The difference there is that Iraq hasn't done jackshit to the US except buy its weapons, chemical or otherwise. Japan - part of the Axis including Germany and Italy - actually militarily attacked the US homeland: not the kind of thing the populace are gonna forget in a hurry.Smitty5613 wrote:
Vietnam War, Iraq War..... as long as there is no support from the people, we will lose..... i wonder what woulda happened if people whined about Roosevelt during WW2 like they do Bush?AutralianChainsaw wrote:
Both are useless war, both countries never attacked the USA directly, and both war will end with a retreat of the USA.Flecco wrote:
Will people stop fucking comparing Iraq to Vietnam, there is no comparison...
And for the record, the USA accomplished all it's policy objectives in Vietnam, ALL OF THEM.
So its was an objective to lose the war? It was an objective to lose 60000 men for nothing? It was an objective that vietnam remain communist?
Yep...thank you Democrats.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
That ambassy will be overrun by angry arabs as soon as the US army leaves Iraq. Choppers will evacuate the last personnel under the fire of the freedom fightersGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
that embassy in Iraq will be the hub for the US State Dept in the middle east.
remember Vietnam?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … escape.jpg
Yep Vote republicanHarmor wrote:
Yep...thank you Democrats.AutralianChainsaw wrote:
That ambassy will be overrun by angry arabs as soon as the US army leaves Iraq. Choppers will evacuate the last personnel under the fire of the freedom fightersGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
that embassy in Iraq will be the hub for the US State Dept in the middle east.
remember Vietnam?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … escape.jpg
Ron Paul 2008
Ron Paul FTW!
I'd love to see one of Australia's biggest allies led by a true leader.
I'd love to see one of Australia's biggest allies led by a true leader.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
People did, that's why America didn't get involved in the war till they were directly attacked. The only way Roosevelt managed to get elected was by saying he wasn't going to get involved in the war in Europe. Even after being attacked Roosevelt didn't have the political backing to actually declare war on Germany as well. The only reason the US did get involved in Europe was because Hitler declared war on America for no evident reason.Smitty5613 wrote:
Vietnam War, Iraq War..... as long as there is no support from the people, we will lose..... i wonder what woulda happened if people whined about Roosevelt during WW2 like they do Bush?AutralianChainsaw wrote:
Both are useless war, both countries never attacked the USA directly, and both war will end with a retreat of the USA.Flecco wrote:
Will people stop fucking comparing Iraq to Vietnam, there is no comparison...
And for the record, the USA accomplished all it's policy objectives in Vietnam, ALL OF THEM.
So its was an objective to lose the war? It was an objective to lose 60000 men for nothing? It was an objective that vietnam remain communist?
I AGREE! lolchittydog wrote:
Sounds like they're sending a message to the insurgents: We're not going anywhere.
*shrugs* more government waste... big surprise....Flecco wrote:
Okay, I searched and found ATG's topic on this buuuuuuuuuuuuut....
'The 104-acre complex — the size of about 80 football fields — will include two office buildings, one of them designed for future use as a school, six apartment buildings, a gym, a pool, a food court and its own power generation and water-treatment plants.'
UsaToday Article - source of quote.
Doesn't that seem a little big for an embassy? Is it just me or does this thing scream "CIA HQ no. 2!"...
yeah it probably has indoor plumbing with male and female bathrooms, obviously a conspiracy in the makingTurquoise wrote:
*shrugs* more government waste... big surprise....Flecco wrote:
Okay, I searched and found ATG's topic on this buuuuuuuuuuuuut....
'The 104-acre complex — the size of about 80 football fields — will include two office buildings, one of them designed for future use as a school, six apartment buildings, a gym, a pool, a food court and its own power generation and water-treatment plants.'
UsaToday Article - source of quote.
Doesn't that seem a little big for an embassy? Is it just me or does this thing scream "CIA HQ no. 2!"...
Don't worry lowing, we all know that our government spends our money so wisely. I mean, don't you like how they budget welfare?lowing wrote:
yeah it probably has indoor plumbing with male and female bathrooms, obviously a conspiracy in the makingTurquoise wrote:
*shrugs* more government waste... big surprise....Flecco wrote:
Okay, I searched and found ATG's topic on this buuuuuuuuuuuuut....
'The 104-acre complex — the size of about 80 football fields — will include two office buildings, one of them designed for future use as a school, six apartment buildings, a gym, a pool, a food court and its own power generation and water-treatment plants.'
UsaToday Article - source of quote.
Doesn't that seem a little big for an embassy? Is it just me or does this thing scream "CIA HQ no. 2!"...
preaching to the choir, I know our govt. wastes money, they always have ( long before Bush), always will ( long after Bush). And since you mention it, welfare recipients are the FIRST group of sorry asses I would kick to the curb to start getting spending under control.Turquoise wrote:
Don't worry lowing, we all know that our government spends our money so wisely. I mean, don't you like how they budget welfare?lowing wrote:
yeah it probably has indoor plumbing with male and female bathrooms, obviously a conspiracy in the makingTurquoise wrote:
*shrugs* more government waste... big surprise....
