Have Pelosi and Murtha found anyone to surrender to yet?
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-28 19:48
I love how most conservatives seem to be unaware of the fact that Murtha is a fucking ex-marine.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 0:07
B. Arnold was a decorated soldier before he decided to surrender. I don't think he was a dem.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 1:29
ARTICLE II:
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist
He might remember this. Possibly.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 17:08
>>4
Because, of course, that would be in the best interest of a nation that really doesn't give a fuck about you. If the possibility to surrender exists, and if I weighed the possibility of harsh POW treatment to getting killed, surrender can be a much more favorable option, but weighing the lives of those under your command makes the decision much more difficult, as they may not see it as you do.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-29 23:32
>>5 "that would be in the best interest of a nation that really doesn't give a fuck about you."
Then every good dem should remember JFK"S "ask not" speach.
You seem to have forgotten.
By the way, surrendering to an enemy who hack off peoples heads with a sword is not a very good bet.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-30 9:30
>>5
They're marines. They would either retreat or fight to the death.
Dems are just pissed off because we now are forced to stay and fight new terrorists that we fucking created and/or drew to Iraq. However, just because our president made a bumfuck retarded decision doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to salvage what we can.
>>9
You actually equate the two? Hell, your not even smart enough to be a democrat.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-31 0:04
Sorry, I don't believe in dying for the ambitions of evil men, when I truly believe this country is being threatened i.e. (Defensive, not "Preemptive" war), I will fight for it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-31 6:26
Then surrender. Keep the fuck out of the way of people who don't put their political ambitions over the good of the country.
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-31 9:06
There was no WMD
Name:
Anonymous2007-01-31 10:18
>>14
Some of them has aids in their faggot assholes. This counts as a biological weapon. They had to be killed.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-01 7:23
Perhaps Jane Fonda will have her picture taken with an IED or hacking off a head or something.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-01 15:27
They're baaack. And they have many many stories of failure and despair to share with anyone who will listen. Have you ever noticed that not one of them has done anything in the last six years but criticize everything that was being done?
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 9:28
NIGGER FREEMASONS!
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-02 15:13
thank you. feel free to comment again when the attack passes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-03 4:19
>>13
The good of the country? The good of Halliburton, maybe. Halliburton and a few other companies who are getting rich off this war.
Look, I can understand wanting to test your strength/skills/balls against an enemy on the battlefield. Just remember that, win or lose, all you're doing in the long run is swelling the pockets of a few wealthy investors and corrupt politicians who could really give a ripe fuck about you.
How many senators/reps, red or blue, have children serving in hot spots in Iraq or Afghanistan? How many Halliburton execs' children dropped out of Ivy League schools to go fight alongside you?
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-03 5:00
They are niggers AND Freemasons!
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-03 22:34
>>20
The people who serve aren't there for Haliburton. They are there for you. Are you worthy of their sacrifice?
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-04 1:34
>>22
Halliburton declared war on Iraq so the army would buy more ration packs, therefore we must open our border with mexico, raise taxes to 50% and nationalise every industry with a net worth of over 500000 $s.
Name:
Anonymous2007-02-04 5:59
wow, the two posts above me are really really stupid.