It's the real thing baby, a metaphor for capitalism.

Truck in Iraq:
http://www.strangemilitary.com/image...ent/119312.jpg
http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/119312.html

We were only there for Vietnam's oil anyway.

Vietnam was going to switch over to Euros, they had it coming.

I think Cheney was on the board at Coke.

cause the President was stoopid and a coke head?

Dang, you finally get it!

.......and don't forget about all the Happy Meals we could sell.

http://www.entekhabi.org/picture/lara.jpg

Video:
http://www.entekhabi.org/video/happy-meal.mov

If it's a battle of cultures, we will win because we have addictive high fructose corn syurp.

Does Cheney hold McDonalds options? $20 says he does, man this just gets more and more seedy by the minute.

HBR/ Halliburton is where the food comes from, no contest contract. I think they do get McDonalds though them. Most likely $200 Big Mac's..............and lots of $50 Cokes.

Not sure if Coke was the Kenedy drug of choice...but it probably does not really matter

You mean Bush, or are you having a FLASH BACK ?

Disgusting man,that just turns my stomach. Power to the people!

Hate to break it to you, but we were making parallels between the two wars.

so when are you going to fight the fight?

That is obviously just a cop-out and a sad argument...Just an attempt to end a debate you cannot win otherwise. Having an opinion that laws should be enforced or fires put out do not require that one become a policeman or fireman either.

Similarly, SUPPORT OUR POLICEMEN AND FIREMEN! Withdraw funding for their patrols and fire trucks. Leaving the station is what gets them killed.

well , no it's not, it's easy to be "we gotta fight this war and those who say otherwise aren't thinking to defend our great nation"

but that's all very easy if it's somebody elses legs getting blown off....

You're smart enough to see how cheap that argument is. The underlying statement is "unless you're on the fronlines taking fire you can never vocally support any military action".

Which is an asnine statement. So why be so cheap about it? Why not make a real argument?

you're confused

the mission of those in the field is usually short and task based
eg, go from point A to point B patrol for baddies

or, defend point X

or , do this, do that...

the mission, the one that you say requires time, that's the mission of the Generals and War planners, far from the front

them's the one that need time, time that's payed for in blood by grunts AT the front.

i never said that, didn't say , any military action

but for this Iraq thing, that wasn't even valid to begin with, for a war that was A a side track distraction from "get OSAMA" B was poorly thought out... as in , what to do AFTER the invasion C had caused more deaths, or at least equalled what happened under Sadam and D caused more Americans to die then 9-11 (wich is still unrelated to IRaq)

so 4 arguments, that make my argument about "not defending it's validity unless you are going there to get your own legs blow off", a good one

No, but the exact same argument could be used in response to any military action yes? That's what makes it cheap.

well, i don't make it for just about any military action
i use it for the US-in-Iraq thing...which i'm sure you will agree, is indeed a collosal eff-up

i'm saying sometimes it's better to cut your losses and reinvest in some better stocks...

off course, some will boldly ride it out till the stocks are worth les then the paper they printed them on...

would you respect your broker if he advises you to hold on to them??? and then find out he bought something else???

eat your own dog food they say... well this is one big case of dogfood, and there's nothing tasty about it...it's probably closer to dog doo doo, but some still would like to sell it in can's...

An anology I think we can all relate to.

I don't think the comment says any of that, it's just a cheap shot with no real weight behind it. It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

What do you expect from someone who the only reason isn't speaking German or Russian is because of brave American soldiers, like those currently in Iraq. A lot of talk from the guy whose home is best known for its whores & drugs and hasn't talked to any American troops who have been there.

Funny, who has your country ever defended???? And who defended & protects your country??

A typical "can't win the argument with anything recent so let's bring in the World Wars"

B i'm not dissing your troops, i'm arguing for their health and safety, Iraq is nothing like WW1 or WW2, Iraq was never a threat to the US let alone to the world like Nazi Germany or Japan was.

