PDA

View Full Version : Palin got pranked!!! HAHA


Steel Duck
11-03-2008, 06:40 AM
I kept waiting for someone else to post this...but they didn't.....so I will :grin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMV0LKlVj8I

Sarah Palin caught out with call from spoof French president
Sarah Palin has been hoodwinked by a French Canadian radio host posing as French President Nicolas Sarkozy.



By Alex Spillius
Last Updated: 12:21AM GMT 03 Nov 2008

In a six-minute call with Marc-Antoine Audette, part of a comedy duo notorious for prank calls to celebrities and heads of state, Mrs Palin said that "maybe in eight years" she will be president.


Campaign aides offered no explanation of how the hoax call was accepted with a spokesman simply said: "C'est la vie.
"

Though Mrs Palin did not drop a real clanger, there were several clues that her caller might be bogus.


At one point the caller asked if Palin would take him on a hunting trip by helicopter, and then - in French - said they could also kill baby seals.


An apparently oblivious Mrs Palin said she thought that would be fun. “We could have a lot of fun together as we’re getting work done. We could kill two birds with one stone that way.


Playing off Mrs Palin's much-mocked comment in an early television interview that she had insights into foreign policy because "you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska," the caller tells her: "You know we have a lot in common also, because except from my house I can see Belgium.
"

She replies: "Well, see, we're right next door to different countries that we all need to be working with, yes.
"

The governor said she looked forward to going hunting with Mr Sarkozy, and to meeting "his beautiful wife".


When the Sarkozy impersonator, speaking with an over-the-top French accent, said his wife was "hot in bed", Mrs Palin still continued on with the call, if tentatively at times.


The Republican vice-presidential nominee was also subjected to another devastating portrayal by Tina Fey on America's favourite satirical show, this time alongside Senator John McCain, who poked fun at his choice of the Alaska governor as his running mate.


On Saturday Night Live, Mr McCain played an elaborate cameo, making fun of his campaign's comparative financial limitations and his reputation as a maverick, as well as his uneasy bond with Mrs Palin.


Proving that his sense of humour is still intact at the end of a long and arduous campaign, he acknowledged that he couldn't match Senator Barack Obama's purchasing power of advertising air time.


Mr McCain and Fey said instead they would "sell you stuff" on the QVC shopping channel to raise funds.


Mr McCain offered his "John McCain pork knives" – for cutting pork-barrel spending, a favourite theme of the Arizona senator.


Fey, as Palin, advertised a set of "Joe" action figures commemorating Joe the Plumber, Joe Six Pack and her Democratic rival, Joe Biden. The latter had a cord that when pulled made the doll talk for 45 minutes.


She also offered Palin's Ayers Freshener, which "you plug into the wall when something doesn't quite smell quite right", a play on the campaign's attempt to tarnish Mr Obama with his association to 60s radical Bill Ayers.


The pretend Palin then turned to her own camera and pulled out T-shirts saying "Palin 2012". In a whisper and with a trademark wink, she said: "I'm not going anywhere. And I'm certainly not going back to Alaska. I'm either running in four years or I'm going to be a white Oprah.
"

Later in the show Mr McCain participated in the SNL Update and read out five ways he could come from behind in the polls.


They included "The Reverse Maverick," where he does whatever anyone tells him, "The Double Maverick," where he goes "totally berserk and freaks everyone out, even the regular mavericks", and "The Sad Grandpa," where he says on TV, "C'mon, Obama's gonna have plenty of chances to be president. It's my turn.
"

Vis
11-03-2008, 07:22 AM
More evidence that her campaign bus is short.

Steel Duck
11-03-2008, 07:34 AM
More evidence that her campaign bus is short.:chuckle::laughing::applaudit:

Godfather
11-03-2008, 08:47 AM
More evidence that her campaign bus is short.

Those same deejays have pranked Tiger Woods, Bill Gates, and Nicholas Sarkozy. I doubt any of them are dumb.

steelcity_88
11-03-2008, 08:59 AM
Those same deejays have pranked Tiger Woods, Bill Gates, and Nicholas Sarkozy. I doubt any of them are dumb.

Did you listen to the call? She giggled like a middle school girl the entire time. She was CLUELESS, the guy even went as far as to say how hot his wife is in bed. I don't think anybody is implying she's dumb for simply being pranked, but more so for the content of it. My favorite is at the end when they tell her she's been pranked, then Palin and staff hang up on 'em.

Vis
11-03-2008, 09:10 AM
Those same deejays have pranked Tiger Woods, Bill Gates, and Nicholas Sarkozy. I doubt any of them are dumb.