I'd prefer to end corporate welfare first. Giving money to the poor is at least more understandable than giving it to the rich.lowing wrote:
preaching to the choir, I know our govt. wastes money, they always have ( long before Bush), always will ( long after Bush). And since you mention it, welfare recipients are the FIRST group of sorry asses I would kick to the curb to start getting spending under control.Turquoise wrote:
Don't worry lowing, we all know that our government spends our money so wisely. I mean, don't you like how they budget welfare?lowing wrote:
yeah it probably has indoor plumbing with male and female bathrooms, obviously a conspiracy in the making
Nope, corporations build our economy, they put people to work, uhhhhhhhh, those that wanna work that is. The poor only take, and do not produce anything for our society but grief. Unless you are gunna tell me you have applied for a job working for a welfare recipient. If so, do tellTurquoise wrote:
I'd prefer to end corporate welfare first. Giving money to the poor is at least more understandable than giving it to the rich.lowing wrote:
preaching to the choir, I know our govt. wastes money, they always have ( long before Bush), always will ( long after Bush). And since you mention it, welfare recipients are the FIRST group of sorry asses I would kick to the curb to start getting spending under control.Turquoise wrote:
Don't worry lowing, we all know that our government spends our money so wisely. I mean, don't you like how they budget welfare?
And the message sent back will probably be "ALLAH ACKBAR ALLAH ACKBAR *KABOOM* "chittydog wrote:
Sounds like they're sending a message to the insurgents: We're not going anywhere.
So, you like the idea of your money going to corporations that don't need your funding? Wow, even the CATO Institute is against corporate welfare, and they're the main Libertarian lobby out there.lowing wrote:
Nope, corporations build our economy, they put people to work, uhhhhhhhh, those that wanna work that is. The poor only take, and do not produce anything for our society but grief. Unless you are gunna tell me you have applied for a job working for a welfare recipient. If so, do tellTurquoise wrote:
I'd prefer to end corporate welfare first. Giving money to the poor is at least more understandable than giving it to the rich.lowing wrote:
preaching to the choir, I know our govt. wastes money, they always have ( long before Bush), always will ( long after Bush). And since you mention it, welfare recipients are the FIRST group of sorry asses I would kick to the curb to start getting spending under control.
The poor have a great track record of spending what little money they have, thereby stimulating the corporations. The poor also have a good track record when it comes to not outsourcing all of their manufacturing to Mexico.lowing wrote:
Nope, corporations build our economy, they put people to work, uhhhhhhhh, those that wanna work that is. The poor only take, and do not produce anything for our society but grief. Unless you are gunna tell me you have applied for a job working for a welfare recipient. If so, do tellTurquoise wrote:
I'd prefer to end corporate welfare first. Giving money to the poor is at least more understandable than giving it to the rich.lowing wrote:
preaching to the choir, I know our govt. wastes money, they always have ( long before Bush), always will ( long after Bush). And since you mention it, welfare recipients are the FIRST group of sorry asses I would kick to the curb to start getting spending under control.
Again you mis-understand. IF I had to give ALL my tax dollars to ONE group I would choose the group that would at least build with it.Turquoise wrote:
So, you like the idea of your money going to corporations that don't need your funding? Wow, even the CATO Institute is against corporate welfare, and they're the main Libertarian lobby out there.lowing wrote:
Nope, corporations build our economy, they put people to work, uhhhhhhhh, those that wanna work that is. The poor only take, and do not produce anything for our society but grief. Unless you are gunna tell me you have applied for a job working for a welfare recipient. If so, do tellTurquoise wrote:
I'd prefer to end corporate welfare first. Giving money to the poor is at least more understandable than giving it to the rich.
The lesser of 2 evils so to speak. I do not however like either.
Well, here's where we differ....lowing wrote:
Again you mis-understand. IF I had to give ALL my tax dollars to ONE group I would choose the group that would at least build with it.Turquoise wrote:
So, you like the idea of your money going to corporations that don't need your funding? Wow, even the CATO Institute is against corporate welfare, and they're the main Libertarian lobby out there.lowing wrote:
Nope, corporations build our economy, they put people to work, uhhhhhhhh, those that wanna work that is. The poor only take, and do not produce anything for our society but grief. Unless you are gunna tell me you have applied for a job working for a welfare recipient. If so, do tell
The lesser of 2 evils so to speak. I do not however like either.
You assume most poverty is the result of laziness.
I assume most poverty is the result of circumstance.
Most people on welfare only remain on it for a short period of time to help them get back on their feet.
Yes, I am sure the taxpayers of this country are doing a great job of keeping lottery, beer and cigarette companies prosperous through welfare payments.PureFodder wrote:
The poor have a great track record of spending what little money they have, thereby stimulating the corporations. The poor also have a good track record when it comes to not outsourcing all of their manufacturing to Mexico.lowing wrote:
Nope, corporations build our economy, they put people to work, uhhhhhhhh, those that wanna work that is. The poor only take, and do not produce anything for our society but grief. Unless you are gunna tell me you have applied for a job working for a welfare recipient. If so, do tellTurquoise wrote:
I'd prefer to end corporate welfare first. Giving money to the poor is at least more understandable than giving it to the rich.
