Originally Posted by Independent George

Why is that you can pose an either/or question when one supports an ally of this country in its fight against Islamic Fascism ? When FDR went to the aid of Great Britain while they were trying to stave off Nazi aggression, would you have asked FDR if he is a "real American" or if his loyalties were to England or the US ? WE support our allies (except for Jimmy Carter who wouldn't even give the Shah of Iran a "pass" to get medical treatment in this country, when it was Iran...yes Iran...who was one of our strongest allies during the Vietnam war), and we support our allies because it BEHOOVES us to...it is beneficial to our well-being also..and that's being a REAL AMERICAN.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

You are either horribly uninformed or just a complete liar...make your pick. Liar or idiot. Our president obviously chose "idiot" and i bet you will do the same.

Before i dissect all of this other garbage, i will suggest you read a number of articles but most importantly the recently released Nixon dialogues where it is in bold letters how the US did indeed deal with Mobutu and did have interest in congo/zaire.

Now, everyone, It is proven. Brooklynite is either a liar or an uninformed idiot!

:)

And if anyone doubts me, here is the link!

Enjoy.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e6/67173.htm

Originally Posted by dalakhani

You are either horribly uninformed or just a complete liar...make your pick. Liar or idiot. Our president obviously chose "idiot" and i bet you will do the same.

Before i dissect all of this other garbage, i will suggest you read a number of articles but most importantly the recently released Nixon dialogues where it is in bold letters how the US did indeed deal with Mobutu and did have interest in congo/zaire.

Now, everyone, It is proven. Brooklynite is either a liar or an uninformed idiot!

:)

And if anyone doubts me, here is the link!

Enjoy.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e6/67173.htm

Originally Posted by Independent George

Aw c'mon, BB, don't tell me you're not working with Koko, here.

Originally Posted by boldruler

No being a REAL AMERICAN means taking care of other Americans first. Support Israel if you want but the $100 billion that we have given them to create a military should have been used to help Americans first. Israel isn't a poor country, they can afford their own military.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Da-ta-da-ta-da-ta-da ... Da-ta-da-ta-da-ta-da [sound of the cavalry charge] Da-ta-da-ta-da-ta-da ... Da-ta-da-ta-da-ta-da .... !!!

Yup ... right on cue ... here comes the cavalry to try to save the day. But ... sorry ... you're little pal has been beaten to an intellectual pulp ... the only thing you can do is put him on a litter ... and have a medic do his best. And make that a Jewish medic.

And just take a look at this "evidence" of our "involvement" with the Congo ... a memo to a lackey to ... maybe ... give some chump change to Mobutu so he can pay this month's electric bill.

Hey, buddy .. memos like this are written every day about every country ... that's how the paper pushers in the State Dept. justify their jobs. The odds are about 200-1 against Nixon ever having seen this piddling paperwork.

It was probably signed by Rosemary Woods after she changed the tapes in the Oval Office recording machine.

[Sheesh ... now you surely can understand, my friends ... what utter losers these guys are. "Dumber" gets in trouble ... and "Dumb" tries to bail him out ... only he falls into the vat of chicken fat too!]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.

Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.

Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Originally Posted by dalakhani

it took you this long to come up with THAT?????

Look at the spin. Just look at the spin.

YOU made the CLAIM that the US was not involved in CONGO. Whitehouse Documents claim that you are WRONG.

So...WERE YOU LYING OR JUST UNINFORMED?????

Dont spin....

Just answer the question.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.
Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Ohmigod!

I just noticed ... Dumber keeps responding to himself!

Yeah ... I guess he's spent too much time with that inflatable doll.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Bwahahahahahaha ... I guess the joke's on me!

I thought you were Dumb ... and the other guy was Dumber ... but ...

... silly me ... you're both Dumber !!!

Originally Posted by boldruler

No being a REAL AMERICAN means taking care of other Americans first. Support Israel if you want but the $100 billion that we have given them to create a military should have been used to help Americans first. Israel isn't a poor country, they can afford their own military.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.
Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Originally Posted by Independent George

So FDR was NOT a REAL AMERICAN, because he sent millions in aid to Great Britain when he could have used those millions to feed the poor in this country; to help the farmers devastated by the Depression and the Dust Bowl.
I think I get your drift now.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.
Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

See, George ... Dumber #2 has absolutely nothing ... but he really thinks he does!

He really thinks that a memo from a paper-pusher at Foggy Bottpm ... signed by a secretary or an AutoPen ... discussing chump change for a dictator who can't pay his electric bill ... and we don't even know if the chump change was actually given to the chump ... is a "significant event" ... which shows our mighty nation's "involvement."

And it doesn't help at all to point that out to him ... you've seen how hard I've tried.

He simply doesn't understand that memos like this happen thousands of times a day ... every day ... because its how the timeservers at Foggy Bottom ... and in our embassies and consulates all over the world ... justify their paychecks.

Yeah ... I'm sure Nixon was up all night wondering if Mobutu could pay his bills. Too funny ... and they don't even understand that the joke's on them.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.
Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ...