C i'm not from a country best known for whores & drugs

D i have talked to folks who were there

E which country has my country ever defended? i'll tell you:

France in WW1
we held the line long enough for the Schliefen plan to fail in WW1
look it up

UK in WW2
we held up the Blitzkrieg invasion long enough for the evacuation at Dunkirk, didn't manage to stop it from overwhelming France, but my country did what it could, it was probably the best prepared of the lot even though it was terribly outnumbered and out witted. if the forces at Dunkirk would have been caught, the Germans could have had a different Battle of Britain

Belgians are defending Kabul airport as we speak, and are defending in the Balkans, and are cleaning up cluster bombs and mines in Lebanon

these days, we prefer to cleanup bombs then dropping them
2 world wars in our backyard is plenty to become war weary and realize the futility of it all

When discussing WWII with most Americans, there are a few "facts" you must remember:

1. WWII didn't really start until Dec 7, 1941. The invasions of Poland, France, the Low Countries, Yugoslavia, Greece, the battle of Britain, etc don't count cause we weren't involved.
2. The Normandy Invasion was the turning point of the war and the Germans were winning until then.
3. Most Americans have never heard of Kursk, Stalingrad, etc. and have no idea the Russians casualty figure in WWII is thought to be around 20 million (as opposed to our 500K+). As Churchill stated, it was the Red Army that tore the guts out of the wehrmacht.
4. Read that a poll of recent US high school graduates revealed that 40% of the graduates thought the US and Germany were allies in WWII fighting the Russians.

If Iraq wasn't a threat to the US, how was Nazi Germany and Japan a threat to the US?

Nazi Germany made a formal declaration of war upon the US after their ally, Japan, attacked Pearl Harbor. Further, Nazi hegemony over Europe would force the US to depend greatly upon the Soviet Union for security. Japan was a powerful Imperial hegemonic state expanding militarily across the whole Pacific rim, threatening our allies (Australia, Britain, the Dutch, China) as well as our own direct interests around that ocean. Is this not clear to everyone?

required reading/viewing for some.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17351284/

The Germans and/or the Japanese were going to bring over thousands of tanks and millions of soldiers and take over the USA?

yes.
more: ... if they had to, but the Japanese expected to consolidate their position in the Orient first, then turn upon the US. they pursued chem-bio warfare in preparation of the destruction of our population, efficiently. the Nazis wished to finish off the Soviets & Brits first, hoping he might bring the US under the Axis by threat of destroying NYC and other cities with an ICBM (the A7 / A9), armed w/ a nuclear warhead.

uhhhhh

Doubtful. The US was involved in that war, like this war, to protect our economic and strategic interests, and the interests of our allies.

don't confuse the irrationality of the Axis leaders intent with the liklihood that they could be realistically achieved. by the way, the capacity for self-delusion among some world leaders still obtains today.

since I hadn't revisted this issue in years, I did a quick and dirty survey. the Nazi missiles were the A9 and A10 - sorry for the error. here is a link to a brief and incomplete treatment of Axis plans upon the US; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_plans_for_invasion_of_the_United_States_durin g_WWII
thanks for triggering memories of past studies...

Those plans weren't for full-scale invasions. Just attacks to the mainland.

as I said, it is a brief overview. the Japanese research into chem-bio, weaponized and successfully employed in Manchuria, explicitly tested on US POWs (caucasian subjects), display the ultimate intent of their efforts. there is plenty of detailed evidence, but somehow I don't think it will register with you. cheers!

The Japanese were developing chemical weapons and the Nazis were a few years away from a nuclear weapon. Just like Saddam was in 1991. Woulda coulda shoulda. Be consistent. Better safe than sorry in 1942, better safe than sorry in 2003. You can't have it both ways.

"better safe than sorry" is a great line for the kids, but it is not a philosophy upon which to base our national security policy (well maybe, if a child-like simplicity is your standard). I lean more towards "let's be rational, show fidelity to our highest values, and be creative". by the way, one might have hoped that after "everything changed" on 9/11, our leaders would have appreciated the special nature of war with a violent NGO employing asymmetric tactics. instead, we invaded an already neutralized nation-state under false pretense. things have gone downhill ever since, unless you went long on defense contractors.