Coalition cutting & running
 

There were some guys in our 114th Aviation Company whom had no legs.They
were and still are very Proud guys.
cuhulin

Coalition cutting & running
 

You should stop looking on the negative side of things all the time.Like
Oddball (Donald Sutherland) said in that Clint Eastwood Army movie,,,,
How many times have I told you?,,, Think Positive!!!
cuhulin

Coalition cutting & running
 

And William Wallace.
cuhulin

Coalition cutting & running
 

SeeingEyeDog wrote:
America's Zenith occurred on Dec. 8th, 1941 when America harnessed her
resources to beat the supreme **** out of THREE countries in 44 months.

I don't see that kind of resolve within today's population of Liberal
Neo-Kommie FAGGOTS.

Check your history. The country was full of anti-war leftists; that's what
kept us out for the first two years. That's also why it took nearly a year
to get armaments produced; they kept the military budgets down back then,
too. They even had people flee the country to avoid the draft. Difference
was that the press back then was pro-America and didn't make heroes out
of such scum.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

Coalition cutting & running
 

Will all due respect "DOCTOR" Artaud,

HOW MANY FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE YOU LOST TO COMMUNISM?

"€ Dr. Artaud €" wrote in message
. ..
"SeeingEyeDog" wrote in
:

How many body parts have you sacrificed for your country? Isn't it nice
living in a country whose claim to fame is destroying other countries?

Regardless of the Liberal Neo-Kommie Faggots, the point is that they had
industries back in 1941 that enabled the U.S. to seriously contribute to
the "war effort". Next time you visit the store, notice all of the items
that are embossed "made in China". I guess you and others of your ilk
believe that the U.S. will engage in a war with China one day while
simultaneously buying their supplies from them. Nope, not likely. The
days of the U.S. "beating the ****" out of other countries has gone the
way of the Victrola.

Sure, we do well against countries in the desert with no tangible
military, and no satellites, but will we always do so well against all
countries? Not so likely.

My 2 cents worth would be to throw the illegal aliens out of the country,
bring the U.S. soldiers home, and stop financially and technologically
building what is likely to become our most formidable enemy to date, ergo
the Chinese. We don't need $19 DVDs, or $300 Computers, they can be made
in the U.S. You will pay more but the neighborhood that you are living in
is less likely to become a ghetto since people will have jobs.

Dr. Artaud





"€ Dr. Artaud €"

The sheer gall of countries that are not willing to dedicate untold
thousands of lives and millions/billions of dollars, what cowards!

America's Zenith occurred on Dec. 8th, 1941 when America harnessed her
resources to beat the supreme **** out of THREE countries in 44 months.

I don't see that kind of resolve within today's population of Liberal
Neo-Kommie FAGGOTS.

Coalition cutting & running
 

"clifto" wrote in message
...

Check your history. The country was full of anti-war leftists; that's what
kept us out for the first two years.

The history I learned says it was the Roosevelt administration which most
wanted us in the war. The Republicans were against it, as was a large part
of the US population, particularly in rural areas.

The American Firsters are kinda sorta still around in the John Birch
Society.

That's also why it took nearly a year
to get armaments produced; they kept the military budgets down back then,
too.

Liberals kept military budgets down? Maybe. The depression certainly did.
Roosevelt would have spent more, but even he had problems with his own tax
and spend party. The borrow and spend party did not yet exist in it's
current form.


They even had people flee the country to avoid the draft.

Let's not forget that the country was still in a funk over the First World
War, after which the "anti-foriegn entanglement" stance of Washington and
Jefferson made perfect sense to many people. And conspiracy theories aren't
a new product of twentyfirst century SW radio. There was then no shortage
of people who thought the blood spilled in the First World War was only to
benefit arms manufacturers and bankers.

Difference
was that the press back then was pro-America and didn't make heroes out
of such scum.


Would that press also include such prominent isolationists as Col. Robert
McCormack of the Chicago Tribune?

