a. Their centuries long inability to war with each other? UNLIKE OUR RECORD OF PEACE, ESPECIALLY THE LAST FEW DECADES


b. Their cut and run mentality when things get tough (see France WWII, Italy the minute we invaded Siciliy, Spain at the first sign of terrorism.) WHY DON'T YOU POST THE EMOTICON WITH A BLACK BERET WAVING A WHILE FLAG AGAIN? IT WAS WORTH A FEW YUCKS BACK IN THE DAY. NOT MUCH OF AN ARGUMENT, THOUGH.


c. Perpetual double digit unemployment? WE HAVE DOUBLE DIGIT UNEMPLOYMENT THESE DAYS, NOT THEM. GET YOUR FACTOIDS UPDATED.

d. A fear of immigrant muslims to the point they'll do anything they say if the threat of violence is posed. WE OUGHT TO BE AFRAID OF IMMIGRANT MUSLIMS AS WELL.

(04-07-2009 06:11 PM)BroncoPhilly Wrote:  a. Their centuries long inability to war with each other? UNLIKE OUR RECORD OF PEACE, ESPECIALLY THE LAST FEW DECADES


b. Their cut and run mentality when things get tough (see France WWII, Italy the minute we invaded Siciliy, Spain at the first sign of terrorism.) WHY DON'T YOU POST THE EMOTICON WITH A BLACK BERET WAVING A WHILE FLAG AGAIN? IT WAS WORTH A FEW YUCKS BACK IN THE DAY. NOT MUCH OF AN ARGUMENT, THOUGH.


c. Perpetual double digit unemployment? WE HAVE DOUBLE DIGIT UNEMPLOYMENT THESE DAYS, NOT THEM. GET YOUR FACTOIDS UPDATED.

d. A fear of immigrant muslims to the point they'll do anything they say if the threat of violence is posed. WE OUGHT TO BE AFRAID OF IMMIGRANT MUSLIMS AS WELL.

Quote:WE OUGHT TO BE AFRAID OF IMMIGRANT MUSLIMS AS WELL

We do Phil, but I don't think we've reached the point that it has in Europe.

Quote:WE HAVE DOUBLE DIGIT UNEMPLOYMENT THESE DAYS, NOT THEM. GET YOUR FACTOIDS UPDATED

We have pockets Phil, and it's quite recent. Parts of Europe have had double digit unemployment for the last decade.

Quote:WHY DON'T YOU POST THE EMOTICON WITH A BLACK BERET WAVING A WHILE FLAG AGAIN? IT WAS WORTH A FEW YUCKS BACK IN THE DAY. NOT MUCH OF AN ARGUMENT, THOUGH

That's because there is no argument. History has shown that countries like France and Italy won't fight for much.

Quote:UNLIKE OUR RECORD OF PEACE, ESPECIALLY THE LAST FEW DECADES

Still pissed that Nevell Chamberlain's treaty didn't pan out Phil? [/quote]

Quote:Still pissed that Nevell Chamberlain's treaty didn't pan out Phil?

Nah, not me. I'm still trying to figure out why we invaded Iraq.

Quote:Nah, not me. I'm still trying to figure out why we invaded Iraq

.

Ummm, because they attacked us???? Opppps, my bad, wrong universe, wrong reality.

Quote:Ummm, because they attacked us????

Not even according to George W. Bush, as uttered in one of his more lucid moments. You can always tell when he has both oars in the water, he dribbles a little less.

The messenger has changed, and the message has changed, but other than that what has changed?

B.O. is doing in Afganistan what Bush and Petraus did in Iraq.......escalating. Don't get me wrong it worked in Iraq, but wasn't Mr. Change supposed to be dialing down, not dialing up?

He also wants to escalate the war in the mountains near the Pakistan border, and f%^k with a country that has nuclear weapons (Pakistan). Libs always talk a good game when it comes to peace, but they have a history of escalating every war they get their mits on.

And then we have Gitmo.........."We're closin it down, yes sir, shutting the doors on Gitmo." Not one prisoner has been moved. Britain offered to take one prisoner. Where do the rest go? Watch, him do a 180 on this too. A year from now Gitmo will still be open and the media won't say a peep.

The only change we can count on so far is that he'll spend all of our change, our kids change, and our grand children's change------but at least Europe will like us :domokun:

Quote:B.O. is doing in Afganistan what Bush and Petraus did in Iraq.......escalating. Don't get me wrong it worked in Iraq, but wasn't Mr. Change supposed to be dialing down, not dialing up?

You always forcus on one tree rather than the forest when it comes to Iraq, Dip. It matters little to me if the tactic of escalating in Iraq was successful-because in my view the whole invasion of Iraq was a costly and unnecessary blunder on Bush's part.

