T1B

Posted: **Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:50 pm**

Rat Wrote:
You "know" squat. You have demonstrated that your knowledge of military history is nonexistent -

I know that war is evil.
That is enough for me.

ONE MORE TIME:
P_Harry was convinced that ONE drop would be enough to get the Japs to give 'er up.
Being 100% convinced that after JUST ONE LOOK at what the A_Bomb could do would result in Japans surrender, your P_Harry still choose to feed his, and the American Barbarians of that times' sick need for vengence.

60 years later...Evolve Much. :roll:

Posted: **Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:55 pm**

tough love wrote:
Rat Wrote:
You "know" squat. You have demonstrated that your knowledge of military history is nonexistent -
I know that war is evil.
That is enough for me.

ONE MORE TIME:
P_Harry was convinced that ONE drop would be enough to get the Japs to give 'er up.
Being 100% convinced that after JUST ONE LOOK at what the A_Bomb could do would result in Japans surrender, your P_Harry still choose to feed his, and the American Barbarians of that times' sick need for vengence.

60 years later...Evolve Much. :roll:

Whether Truman thought the Japanese would surrender after one drop is immaterial. He still had to contend with the possibility that the Japanese would not surrender. Why take a chance blowing up some atoll somewhere? Better to wipe a few cities off the face of the earth than allow them to possibly fight against our landing parties.

Posted: **Tue Aug 09, 2005 9:56 pm**

BSmack Wrote:
Whether Truman thought the Japanese would surrender after one drop is immaterial.

To you, perhaps, but as far as my take goes, it means everything.
And YES>>>He was convinced that it would only take one look for the Japs to pack it in...100% convinced, so he was reported to have stated, that is.
I realize that poli_posers tend to lie alot, but in this case i'm giving him the benifit of doubt that he was not when he said it to the troops on the ship he was on when he recieved the news about the Anola Gays mission being a 100% success.

Get it now???

Btw...If I were P_Harry, after the initial humane example didn't take, they would of seen three cities go Hiroshima, and one of them would of evaporated their idiot Emperor.

mv:
All war is evil.
A couple have been of the necessay evil variety.

Only misfit sicko's enjoy war.
Sane soldier's only want peace.

Posted: **Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:33 pm**

tough love wrote:
BSmack Wrote:
Whether Truman thought the Japanese would surrender after one drop is immaterial.
To you, perhaps, but as far as my take goes, it means everything.

There it is. Your "take" means nothing...and you are one dense, illogical piece of work. Let me get this straight...it took two bombs over densely populated areas to make the Japs say "uncle", yet you're still saying we should have dropped the first over a rural area as a warning? It's not like we had extra's stockpiled.

Incomprehensible train of thought there, TL.

And YES>>>He was convinced that it would only take one look for the Japs to pack it in...100% convinced, so he was reported to have stated, that is.

Who gives a flying rats ass?

Get it now???

I get that you're a dumbfuck.

Btw...If I were P_Harry, after the initial humane example didn't take, they would of seen three cities go Hiroshima, and one of them would of evaporated their idiot Emperor.

Three cities now, huh? From dove to hawk and back again within a matter of sentences. Cut bait or fish, dipshit.

Oops, but you weren't Harry, and I guess both the Japs and Americans can be thankful for that.

Posted: **Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:05 am**

it took two bombs over densely populated areas to make the Japs say "uncle", yet you're still saying we should have dropped the first over a rural area as a warning? It's not like we had extra's stockpiled.

Guess we don't have to worry about TL rising to a position of authority any time soon...eh?

Posted: **Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:36 am**

EAD, A_Hole_Puny_Pigs, if I were P_Harry, I would of had more bombs. :P

Posted: **Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:40 am**

mvscal wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:And for the record I never said the Gulf war was unnecessary - it was necessary, but you lumped it in with the Iraq war,
It's the same war, idiot.

No it as not. Different country, different objective, 12 years apart, different war, with a resolution. You can call it the same war, but you're the only one.

Posted: **Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:53 am**

tough love wrote:EAD, A_Hole_Puny_Pigs, if I were P_Harry, I would of had more bombs. :P

And if you were any smarter than a box of sedimentary rocks, you'd surrender, just like the Japs did on the battleship Missouri.

Harry had just the right amount of bombs, and used them to perfection.

Posted: **Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:48 am**

War Wagon, you should eat two.

Posted: **Wed Aug 10, 2005 2:08 am**

tough love wrote:To you, perhaps, but as far as my take goes, it means everything.

So in other words, you don't give a damn what anybody says, you're just going to continue to spew your idiocy for all the world to see.

Got it.

