Re: Nice, but incorrect -- Liberty For All

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3] ]

Subject: Re: Nice, but incorrect

Author:
Mr. Hawk

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 22:02:29 10/13/02 Sun
In reply to: Chris Tucker 's message, "Nice, but incorrect" on 19:56:27 10/13/02 Sun

Huh, I never remember our American soldiers being poor or willing to die for a cause they have been misinformed about. :)

Anyways, anti-war advocates are just as misleading. To say there would be "thousands of dead Americans" is probably one of the largest spin in history. Saddam cannot defeat us in the air or on the open battleground, and to use WMD would result in a very nasty retaliation, and if there were to be any city fighting, America still would come out on top (heck, the Rangers and Delta were up against a force 10x greater then themselves, with no air or armor support, and still survived)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: Nice, but incorrect	Kevin Tuma	01:18:37 10/14/02 Mon

Re: Nice, but incorrect	Mr. Hawk	22:52:00 10/14/02 Mon