What tactics were used to make that blunder more effective in the short term are immaterial.

In my view Dumbo wasted $ 800 Billion in Iraq and another $ 750 Billion with his TARP plan. So how you can focus on BHO as a massive spender and ignore the same in Bush is beyond me. Like most dittohead Republicans you have selective standards.

Quote:but at least Europe will like us

Not like, respect. When you live by the standards you proclaim other folks respect you. When you don't, they don't respect you.

We lost that under Bush. Hopefully Obama can bring some of it back.

Dip's listening to talk radio on his vacation, so now he has something to repeat. Been quiet for a while.

(04-09-2009 10:30 AM)BroncoPhilly Wrote:  

Quote:but at least Europe will like us

Not like, respect. When you live by the standards you proclaim other folks respect you. When you don't, they don't respect you.

We lost that under Bush. Hopefully Obama can bring some of it back.

They don't respect us anymore they do like us. They adore BHO, but he got nothing done on this Europesan Tour. They like us because he's taking us down the road to concrete socialism.


(His party has kissed up to the biggest murderer alive in Castro whos adored by socialists abound).


I also like that hes appointed the biggest catholic basher as his faith consultant during Easter. http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1590

Quote:Dip's listening to talk radio on his vacation, so now he has something to repeat. Been quiet for a while

Translated: I can't refute a thing he said other than to resort to Rush, Coulter, Hannity, etc. etc.

17,000 additional troups in Afganistan is change? What's changed at Gitmo other than a new warden?

Quote:You always forcus on one tree rather than the forest when it comes to Iraq, Dip. It matters little to me if the tactic of escalating in Iraq was successful-because in my view the whole invasion of Iraq was a costly and unnecessary blunder on Bush's part.

What's the difference in us fighting Al-queda in Iraq, or us fighting the Nazi's in North Africa or the Japs in the Phillipines. Why does it matter where you fight the enemy?

How about they weren't in Iraq before we invaded? Translated "I can't refuge any facts so I play spin games for fun".

Quote:How about they weren't in Iraq before we invaded? Translated "I can't refuge any facts so I play spin games for fun".

DB nailed it with one line.

Dip will be the last American supporting the Iraq War as justifiable, long after everyone else concedes it was a tragic blunder.

Translation: "I spent years badgering DB and BP to support the Bush War, but they never fell for it. Now everyone in the forum knows I strongly advocated that war and it's too late to change positions. Since my personality won't allow me to ever admit to a mistake or a blunder in judgement I'll simply get quieter and quieter on that subject with only brief forays when they force me to comment. God, I am GOOD! Now it's time to hit the links!"

Quote:How about they weren't in Iraq before we invaded?

And you know that for a fact do you?

And Sadam was a model citizen as well. The world loved him, what were we thinking going in and taking him out.

I love the Monday morning QB's who 3 years into the war decided that all of our efforts (not just part, but all) should have been in Afganistan and possibly even in Pakistan-----------or should we just have done nothing after 9-11 like we did after Lockerbee, the USS Cole, etc.

^ Gotta love the denial.

Quote:And Sadam was a model citizen as well. The world loved him, what were we thinking going in and taking him out.

It's funny, but I also contended that we could have taken him out covertly, but that would have not fit the macho image that we needed to convey.

Dip-----you probably remember Milton Barnes, coached at Minnesota, EMU, globtrotters. We were talking one day about some of his players who got into some trouble for sexual assualt while on the road.

Milton told me that ironically enough, it was not that he players did not have access to many women who would have been happy to "know" them without force, it was just that the players got more thrill about "taking" rather than being given with consent. The same with Iraq, we could have quietly gone in and covertly taken Sadaam out, but no, we had to start a war.

BC, I'm wondering how exactly he could have been taken out "covertly" as you suggest. He went so far as to eliminate his own son-in-law when he learned that he had only talked with the west.

Always proud to be a Bronco.

Who cares? He wasn't out main problem at the time, that 9-11 rationale helped dumbya's crew fulfill a long standing agenda, our number one problem was and still in running his operation in the hills of Pakistan. Focus.

(04-10-2009 11:10 AM)Chipdip Wrote:  

Quote:How about they weren't in Iraq before we invaded?

And you know that for a fact do you?

And Sadam was a model citizen as well. The world loved him, what were we thinking going in and taking him out.

I love the Monday morning QB's who 3 years into the war decided that all of our efforts (not just part, but all) should have been in Afganistan and possibly even in Pakistan-----------or should we just have done nothing after 9-11 like we did after Lockerbee, the USS Cole, etc.

Translation: We have only one enemy. It cannot be that there are more. Then there is a possibility that we are wrong or that these people could ally against us.

Deny, deny ,deny.