FDR cancels Invasion of Europe due to casualties suffered in dry run Operation Tiger

So then, is the implication of this AP article quoted below, that can we cancel the war on terror since we have lost more troops than died on 9/11? Oh wait Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Whatever it was that we gained by not driving home the connections of Saddam to Terror, saving intelligence resources and the like we have lost in the support of the war vanishing. Those in the opinion centers (universities, newspapers, opposition political parties, TV and bureaucracies) wishing to surrender to our would be Islamic Overlords have used thelackluster defense of those connections by the Bush administration as a battering ram against our war of survival.

The war in Iraq, more properly the battle of Iraq since no one called the WW2 North Africa Campaign a war, was central to the war against the terror masters. Saddam and Al Qaeda were intimately linked and were using each other to achieve their shared goal, our destruction. Naturally they are enemies and just as we did when WW2 ended they would most likely go after their allies throats. Just as happened between the Soviets and the West.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – At least 36 Iraqis died Tuesday in bombings, officials said, including a coordinated strike that killed 25 in western Baghdad. Separately, the deaths of six U.S. soldiers pushed the American toll beyond the number of victims in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Source: At least 36 Iraqis killed in bombings – Yahoo! News

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

Stumble It!

5 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

FDR should not have attacked Europe he should have waited for Europe to be conquored and wait for Europe to attack America and defeated The Axis powers for sure. But no he had, to enter the war and lose so many troops. So he SHOULD NOT HAVE INVADED EUROPE!!!!..

1. Steve on January 12th, 2007 at 01:34
FDR Should not have invaded Europe through THe Baltic Sea, He should have invaded Through Africa and would not have lost so many soldires.

2. Steve on January 10th, 2007 at 15:24
TO many americans die in this war we should pull out of Africa. To try to keep Iran out of helping iraq!

3. Steve on January 10th, 2007 at 15:06
Oops. That’d be “Edward” Ellsberg, not Daniel. HEHEHE!

Too many names right on the top of my head.

As in Rear Admiral Ellsberg, the Sub guy. Forget I mentioned the other one, please!

4. jefferson101 on December 29th, 2006 at 21:37
No! You can’t mention Operation Tiger. It was a huge secret, and is probably still under wraps. Remember the huge expose that (IIRC) ABC did in the late ’70s or early ’80s on the Salpton Sands catastrophe?

Wow. I do.

But I was falling out, because I remember reading some history books that referenced it way before that. Specifically Daniel Ellisberg’s “The Far Shore”, which was published in ’61. He had several pages on it. (I’ve read it elsewhere, but I own that book, and can look it up any time I want to.)

But it was another Government “cover-up”, and you can’t mention it, or you will be descended on by the .Gov, or assimilated by the Borg, or some such.

How dare you equate E-Boats and LST’s to current history? Only the left can use historical equivancy, and you know it! Vietnam, Halliburton, and War for Oil. They have our number.

\sarcasm off\

Dadgumit, Pierre. You read history…..Grin.

Those of us who don’t are doomed to repeat it, though, so it’s best to be informed.

5. jefferson101 on December 29th, 2006 at 21:34