Posted: **Wed Aug 10, 2005 3:15 am**

BSmack wrote:
tough love wrote:To you, perhaps, but as far as my take goes, it means everything.
So in other words, you don't give a damn what anybody says, you're just going to continue to spew your idiocy for all the world to see.

Got it.

I nodded off B. Can I cheat off of you're notes?

tl = minor irritant (like asbestos or fire ants)

Got it. Thanks.

Posted: **Wed Aug 10, 2005 5:08 am**

Bushice tough love, with each post, you two wussies look quite the fools, its funny really, the more you post, the more you reveal your complete lack of any real understanding or common sense, I am curious? are you really this stupid, or just psychologically fucked up?

ONE MORE TIME,

12 years apart means nothing, he violated the cease fire agreements,
violated the resolutions, therefore, it was time for him to be physically removed,

tough love?
your stupidity is legendary in here, of course war is bad, no one wants war, but when you say that we are sick and we love war, you show yourself to be a fool and a clown, do you even understand what war is?
the very principles of war, are the exact same as basic law enforcement at the city and county levels, in every region of our country,
let me explain,

a bunch of criminal thugs, break into someones home, rape and torture the family, hold them hostage, S W A T teams converge, snipers set up shop, if they have a clear shot at one of these criminals, THEY TAKE IT, now, to the board idiot known as tough love, the police are evil, they have no right to use heavy force to capture these sickos, they should try and talk to them, bargain or appease them,
get this STRAIGHT tough love, YOU ARE ONE SICK FUCK, no one likes killing, but in the human condition, there is a little known common sense principle known as crime and punishment, law enforcement, when evil is lurking, wether it is at the town or city or state or country or world level, enforcement is needed, without law enforcement, anarchy would result, guys like you tough love, are an embarrassment to the human race, you have no common sense,
you dont even understand basic principles of enforcement,
in every city of this country, every single day, police hunt killers and rapists, they HUNT THEM, just like our military is hunting the same killers on a global level, these towel headed killers take joy in killing little children and women, and tough love complains that we are the evil ones? you sick sick fuck, we are evil for hunting and killing terrorist killers? towel headed killers of little children? and tough love says that we are evil for even going after them?
you are one sick fuck, and, you will have to answer for your sickness one day, but for now, fuck you, and your seed,

Posted: **Wed Aug 10, 2005 7:08 am**

Hey Brad troll,

Lets simplify.

How is Japan directly attacking the United States just like Saddam not directly attacking the United States?

Posted: **Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:01 am**

BSmack Wrote:
So in other words, you don't give a damn what anybody says, you're just going to continue to spew your idiocy for all the world to see.

Got it.

Yes, and No.

Yes to drowning head cases who spew out meaningless finite, no to P_Harry allowing satan to influence his decision.

Seek Spiritual Help Now

Marty, you fuuu, errr, your a scuuu, wtf, keep it up c s troll, you funny.

Brat Wrote:
a bunch of criminal thugs, break into someones home, rape and torture the family, hold them hostage, S W A T teams converge, snipers set up shop, if they have a clear shot at one of these criminals, THEY TAKE IT, now, to the board idiot known as tough love, the police are evil, they have no right to use heavy force to capture these sickos, they should try and talk to them, bargain or appease them,
get this STRAIGHT tough love, YOU ARE ONE SICK FUCK, no one likes killing, but in the human condition, there is a little known common sense principle known as crime and punishment, law enforcement, when evil is lurking, wether it is at the town or city or state or country or world level, enforcement is needed, without law enforcement, anarchy would result, guys like you tough love, are an embarrassment to the human race, you have no common sense,
you dont even understand basic principles of enforcement,
in every city of this country, every single day, police hunt killers and rapists, they HUNT THEM, just like our military is hunting the same killers on a global level, these towel headed killers take joy in killing little children and women, and tough love complains that we are the evil ones? you sick sick fuck, we are evil for hunting and killing terrorist killers? towel headed killers of little children? and tough love says that we are evil for even going after them?
you are one sick fuck, and, you will have to answer for your sickness one day, but for now, fuck you, and your seed

SNOOOOOOZE

EAD, Brat...Externalizing, transposing Pro_Mecca bombing faggots are never funny.

Going after The Terrorists = Good
Going after Iraq for Poli_Points = Bad

RACK Mr. Bushice

BtW, Brat, being told to "EAD' is not the same as being racked.