The only thing the poor could manufacture is an ability to be a boat anchor on a society. If they choose to outsource that, by all means do so.
Now once again I must state the ole' lowing disclaimer that I fully support the funding of social programs that take care of our disabled and children. THese people can not help themselves and are in situations beyond their control. All others need not apply for sympathy.
yup yer right. Thats where we differ!!Turquoise wrote:
Well, here's where we differ....lowing wrote:
Again you mis-understand. IF I had to give ALL my tax dollars to ONE group I would choose the group that would at least build with it.Turquoise wrote:
So, you like the idea of your money going to corporations that don't need your funding? Wow, even the CATO Institute is against corporate welfare, and they're the main Libertarian lobby out there.
The lesser of 2 evils so to speak. I do not however like either.
You assume most poverty is the result of laziness.
I assume most poverty is the result of circumstance.
Most people on welfare only remain on it for a short period of time to help them get back on their feet.
So you really think that all people on welfare are lazy?...lowing wrote:
yup yer right. Thats where we differ!!Turquoise wrote:
Well, here's where we differ....lowing wrote:
Again you mis-understand. IF I had to give ALL my tax dollars to ONE group I would choose the group that would at least build with it.
The lesser of 2 evils so to speak. I do not however like either.
You assume most poverty is the result of laziness.
I assume most poverty is the result of circumstance.
Most people on welfare only remain on it for a short period of time to help them get back on their feet.
As I said, disabled, and children are the only groups that have an excuse to be poor in AMerica. All sound mind and able bodied people have countless resources at their disposal to better themselves. All that is asked is a little effort on their parts. IF they do not choose to put forth that effort. fuck'emTurquoise wrote:
So you really think that all people on welfare are lazy?...lowing wrote:
yup yer right. Thats where we differ!!Turquoise wrote:
Well, here's where we differ....
You assume most poverty is the result of laziness.
I assume most poverty is the result of circumstance.
Most people on welfare only remain on it for a short period of time to help them get back on their feet.
So, you wouldn't allow someone who lost their job and has a family to feed to be on welfare for even just a few months?lowing wrote:
As I said, disabled, and children are the only groups that have an excuse to be poor in AMerica. All sound mind and able bodied people have countless resources at their disposal to better themselves. All that is asked is a little effort on their parts. IF they do not choose to put forth that effort. fuck'emTurquoise wrote:
So you really think that all people on welfare are lazy?...lowing wrote:
yup yer right. Thats where we differ!!
Already a program called unemployment to help such people, and it is not welfare, it is more like insurance. Anyone whose resume is worth a damn will always bounce back from such unfortunate events. I was there several time working for the airlines, but I refused to accept unemployment. I always found another job (yes even out of state ) during the time period between my lay-off notice and lay-off date. I have never been without a job. It is called being marketable, and that is a personal responsibility issue that is YOURS to take care of, not the govts. IE the tax payer IE, ME.Turquoise wrote:
So, you wouldn't allow someone who lost their job and has a family to feed to be on welfare for even just a few months?lowing wrote:
As I said, disabled, and children are the only groups that have an excuse to be poor in AMerica. All sound mind and able bodied people have countless resources at their disposal to better themselves. All that is asked is a little effort on their parts. IF they do not choose to put forth that effort. fuck'emTurquoise wrote:
So you really think that all people on welfare are lazy?...
Did you have a family to feed?lowing wrote:
Already a program called unemployment to help such people, and it is not welfare, it is more like insurance. Anyone whose resume is worth a damn will always bounce back from such unfortunate events. I was there several time working for the airlines, but I refused to accept unemployment. I always found another job (yes even out of state ) during the time period between my lay-off notice and lay-off date. I have never been without a job. It is called being marketable, and that is a personal responsibility issue that is YOURS to take care of, not the govts. IE the tax payer IE, ME.Turquoise wrote:
So, you wouldn't allow someone who lost their job and has a family to feed to be on welfare for even just a few months?lowing wrote:
As I said, disabled, and children are the only groups that have an excuse to be poor in AMerica. All sound mind and able bodied people have countless resources at their disposal to better themselves. All that is asked is a little effort on their parts. IF they do not choose to put forth that effort. fuck'em
Yes I do, a wife and 2 sons.Turquoise wrote:
Did you have a family to feed?lowing wrote:
Already a program called unemployment to help such people, and it is not welfare, it is more like insurance. Anyone whose resume is worth a damn will always bounce back from such unfortunate events. I was there several time working for the airlines, but I refused to accept unemployment. I always found another job (yes even out of state ) during the time period between my lay-off notice and lay-off date. I have never been without a job. It is called being marketable, and that is a personal responsibility issue that is YOURS to take care of, not the govts. IE the tax payer IE, ME.Turquoise wrote:
So, you wouldn't allow someone who lost their job and has a family to feed to be on welfare for even just a few months?