I said campaign. How do they get through her staff?

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-03-2008, 09:14 AM
Those same deejays have pranked Tiger Woods, Bill Gates, and Nicholas Sarkozy. I doubt any of them are dumb.

AHHHH Godfather....you took the joy right out of their day. Next time let them pat each other on the back for...say...12 hours...then pull the loosely woven "fact" carpet out from under their poor feet.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-03-2008, 09:16 AM
I said campaign. How do they get through her staff?

..actually you said campaign bus.....but I quess if someone gives you smilies.....then its all good.

:chuckle::laughing::applaudit:

Vis
11-03-2008, 09:17 AM
Did you listen to the call? She giggled like a middle school girl the entire time. She was CLUELESS, the guy even went as far as to say how hot his wife is in bed. I don't think anybody is implying she's dumb for simply being pranked, but more so for the content of it. My favorite is at the end when they tell her she's been pranked, then Palin and staff hang up on 'em.

This is true. It's pathetic that the call got through but once it did, she was sad. Imagine if she really was talking to a leader of another country. Even France would think they could invade and win if she was in charge.

Vis
11-03-2008, 09:18 AM
..actually you said campaign bus.....but I quess if someone gives you smilies.....then its all good.

:chuckle::laughing::applaudit:

Be honest. The campaign is stupid. Now tell me you think she sounded smart in the conversation.

steelcity_88
11-03-2008, 09:41 AM
This is true. It's pathetic that the call got through but once it did, she was sad. Imagine if she really was talking to a leader of another country. Even France would think they could invade and win if she was in charge.

I believe I read somewhere it took five days to get through to her. That makes it even worse, shouldn't they be screening the calls? Especially something THAT important. I think France could invade if she were the leader. Only thing I would trust this whacko in charge of is a PTA meeting, and even then...

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-03-2008, 10:05 AM
Be honest. The campaign is stupid. Now tell me you think she sounded smart in the conversation.

What I think is that you spend all your time slamming on the Republican ticket...but when asked over..and over...and over...and over again... to tell us what achievements Obama has in his past that makes you want to vote for him.....your answer is usually..."McCain is a poody-baby".

As far as I can tell...you are voting for Obama because he is a Democrat...nothing else...an empty bag of shredded wheat ...an empty suit.... whose sole qualification is that he is NOT a Republican.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-03-2008, 10:06 AM
I believe I read somewhere it took five days to get through to her. That makes it even worse, shouldn't they be screening the calls? Especially something THAT important. I think France could invade if she were the leader. Only thing I would trust this whacko in charge of is a PTA meeting, and even then...

I can finish that sentence for you.

Only thing I would trust this whacko in charge of is a PTA meeting, and even then........She would be more qualified than Obama.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-03-2008, 10:30 AM
I believe I read somewhere it took five days to get through to her. That makes it even worse, shouldn't they be screening the calls? Especially something THAT important. I think France could invade if she were the leader. Only thing I would trust this whacko in charge of is a PTA meeting, and even then...

:link:

steelcity_88
11-03-2008, 10:33 AM
I can finish that sentence for you.

....She would be more qualified than Obama.

Please inform us how a governor is more qualified than a senator? Especially on the foreign policy matters. This is the same woman who sits down at an interview and talks about going to war with Russia. How safe is that? Who does that remind you of, spewing words of war left and right in an attempt to bully a country into submission? Unlike many people, I think foreign policy is one of McCain's weak spots and one of Obama's strong ones. Palin likes to talk about Obama's "naive" views, but how can Republicans justify her comments about Russia/Iran and McCain's "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" speech? Obama= U.S. senator for nearly 4 years. Palin= governor of Alaska for 2 years. Wonder who is more qualified there?

steelcity_88
11-03-2008, 10:35 AM
:link:

If you insist. First link I found using Google.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/prankster_palin

CantStop85
11-03-2008, 10:35 AM
Scary.

revefsreleets
11-03-2008, 10:50 AM
You guys clearly don't understand how this works (I work for a radio and tv station).

This took 5 days to set up because the "pranksters" know protocol. This wasn't random, they actually set up an elaborate system of dupes to get through to Palin, who was clearly expecting the call.

As for Palin, she was clearly just rolling along with this. What was she supposed to do, hang up? Call the guy out? She gave the guy the benefit of the doubt and was trying to do the best she could with it...

How anyone could derive that she's unfit to govern because the way she handled this is truly beyond me...

klick81
11-03-2008, 10:51 AM
More evidence that her campaign bus is short.

