4610
Comments (880)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
10
Sodium_miner 10 points ago +10 / -0

They weren’t trying to win. I’m sure many times the rules of engagement got our guys killed. They were just making it perpetual. Obomber was pulling back probably with plans of another mid-East country. Winning doesn’t sale tanks and planes and curing illnesses doesn’t sale prescription drugs.

14
deleted 14 points ago +14 / -0
6
glow-operator-2-0 6 points ago +6 / -0

Wolverines mothrfucker.

Wolverines

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
glow-operator-2-0 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lefties think that too!

5
Sodium_miner 5 points ago +5 / -0

I’m not over looking this at all I just think I wasn’t being clear. I’ve been collecting means of self preservation for many years. The people I know and associate with wouldn’t put up with the Portland deal in our towns. I get the point of the thread. I was simply pointing out that no one who started a war in the Middle East had plans of winning it. Our guys on the ground might have been but the people who put them there weren’t. I was just making a point that the people who decided to go to war also owned stock in companies that directly profited from it. To your point we are on the same team. I believe in freedom and the constitution and believe that there are enough patriots to hold back this from happening. I agree with everything you said BTW

1
DeportAntifa 1 point ago +1 / -0

Great post. Now I have an erection.

-1
Italians_Invented_2A -1 points ago +1 / -2

The homefront advantage, and having nowhere else to go, nothing else to lose, has ALWAYS been a determining factor in warfare, as long as history has been recorded.

That's ridiculous.

Here's some recorded history for you.