5hsr wrote:

Quote:

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nospam (AT) whitehouse (DOT) gov> wrote in message
news:Xns99195E5A9B4C2FredGarvin (AT) 66 (DOT) 250.146.128...

The "replay of Vietnam" began the minute the first US troop landed.

Sorry, the replay began when the Dims chickensh!ted out, just like they did
in 1968.

Vietnam: 500,000+ soldiers, 130,000 sq. miles
Gulf War: 250,000+ soldiers, 9,000 sq. miles
Iraq War: 160,000 soldiers, 169,000 sq. miles

Only the Iraq War was initiated with Republicans in control of both
Congress and the White House, and considering what a small force they
sent for such a large country, it seems that they chickenshitted the
war from the beginning.

Charles, next time provide proof to back your claims, and don't just
blab at the bar between sips.

#48

Mike Hunter wrote:

Quote:

"Jeff" <news (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:AfqWh.573$nR1.514 (AT) trnddc06 (DOT) ..

Who said, "Mission accomplished?" Whoever that was was not very
analytical, was he?

Nobody said it, it was on the banner placed by the crew of the carrier.

Was GW Bush against the impression that it conveyed? Reallize that
presidential photo-ops are highly choreographed, and the banner was
ordered by his staff, not the Navy.

#49

Scott in Florida wrote:

Quote:

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:40:07 GMT, "Truckdude" <shrub (AT) thedeecider (DOT) com
wrote:

Hoping people have forgotten that the White House admitted (eventually and
reluctantly) that it provided the banner?

So what?

The mission of the ship was accomplished.

It's extremely disingenuous of you to claim that. You know very well
that GW Bush and Karl Rove wanted to make all Americans think that the
war in Iraq had been won. GW Bush's words even said so: "Major
combat operations in Iraq have ended." He didn't say that major
combat operations of the ship, the USS Lincoln had ended.

#50

Mike Hunter wrote:

Quote:

The more the lefty kooks post the goofier they get!

You're as predictable as the lies told by a car salesman.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

{OT}: Dingy Harry strikes again

Toyota Discussions related to Toyota cars and trucks (alt.autos.toyota)

Re: {OT}: Dingy Harry strikes again - 04-21-2007 , 10:08 PM

Re: {OT}: Dingy Harry strikes again - 04-21-2007 , 10:22 PM

Re: {OT}: Dingy Harry strikes again - 04-21-2007 , 11:05 PM

Re: {OT}: Dingy Harry strikes again - 04-22-2007 , 03:07 AM

Re: {OT}: Dingy Harry strikes again - 04-22-2007 , 03:14 AM

Re: {OT}: Dingy Harry strikes again - 04-22-2007 , 03:23 AM

Re: {OT}: Dingy Harry strikes again - 04-22-2007 , 03:58 AM

Re: {OT}: Dingy Harry strikes again - 04-22-2007 , 04:08 AM

Re: {OT}: Dingy Harry strikes again - 04-22-2007 , 04:14 AM

Re: {OT}: Dingy Harry strikes again - 04-22-2007 , 04:16 AM