Frank Dresser

Coalition cutting & running
 

roosevelt got a lot of people to turn in their gold too.All those people
buying gold nowdays,I wonder if or when fed govt will be going after
their gold,and silver and platium and whatever else that is worth a lot
of money they paid their hard earned dollars for,homes and land? I think
most of us have learned to,Never Trust fed govt.
cuhulin

Coalition cutting & running
 

"SeeingEyeDog" wrote in
:

Are people unjustly killed by "democratic" societies any less dead than
those killed by communist societies?

Is it OK to kill 50,000 Iraqi civilians since a group of Saudis allegedly
commandeered 4 planes, and killed 3000 innocent Americans, in a plan
orchestrated by a man in Afghanistan? Does this not seem convoluted to
you?

Does the invasion of a country to capture WMDs that aren't there seem
odd, as are the allegations that they took the weapons into neighboring
countries (why wouldn't they just use them?)?

Does the persistence of the U.S. to be able to use torture to extract
confessions from captives sound similar to treatment that one might
expect of prisoners in communist countries?

Is the fact that the U.S. is the only country to ever have actually used
nuclear weapons significant to you?

On a planet of insane people, the sane must appear insane.
(Spock from Star Trek)

Dr. Artuad



Will all due respect "DOCTOR" Artaud,

Coalition cutting & running
 

www.devilfinder.com Project Censored

It's a lot more than 50,000 people,according to Project Censored.
cuhulin

Coalition cutting & running
 

"clifto" wrote in message
...
Frank Dresser wrote:
"clifto" wrote...
Check your history. The country was full of anti-war leftists; that's
what
kept us out for the first two years.

The history I learned says it was the Roosevelt administration which
most
wanted us in the war. The Republicans were against it, as was a large
part
of the US population, particularly in rural areas.

Yeah, especially high-ranking Republicans like Joe Kennedy.

Whatever influence Joe Kennedy had in the Roosevelt administration ended
when Roosevelt fired him for insubordination.

Had the Boston Republican brahmins been more hospitible to Irish Catholics,
the Kennedys might have been as Republican as the Rockefellers. Joe Kennedy
did ended up liking Joe McCarthy much better than he liked Roosevelt.

He was
making too much money doing business with Hitler.

OK, you've got me there. I've heard about Kennedy's sleazy financial deals
and mob connections, but I missed Kennedy's business ties with Hitler.
Please fill me in.



That's also why it took nearly a year
to get armaments produced; they kept the military budgets down back
then,
too.

Liberals kept military budgets down? Maybe. The depression certainly
did.
Roosevelt would have spent more, but even he had problems with his own
tax
and spend party. The borrow and spend party did not yet exist in it's
current form.

On the contrary, I'm pretty sure by this time Roosevelt had the WPA and
other stuff going and was well on the road to the free-money-for-the-
indolent economy.

Roosevelt was an anglophile and became a strong freind of Winston Churchill
well before the Pearl Harbor attack. He was way ahead of the American
public in wanting to give direct aid to the British. His opposition came
from those who wanted to keep American money and weapons in America.

I don't see any contradiction in being a welfare statist and wanting to get
America involved with the war.



They even had people flee the country to avoid the draft.

Let's not forget that the country was still in a funk over the First
World
War, after which the "anti-foriegn entanglement" stance of Washington
and
Jefferson made perfect sense to many people. And conspiracy theories
aren't
a new product of twentyfirst century SW radio. There was then no
shortage
of people who thought the blood spilled in the First World War was only
to
benefit arms manufacturers and bankers.

Difference
was that the press back then was pro-America and didn't make heroes out
of such scum.

Would that press also include such prominent isolationists as Col.
Robert
McCormack of the Chicago Tribune?

AAMOF, once Pearl Harbor was a fact, he pretty much went with the flow.
I don't suppose he'd have had much choice; people back then would
boycott a product for antisocial behavior.


Both the Pearl Harbor attack and Hitler's declaration of war against the US
ended the isolationist movement. The isolationists weren't pacifists, but
they weren't interested in war with nations which weren't declared enemies
of the US.

Many US liberals of the era were admirers of the Soviet Union and ended
their neutrality earlier when the Nazis broke the Hitler-Stalin pact.

Frank Dresser