Elizabeth Warren, Huh? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDBThat was not the accusation. You said I would vote for Hillary after already posted there is no way in hell I would vote for her or any other politician who voted for the Iraq war.
A "draft?" Who said anything about a "draft." Perhaps LLIdiot should have been drafted wayyyyyyyy back in the 60's. He might have had a dramatically different perspective on the loss of 4500+ American lives resulting from the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq.And just how many lives did 20th century dim-retard presidents cost the U.S. by stumbling into wars backwards because of dim-retard foreign policy decisions, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat?
While on the subject, LLIdiot lease provide a link to the "draft" that you referenced.
Otherwise, it is just another "cut and paste" from the Political Forum's reigning King of worthless "cut and pastes." Originally Posted by bigtex
I ain't voting for any of then either IB!The dim-retards' historical inability to manage foreign policy which ultimately leads to this country stumbling into expensive -- in terms of blood and treasure -- foreign wars is why I have never voted for a dim-retard presidential candidate.
Yea it used to be the neoliberal wanted to rush to war...now it is the neoconservatives making the case!So you are for the Pro-genocide candidate? Who ever that is?
I'm basically a isolationist. Nobody polotician with that slant has a snowballs chance in hell of ever getting elected again. Originally Posted by WTF
Isolationism got us Tojo and Hitler: didn't avoid anything and ultimately involved the U.S. in a very expensive war. Originally Posted by I B HankeringThere is a very good case that can be made that our late entry into that war was advantageous to this country.
And just how many lives did 20th century dim-retard presidents cost the U.S. by stumbling into wars backwards because of dim-retard foreign policy decisions, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat?A couple of things ... when JFK was sworn there were already U.S. military and para-military personnel in S.E. Asia ... approximately 8,000+ .... casualties already ... and there were casualties after LBJ left.
Vietnam War......1961–1968.........36,927
.............JFK......1961-1963..............171
.............LBJ......1964-1968..........36,756 Originally Posted by I B Hankering
Says the Eccie Political Forum's #1 Chickenhawk, who has yet to learn how to "remain on the bench and quiet." Originally Posted by bigtexI see you have recovered from your "weekend hangover" .... still grouchy.
No. Perhaps it bears repeating. NO.Hey LexusLiar have you figured out yet how to pay for these wars you want us in or are all you worrird about is that we not touch your Medicare?
Perhaps it "seems like it" over at Barnes and Nobles.
I repeat: Please remain on the bench and quiet. Originally Posted by LexusLover
A couple of things ... when JFK was sworn there were already U.S. military and para-military personnel in S.E. Asia ... approximately 8,000+ .... casualties already ... and there were casualties after LBJ left.Unlike BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat who is counting against Bush losses accrued under Odumbo, I chose not to count losses occurring under Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford against JFK and LBJ. And more to the point, there's no debate about how it was LBJ's "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution" that was the poor "foreign policy" that led to tens of thousands of young Americans being killed in SE Asia.
But the real question is: Did BIGTITSLIARSTALKER vote for JFK AND LBJ? Originally Posted by LexusLover
There is a very good case that can be made that our late entry into that war was advantageous to this country."'We will make a solitude and call it peace.'" Congressman Owen Lovejoy (IL-R)
Preemptive wars make us seem like Hitler/Tojo wouldn't you say?
Originally Posted by WTF