... he didn't even see the P.S. on my last post ...

Bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ...

... oh ... oh ... oh ... I gotta take a break ... this is killing me ...

Bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ...

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ...

... he's not gonna let me off the hook ...

Bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ...

... he's flopping in a vat of chicken fat with his Dumber friend ...

... and he's not gonna let me off the hook ...

Bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ... bwahahahahahaha ... !!!

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.

BAAAA HAAAA HHAAAAA HHAAAAA Liar or uninformed?

Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Shall i go here next?Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about here?
How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Wow ... do you see this George? Do you see how all they can do is throw sand in the air?

This thread is about the Israelis mopping the floor with Dumber & Dumber's Pali pals in 2006 ...

... and he wants to talk about a Nixon memo about Mobutu written one month before Nixon was forced to resign in 1975 ... even after I huniliated him publicly over it.

Yeah ... we're really going to fall for that .. aren't we, George ... we're really going to be tricked by Koko & Loco throwing sand.

They couldn't possibly be dumber ... could they?

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.
Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.

Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Originally Posted by dalakhani

perhaps we can get some more stirring commentary from "the grand master" on whether he is a LIAR or simply an UNINFORMED IDIOT.

Brooklynite fool seems to have made a FALSE claim and doesnt want to own up.

Originally Posted by boldruler

Brooklynite has a hard time answering questions and needs to wait until Rush or Sean Hannity get on the radio and give him his talking points for the day. He is a parrot that can't think for himself. He just repeats the same things over and over and doesn't address any issues. Sounds like our current President and the idiot President right before him.

Originally Posted by Independent George

(except for Jimmy Carter who wouldn't even give the Shah of Iran a "pass" to get medical treatment in this country, when it was Iran...yes Iran...who was one of our strongest allies during the Vietnam war), QUOTE]

This SOB not only put the US into it's darkest era but was on the brink of doing things that even history and Reagan couldn't right.

The sight of this creep still makes me want to kill him.

Originally Posted by Dixie Porter

Jimmy Carter......the inventor of 15% Inflation.
We'll be paying for his mistakes for generations.

Originally Posted by Independent George

Please.....if anyone is repeating the same things over and over, it's you and the other character.For umpteen posts you've called BB a liar and a moron...and THAT'S ALL YOU SAID. He answered your qestion and you persist on REPEATING the same thing over and over.

Move on..........(hey thats a good place for you- moveon.org; you'll probably find total agreement with what little you've had to say)

Originally Posted by Independent George

Indep Geo,
Are you really accusing Jimmy Carter for bringing on the inflation?
If so, you need to do a bit of reading.
Wars are financed with debt.
Borrow at 1970 dollars..pay back with 1974 ones (depreciated by inflation).
Wasn't it Richard Nixon that said he had a "plan" to end the Viet Nam war and then perpetuated it for another four years?
Duh? Is this the debt payment that Jimmy Carter had to deal with?
Wait until you see the inflation caused by G W's adventures for his lost causes.
Afghanistan is lost. Iraq is a civil war. Also another soon-to-be-loss.

"Bring 'em on!"

You'd think the US would have learned a lesson from Somolia when we got our billion dollar military's ass kicked by Toyota driving homies firing thousand dollar rpg's.

Ain't war great?

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Actually ive had a lot to say "independant George" and so has brooklynite fool. The problem is that the brooklynite fool doesnt have his facts straight and is unwilling to own up to it. He claims that the US never was involved in Congo and whitehouse papers say he is wrong.

I just want him to say whether he is uninformed or just a liar. A simple answer will do. At that point, i will go on choppping up the rest of his idiotic post. You can join him if you like but be prepared is all i ask.

Originally Posted by Independent George

OOOOHHHHH, you got me scairt. Is that a threat ??

He answered your "whitehouse papers" comment, but he didn't answer it to your sarisfaction, which would be, "Yes, your correct." He aint gonna say that, so, move on .

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Here we go, it's Nixon's fault that Jimmy Carter got to pay for the Vietnam War that Kennedy or Johnson initiated.
Afgahnistan is lost ??? What a news flash ! Does Kharzaid and/or the Taliban know that yet ??
Iraq COULD be another loss if it depended on the likes of you to fight it. In 1942, America had lost Pearl Harbor; the entire Phillipines; Wake Island. England had lost Singapore and Rommel was marching across Africa. YOU would have said...."the war is lost".
No, War aint great (I've been there; have you?); but Defeatism is much much worse.

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Here we go, it's Nixon's fault that Jimmy Carter got to pay for the Vietnam War that Kennedy or Johnson initiated.
Afgahnistan is lost ??? What a news flash ! Does Kharzaid and/or the Taliban know that yet ??
Iraq COULD be another loss if it depended on the likes of you to fight it. In 1942, America had lost Pearl Harbor; the entire Phillipines; Wake Island. England had lost Singapore and Rommel was marching across Africa. YOU would have said...."the war is lost".
No, War aint great (I've been there; have you?); but Defeatism is much much worse.