do you think harry reid would be allowed to stand on the floor of the senate and say "this war is lost"?
do you think nancy pelosi could go have a meeting with hilter?
do you think the house and senate democrats would be calling for a troop 'withdrawal and re-deployment'?
in that year, i believe these types of treasonous acts by the democrats would have been viewed quite harshly and dealt with quite severely by the likes of truman, patton, eisnhower, macarthur and all the other heroes of ww2.
the threat of radical islam is every bit the danger that hitler and nazism was and yet these fools are blinded to it by their hatred of george bush and their mad quest to regain power.
why, do we as a nation put up with this? why?
what say you?
2007-04-20 14:58:33 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
you are absolutly right.
the problem is Vietnam. We fled from victory, the public and Congress surrendered, pulled the troops out and for us, there were little consequenses. That's how they see this one. They don't understand that the civilized world hangs in the balance...they don't get it.
2007-04-20 15:05:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
individuals foolishly re-elected BO, and adequate liberals to carry administration of the senate. on condition that those parasites now do not have any more something to concern from voters, their authentic agenda consists of gentle. Non-duty is why liberals are growing extra brazen about income confiscation. those voting for BO and his gang, of their vanity, lack of expertise, or both, refuse to understand a rustic can't spend more beneficial than it takes in, and borrowing more beneficial than you pays off is not in any respect a sturdy theory. Margaret Thatcher stated it most suitable, "the region with socialism is, ultimately, you run out of different human beings's funds to spend." the U. S. is nice away overtaxing the earners to provide to the parasites. As a rustic, we deserve what awaits us after conserving BO in workplace.
2016-12-04 09:37:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a huge difference between World War II and what is going on in Iraq. I know jingoists and their fearless leader don't agree but if you know anything about either you could see the major differences. For example World War II was fought on 4 continents and a bunch of islands. Bushies little war is on one continent and in only one country. The number of people involved in WWII was huge compared to this little fracis. Although the cost is much the same between the two. In those days we sold war bonds to help pay for the war. Americans bought bonds we didn't sell our country to the Chinese.
2007-04-20 15:06:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think you better go back and study your history a little better. Look up the McCarthy influence for an example. The ability to stand up and say what you want has always been protected. There was a Nazi youth movement that was very big in the US.
Go back and study more. I went to war and fought for your right to be an idiot and say completely stupid things. I also fought for the right to not keep my mouth shut when I feel you are completely wrong.
2007-04-20 15:04:41 · answer #4 · answered by ttpawpaw 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Democrat whose family escaped Islam in the 1950's.
I don't put up with it.
You need me in the Democrat party to offset the liberal and socialist agenda that has taken over the party.
I am a patriot, first, a democrat, second.
2007-04-20 15:02:52 · answer #5 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Comparing this illegal war built on lies with the greatest danger to Western Civilization is retarded. We are stuck in a situation with no clear goals, time-tables, or strategies. We had all three of those in WWII. Our men are fighting urban combat against plain clothed insurgents in the Middle East. Bush could not have choosen a worse situation on purpose. He is a retard. You are a retard.
2007-04-20 15:33:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I say you have no idea what you are talking about.
We knew where to hit 'em where it hurt when it came to the fascists.
Bush doesn't even know how to catch Osama. He appoints political friends to help him in warfare.
The problem lies with the Administration.
If Bush were in charge during WWII, we would have probably ended up attacking Brazil or something.
2007-04-20 15:02:40 · answer #7 · answered by ck4829 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Amen brother, years to come the dems will be held responsible for their acts of treason.
2007-04-20 15:11:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Quit being delusional..What if,what if,what if,
What if Bush lead the people with truth instead of deception.
YOU ARE A TRUE NEOCON.
2007-04-20 15:04:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