LOOSE THE DOGS OF WAR

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by bigtex

There you have it folks. To an IDIOTit does make sense!

You're the ignoramus that doesn't understand, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar Asshat, but then again, you 'gra-jay-ated' from Cougar High.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Cougar High. [/SIZE]

Eat em' Up, Coogs!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

you 'gra-jay-ated' from Cougar High.

I detect a hint of jealousy! Not to worry, I am used to it.

I get that all of the time.

[Yssup Rider]

there he goes again, talking about BT's rectus...

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

there he goes again, talking about BT's rectus...

Probably more "wishful thinking" on JB Idiot's twin brother, IB's, part!

[Yssup Rider]

Actually, he's probably more interested in your JUNK.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Actually, he's probably more interested in your JUNK.

Junk twins?

The Idiots Twins are multi-taskers!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Rogue_Gent

Good research. I remember this.

So now I guess we will stick our nose in another Middle-East quagmire, not having learned anything from 1984.

Recommend COL(R) Timothy Geraghty's Peacekeepers at War: The Marine Commander Tells His Story. It's a 2009 publication (not a 1984 publication as a certain dumb-fuck golem jackass believes). Geraghty tells the whole story.

Originally Posted by bigtex

Eat em' Up, Coogs!

Originally Posted by bigtex

I detect a hint of jealousy! Not to worry, I am used to it.

I get that all of the time.

Originally Posted by bigtex

Probably more "wishful thinking" on JB Idiot's twin brother, IB's, part!

Originally Posted by bigtex

Not only are they the Idiot twins but they are also the Junk twins.

The Idiots are multi-taskers!

Four unsolicited, ad hominem posts in a row from the Cougar High 'gra-gee-ate', BigKoTex: the BUTTer Barr Asshat! BigKoTex: the BUTTer Barr Asshat must have a burr up his ass. Oh! That's not a 'burr', that's his head!

[Guest040616]

Eat 'em Up, Coogs!

[Yssup Rider]

I think IBIdiot wishes he was a butt plug, BT. Yours.

[lostincypress]

I B Hankering " it was the Dimocrat Congress -- led by Tip O'Neill -- that forced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Beirut. " and I replied the Democratic Congress actually was a Democratic House and a Republican Senate. The Senate, being REPUBLICAN, would tend to indicate the CONGRESS was not a "Dimocrat" Congress....at least to my feeble mind.

As for the Colonel.....the Colonel says he warned against any action that would negate our role as a NEUTRAL force and it is his belief the shelling would lead to retaliation. "we will pay for this in blood" was a direct reference to the shelling. If in fact we KNEW the IRANIANS planned an attack, which some say we did, why would the Marines be given Rules of Engagement that forbid them from having a round in their weapon while standing sentry duty? Why, if we KNEW our presence in Beirut would provoke an attack would we place 300 military personnel in a building surrounded by nothing but barbed wire? As for the battleship issue......I NEVER POSTED anything indicating there was a BATTLESHIP involved in any shelling prior to the response.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by lostincypress

I B Hankering " it was the Dimocrat Congress -- led by Tip O'Neill -- that forced the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Beirut. " and I replied the Democratic Congress actually was a Democratic House and a Republican Senate. The Senate, being REPUBLICAN, would tend to indicate the CONGRESS was not a "Dimocrat" Congress....at least to my feeble mind. You completely failed to repudiate the newspaper articles cited at: http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1053908226&postcount=7

As for the Colonel.....the Colonel says he warned against any action that would negate our role as a NEUTRAL force and it is his belief the shelling would lead to retaliation. "we will pay for this in blood" was a direct reference to the shelling. If in fact we KNEW the IRANIANS planned an attack, which some say we did, why would the Marines be given Rules of Engagement that forbid them from having a round in their weapon while standing sentry duty? Read COL Geraghty's book. The first victims of an accidental discharge from a U.S. Marine's weapon were two Lebanese soldiers jogging on the road -- "friendlies". The last victim of an accidental discharge was a Marine, who accidentally shot himself and died -- another "friendly". Why, if we KNEW our presence in Beirut would provoke an attack would we place 300 military personnel in a building surrounded by nothing but barbed wire? Read COL Geraghty's book, such an attack was never imagined by Geraghty -- or any one else in the chain of command. COL Geraghty put his Marines in a hardened building to protect them from Druze and Syrian sniper and artillery attacks. Plus, the Palestinians and Lebanese had requested U.S. presence to deter violence. Now, Lost-in-space, explain how any U.S. retaliatory action in Lebanon against hostile Druze and Syrian units justified or excused a terrorist attack sponsored by the government of Iran. Please explain and connect the dots since you are so almighty 'prescient'. As for the battleship issue......I NEVER POSTED anything indicating there was a BATTLESHIP involved in any shelling prior to the response. Then your rebuttal post at #3 is inane.

.

[skirtchaser79411]

I am sorry this is going to happen again but it is my thought ifSTORMIN NORMAN had taken all of iraq in 1991 AND made a stand that we will not put up with there shit it would have been over.
Hell maybe sept 11 might not have hapended, he could he saved this country billions of cash

[IIFFOFRDB]

Ozombies, you will lose this debate... I'm confident of that...LOL

nice avatar skirtchaser...!

[Yssup Rider]

You seem to like pictures of girls' asses you'll never have, Simple Jack. here's a hint... They use them to SHIT!