Posted: **Thu Aug 11, 2005 5:56 am**

tough love wrote,

going after IRAQ for Poli_points = BAD,

WOW, tough love shares his stupidity with the board, yet again,

did you say, going after Iraq? WRONG AGAIN, care to try again?
see, this is what a liberal liar does, he says that we went after Iraq,
FALSE!!!!!

care to learn about the TRUTH? here is the truth in the matter,

we went after a terrorist leader of Iraq, we went after the entire terrorist regime of Iraq, not Iraq itself, not the wonderful people of Iraq, not the decent folks who just want to taste what freedom is like,
LIBERAL LYING FAGS like "tough love" spew lies like "we went after Iraqi people" because "tough love" is a sick sick fuck,

STOP LYING with your shifty eyes, you are like a little weasel, caught in a trap, squirming like a sick fucker,

ONE MORE TIME, we went after an entire terrorist regime, and, physically removed them from power, NOW, with that deed done, we are hunting and killing towel headed killers of little children, MAKE NO MISTAKE HERE, the sick fucks who wear towels on their filthy heads, actually enjoy blowing up and killing women and children,

finally, no matter how many times I put forth FACTS, about us going after and removing a terrorist and his entire terrorist regime, "tough love" will continue to lie and squirm like a little weasel, a shifty eyed liberal sicko, just like his little friend, dare I say it? Al franken,
dammm, I am one smart cookie,

Posted: **Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:58 am**

Mister Bushice wrote:Hey Brad troll,

Lets simplify.

How is Japan directly attacking the United States just like Saddam not directly attacking the United States?

Maybe he needs a reminder...

Posted: **Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:13 am**

bradhusker wrote:tough love wrote,

going after IRAQ for Poli_points = BAD,

WOW, tough love shares his stupidity with the board, yet again,

did you say, going after Iraq? WRONG AGAIN, care to try again?
see, this is what a liberal liar does, he says that we went after Iraq,
FALSE!!!!!

care to learn about the TRUTH? here is the truth in the matter,

we went after a terrorist leader of Iraq, we went after the entire terrorist regime of Iraq, not Iraq itself, not the wonderful people of Iraq, not the decent folks who just want to taste what freedom is like,
LIBERAL LYING FAGS like "tough love" spew lies like "we went after Iraqi people" because "tough love" is a sick sick fuck,

STOP LYING with your shifty eyes, you are like a little weasel, caught in a trap, squirming like a sick fucker,

ONE MORE TIME, we went after an entire terrorist regime, and, physically removed them from power, NOW, with that deed done, we are hunting and killing towel headed killers of little children, MAKE NO MISTAKE HERE, the sick fucks who wear towels on their filthy heads, actually enjoy blowing up and killing women and children,

finally, no matter how many times I put forth FACTS, about us going after and removing a terrorist and his entire terrorist regime, "tough love" will continue to lie and squirm like a little weasel, a shifty eyed liberal sicko, just like his little friend, dare I say it? Al franken,
dammm, I am one smart cookie,

Posted: **Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:22 am**

the empire of japan bombed pearl harbour, the terrorist leader of Iraq and his terrorist regime, attacked and invaded Kuwait, which is our friend and one of our allies,
BOTH attacks are unprovoked, and CANNOT be tolerated in any civilization, Any civilized people cannot and WILL NOT tolerate it,
now, for the stupid amongst us, most notably mr. bushice,
attacking us directly on our soil, or attacking our friend on their soil is the same thing, we go after sick terrorists who attack our friends, and, when they do NOT comply with the cease fire, or the 17 resolutions, we terminate their regime, WOW, even a kindergarden class can understand such basic principles, it seems that bushice and tough love have the I Q's of fresh brown turds,

Posted: **Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:25 am**

Brat, when/if I want to know about the truth, I certainly would not look for it in a fool.

Clearly, the rest of astray's here have finally come to see the rightousness of my original take, so why can't you???

Okay, you being special makes it harder for you to grasp, i'm sorry for being so harsh, here is the pure and simple of it.

IF A PERSON NAMED HARRY HAD THE MOST POWERFUL WEAPON OF ALL TIME AT HIS DISPOSAL, ONE SO POWERFUL THAT THE PERSON NAMED HARRY BELIEVED WITH ALL OF HIS MIGHT THAT IT WOULD ONLY NEED TO BE USED JUST ONE TIME TO GET A ENEMY CALLED JAPAN TO SAY, 'UNCLE SAM', AND IF THAT PERSON NAMED HARRY WAS NOT A VERY BAD PERSON, HE WOULD OF PICKED A PLACE TO DROP THE BIG BAD BOMB WHERE THE FEWEST AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WOULD DIE INSTEAD OF MURDERING THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE JUST TO GET WHAT HE WANTED.

Hope that helped you understand that evil people do evil things, Brat.

Pretty soon it's back to special education school for you, hey big fella.
Enjoy your summer vacation, thumper.
Take care.

p.s...sorry about the mixup...lov you, Big Hugs.