:sofunny::sofunny::sofunny::sofunny:

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-03-2008, 10:52 AM
If you insist. First link I found using Google.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/prankster_palin

thank you...that wasnt so hard...was it.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-03-2008, 11:00 AM
Unlike many people, I think foreign policy is one of McCain's weak spots and one of Obama's strong ones.

Please elaborate on this STRONG foreign policy if Obamas...being that you called it "strong"...I am sure you have thought this through...and can back that up with examples of his foreign policy experience.


Obama= U.S. senator for nearly 4 years. Palin= governor of Alaska for 2 years. Wonder who is more qualified

Actually Obama was Senator for 143 days before he started his presidential run....But hey...no other liberal wants to explain to us how Obama is qualified...so I am SOOOOO glad you have chosen to join our little community and seem to have the answer for us....so please....tell us what achievements Obama has in his resume that makes him fit to be President of the United States.

We already know that he is not George Bush/John MCCain/Sarah Palin...so please dont tell us about what you think of them....Thanks in advance!!!

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-03-2008, 11:06 AM
Please inform us how a governor is more qualified than a senator? Especially on the foreign policy matters.

Although I dont think you will answer my question... I will be happy to answer yours.


....A governor is part of the executive branch, just at the state level. A Governor...by definition... has "executive" experience. The powers and exercise of duty is virtually the same for a governor of a state as it is for President. This is why many presidential candidates come from the ranks of governors.

A Senator operates in the legislative branch. While that may have more experience in "politics".... the duties and powers of a governor closer approximate the duties and powers of a president, than the duties and powers of a Senator does.

But as I already said....143 days in the legislative branch...does not trump years of service in the executive branch.

Your turn!!!

klick81
11-03-2008, 11:07 AM
Funny how this conversation has brought out the same ol' drivel, when it's obvious that the VP nominee that has inspired so many is an airheaded fraud.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-03-2008, 11:08 AM
Funny how this conversation has brought out the same ol' drivel, when it's obvious that the VP nominee that has inspired so many is an airheaded fraud.

....and the dems frontrunner is a cardboard cutout with no experience.....(I guess "same ol' drivel" excludes name-calling)...good thing your above it.

HometownGal
11-03-2008, 11:18 AM
Unlike many people, I think foreign policy is one of McCain's weak spots and one of Obama's strong ones.

Hasn't it hit you yet that Biden was selected to be Obama's running mate because of HIS foreign policy experience? Please tell me exactly what foreign policy experience and/or qualifications Obama has. Curious minds want to know.

This is the same woman who sits down at an interview and talks about going to war with Russia. How safe is that?

No worse than Obama stating clearly on public TV during his first debate with McCain that he would lodge an attack against "Pock-is-tohn" if Bin Laden was found to be hiding there and the Pakistani government wouldn't turn him over.

Nothing is dumber (or more dangerous) than showing your hand. :doh:

HometownGal
11-03-2008, 11:27 AM
Funny how this conversation has brought out the same ol' drivel, when it's obvious that the VP nominee that has inspired so many is an airheaded fraud.

Her resume speaks for itself, unlike Obama's. She's done more for the people in her own state on a gubenatorial level in 2 years than Do Nuttin has done in almost 4 years as a U.S. Senator and 7 years as an Illinois state senator.

tony hipchest
11-03-2008, 11:32 AM
Nothing is dumber (or more dangerous) than showing your hand. :doh:except for selecting sarah and admitting you frequently seek her advice on foreign policy....:sofunny: :footinmou :sofunny:

nothing is dumber (or more dangerous) than chasing osama into pakistan and preventing our military from going to get him.

yeah, thats real smart. lets rely on the people who love him and hate america, to get him for us. :rolleyes:

fansince'76
11-03-2008, 11:35 AM
nothing is dumber (or more dangerous) than chasing osama into pakistan and preventing our military from going to get him.

yeah, thats real smart. lets rely on the people who love him and hate america, to get him for us. :rolleyes:

Not half as dumb as having him served up on a silver platter and turning the offer down....twice.

lamberts-lost-tooth
11-03-2008, 11:38 AM
Not half as dumb as having him served up on a silver platter and turning the offer down....twice.