Posted: **Thu Aug 11, 2005 3:48 pm**

bradhusker wrote: attacking us directly on our soil, or attacking our friend on their soil is the same thing,

Then why did we wait so long to get involved in WWII? Weren't the British our friends? The Germans attacked them starting in 1940, and we didn't go after the Germans until the following year when their U boats started attacking American Shipping, even though the Germans had already attacked our friend on their soil a year before.

According to your "theory", That is the same thing. :roll:

Posted: **Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:50 pm**

mv wrote:
Now why would he do something stupid like that?

Do you seriously believe the Japs would have been impressed by that demonstration?

I don't know cuz I wasn't there.
But as I was trying to explain to your special troll pal, Brat, THE BAD MAN NAMED HARRY DID BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD ONLY TAKE ONE DROP TO "IMPRESS THE JAPS" YET HE CHOOSE TO MURDER THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF MOSTLY JUST DECENT FOLK THE SAME AS OTHER DECENT FOLK WHO GET ALL CAUGHT UP IN WAR.

Seriously, your P_Harry was nothing more than just *another blood thirsty capitalistic pig, but don't let that stop you from celebrating the brutal act of a demented butcher.

* http://www.cafepress.com/dubyass

Posted: **Thu Aug 11, 2005 5:46 pm**

Rarely deal with this stupid forum, but I'll stop by to educate the tards...

The United States has had previous policies that say we don't attack countries that didn't attack us first.

The current administration broke away from that policy, and launched a pre-emptive strike.

Changing national policy to deal with an ever-changing world is....

Hold on now and grab your dictionaries.....

A LIBERAL policy.. Resistance to policy change would be a CONSERVATIVE view..

Glad I could help, and maybe someday get you people to actually use the correct terminology for what it is that you're trying to display your expertise in. It might actually help your argument if you knew the basic terms for what it is you're trying to say. When you start throwing around random catch-phrases, it frankly makes you look like an uneducated moron. The average car owner wouldn't let someone rebuild his engine if the alleged mechanic didn't know that the bumpy thing in the middle was called a "camshaft," now would they? Same deal.

Jeebus, if you insist on being part of the problem rather than the solution, and insist on trying to drive a wedge even further into our country, at least get your terminolgy-of-hatred right. Maybe engage in the proper use of the word "liberal," rather than warping "those damned 'liberals'" to mean "anyone that disagrees with me."

Posted: **Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:07 pm**

The United States has had previous policies that say we don't attack countries that didn't attack us first.

Idiot. Please cite the specific "policies" that you are referring to?

You're not classifying it correctly. You're referring to a foreign policy strategy that many administrations employed when considering how and when to deploy forces.

There are competing strategies that do have legitimate, valid, and reasonable foundations...whether you choose to accept that or not.

The current administration broke away from that policy, and launched a pre-emptive strike.

So what? As if that really matters. The war also had overwhelming congressional authority (including the 1998 resolution).

And since you raised the issue of Presidents breaking away from some perceived policy, how would you classify Clinton's war in the former Yugoslavia? Certainly not a case of responding to an attack or pre-empting a potential attack. Just curious to see whether you're arguing in good faith or simply being anti-Bush.

Changing national policy to deal with an ever-changing world is....

Hold on now and grab your dictionaries.....

A LIBERAL policy.. Resistance to policy change would be a CONSERVATIVE view..

Too bad that is not the political definition of each.

Your point is empty.

And it seems that you're saying that liberal means an advocate of change and conservative means advocate of status quo. And yet you're going to criticize anyone here for allegedly butchering the terms??

Idiot.

Posted: **Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:19 pm**

I think those policies started going south long before the current administration.

The current administration just decided to quit fucking around with Saddam, whereas the previous administration, bombed him and played cat and mouse games.

Posted: **Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:43 pm**

Dinsdale wrote: The United States has had previous policies that say we don't attack countries that didn't attack us first.

The current administration broke away from that policy, and launched a pre-emptive strike.

How can anyone forget the day when Yugoslavia attcked the U.S.? :roll:

Now that you've had your one post in here to re-establish your stupidity, you can put your head back up your ass.

Posted: **Thu Aug 11, 2005 8:52 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:The United States has had previous policies that say we don't attack countries that didn't attack us first.

Ah yes...I'm sure we all remember where we were the moment we heard about Korea and Vietnam attacking us...

:roll:

Posted: **Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:09 pm**

Liberals aren't stupid.

They're maliciious in intent and phoney to the core.
I'd recommend a firing squad.

Posted: **Fri Aug 12, 2005 6:19 pm**

Dins? Paging Dinsdale...hello? Is this working?

T1B

liberal=stupid

Re: ?

?

?

Re: ?

?

Re: ?