Yep....chasing him down like a rat to the point that he runs to a hole in Pakistan is better than letting him go altogether on two separate occasions....:thumbsup:

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 06:10 PM
Not half as dumb as having him served up on a silver platter and turning the offer down....twice.i think steel duck already addressed another aspect of this in another thread to xfl2001fan, but heres more-

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/attack/main560293.shtml

The Bush administration was advised in early 2001 by a holdover from the Clinton White House to use unmanned aircraft to target Osama bin Laden, but worries over missile technology and territorial wrangling between the CIA and Pentagon delayed the deployment until after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The Clinton administration ordered the arming of the unmanned aircraft after the drones spotted someone resembling bin Laden in Afghanistan three times in the aftermath of the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

Around Christmas 2000, the Clinton White House decided to forward the plan to kill bin Laden to the incoming Bush team rather than mount an attack during President Clinton's last days in office.

However, Mr. Bush's advisers did not agree on the outlines of a plan for going after the al Qaeda leader until just one week before the Sept. 11, 2002 terrorist attacks on Washington and New York, and the drones did not return to the skies until after the attack.

The delay in targeting bin Laden is revealed in the classified sections of a Congressional report on the terrorist attacks, obtained by the Associated Press. The dispute is expected to be examined by an independent commission appointed by the president and Congress, officials said.

Officials speaking on condition of anonymity said that within days of Mr. Bush taking office in January 2001, his top terrorism expert on the National Security Council, Richard Clarke, urged National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to resume the drone flights to track down bin Laden, citing the successes of late 2000.

The drones were one component of a broader plan that Clarke, a career government employee, had devised in the final days of the Clinton administration to go after al Qaeda after the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole.

Hellfire missiles were attached to unarmed Predators after drones flown by the CIA from Uzbekistan to Afghanistan spotted a man that several U.S. intelligence analysts believed was bin Laden, or his trademark Japanese truck, as many as three times in September and October 2000, the officials said.

"Different people came to different conclusions. You couldn't see facial characteristics. But there were several who concluded it was bin Laden," one senior U.S. official said, explaining those assessments were based on size, clothing, a beard and human intelligence.

During the fall 2000 sightings, the United States was unable to launch a strike with submarine-based cruise missiles in time to kill bin Laden, officials said.

With powerful winter winds over the mountains affecting the drones' flights, the Predators were taken out of action in Afghanistan after October 2000 and retrofitted with weapons.

One was repaired after it crashed on landing, sparking debate whether CIA or the Pentagon would pay the damage. Officials said they planned to put the drones back into the air as early as March 2001 after the winds subsided.

Targeting bin Laden was legally permitted under secret orders and presidential findings that Mr. Clinton had signed.

The Predators, however, were not put back in the air before Sept. 11.

Officials said the delay was due in part to arming the Predator with enough lethal force and resolving the debate over which agency was legally and practically best equipped to carry out an attack.

Propeller-driven Predators first flew for the military in July 1995 over Bosnia, but early versions couldn't transmit high-quality live video. The Air Force gradually improved camera resolution and first successfully fired a Hellfire missile from a Predator on Feb. 16, 2001.

By summer 2001, the Predator was armed for another test in the desert that destroyed a mock-up of a home bin Laden was suspected of using in Afghanistan, Clarke told executives in a recent speech at a technology conference.

Some U.S. officials, however, worried that an anti-tank missile with just a 27-pound warhead might not be powerful enough to kill everyone inside a building, and the military worked to modify the warhead to be more lethal, officials said.

Cruise missile warheads, by comparison, weigh 1,000 pounds, and traditional bombs typically range from 500 to 2,000 pounds.

Another official said the CIA was opposed in the interim to running too many unarmed Predator flights for fear that would lead Afghan and al Qaeda leaders to be on the lookout for the drones and to flee sites before bombs or missiles could be launched.


Officials at the Sept. 4 meeting put off recommending the armed drone as a solution. Instead, they finalized a series of other measures to rout al Qaeda from its base in Afghanistan, including rearming the rebel Northern Alliance.
Those recommendations were being forwarded from Rice to Mr. Bush when the Sept. 11 hijackers struck, officials said.

Predator drones have featured in several key missions since Sept. 11, 2001. In the war in Afghanistan, they killed al Qaeda military chief Mohammed Atef. Last fall, a Predator was used to assassinate an al Qaeda operative in Yemen.

fansince'76
11-11-2008, 06:15 PM
Officials speaking on condition of anonymity said that within days of Mr. Bush taking office in January 2001, his top terrorism expert on the National Security Council, Richard Clarke, urged National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to resume the drone flights to track down bin Laden, citing the successes of late 2000....

....The Clinton administration ordered the arming of the unmanned aircraft after the drones spotted someone resembling bin Laden in Afghanistan three times in the aftermath of the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

Around Christmas 2000, the Clinton White House decided to forward the plan to kill bin Laden to the incoming Bush team rather than mount an attack during President Clinton's last days in office.

Question is, why? Based on the "successes of late 2000?" Why weren't those successes acted upon at the time, then? I've said for years that Bush hasn't done nearly enough to take Bin Laden out, but you can't push Clinton's dereliction of duty in doing the same thing off on Bush as well, sorry. They're BOTH at fault and they're BOTH to blame for the fact that he's still walking upright and taking nourishment.

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 06:28 PM
im just commenting on the insinuation that clinton turned a blind eye, on the bin laden situation.

the article explains why. this was brand new technology. as soon as it was proven to be successful in locating him, work immediately went in place to arm the predators with hellfire missles. plus, striking a terrorist nation or starting a war isnt exactly the thing to do 2 weeks before leaving office. im sure clinton felt he was leaving the information in good hands.

again, brand new technology.... but ready to be tested, and who better to test it out on? (it later proved to be EXTREMELY effective.)

everybody loves to blame presidents, or reps or dems, but forget that the pentagon, and cia arent elected every 4 years.

revefsreleets
11-11-2008, 06:42 PM
Semantics. All this arguing misses the real point: Nothing trumps boots on the ground, and foxes in the henhouse. We had so much technology we were paralyzed by it, while they used box cutters to destroy thousands of lives, cost us billions (maybe trillions) and change the very fabric of US society forever.

We dropped the ball a long time before Clinton or Bush.

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 06:47 PM
well yeah, did we not build up iraq and afghanistan to serve our purposes back then?

revefsreleets
11-11-2008, 06:52 PM
We could have built huge and intricate HUMINT networks when we were funding the other side, and relied on them later, but we had already tossed all our eggs in the technology basket.

tony hipchest
11-11-2008, 09:09 PM
scapegoating presidents is really easy, but in this instance (as a CIA insider) i think prez GW the 1st really fell short., not only as prez but also as reagans right hand man.

its like we became so technologically sound, we felt safe completely ignoring the "human touch". of course hindsight is always 20/20 but still...

i think the eye was taken off the ball at that point in our history.

Preacher
11-12-2008, 03:35 AM
everybody loves to blame presidents, or reps or dems, but forget that the pentagon, and cia arent elected every 4 years.

Semantics. All this arguing misses the real point: Nothing trumps boots on the ground, and foxes in the henhouse. We had so much technology we were paralyzed by it, while they used box cutters to destroy thousands of lives, cost us billions (maybe trillions) and change the very fabric of US society forever.

We dropped the ball a long time before Clinton or Bush.

We could have built huge and intricate HUMINT networks when we were funding the other side, and relied on them later, but we had already tossed all our eggs in the technology basket.

These posts are some of the best I have seen on any of these subjects.

The fact of the matter is, we have been hurting in the CIA since the Church hearings hamstrung the Humint side of the hosue. Did the CIA have to be reigned in? Probably, but some would say it was castrated. The feeling going forward, was that you could trust Elint to not go off the reservation. Sadly, I think the church hearings were a good idea taken WAY too far, and we are now dealing with the results.

It was easy to read troop movements and military readiness of the USSR with satelites. But when the cold war was over, those great Elint mechanisms became a heck of a lot less handy.

Yes, every president since then has added to the problem.

Reagan was so focused on East/West conflict that he failed to see terrorism through any other vision (Bush followed that).

Clinton's whitehouse created the "wall" between the FBI and CIA which hurt intelligence gathering of terrorists in America.

Bush: His mistakes dealing with the CIA won't be really known for another few years, but I think the reorganization of the intelligence structure will rate up there pretty high.

revefsreleets
11-12-2008, 08:52 AM
The CIA lost it's way in the mid-70's, and never got back on track.

The painful truth is, the CIA has always been a second rate intelligence service, nowhere near as effective as the KGB, Mossad, MI6 et al...

Preacher
11-12-2008, 03:02 PM
The CIA lost it's way in the mid-70's, and never got back on track.

The painful truth is, the CIA has always been a second rate intelligence service, nowhere near as effective as the KGB, Mossad, MI6 et al...

I'd agree with you from the 70's on. However before that, they pulled off quite a few operations and stunts, including new govts. in places like Greece. While I don't necessarily agree with what was done, I gotta admit, few if any other agencies were able to do that!

revefsreleets
11-12-2008, 06:11 PM
Most of the successes were OSS guys still running things like the OSS. For every one success, the CIA has about 10 failures behind it.

"Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner should be required reading for anyone interested on the subject.

Preacher
11-12-2008, 06:26 PM
Most of the successes were OSS guys still running things like the OSS. For every one success, the CIA has about 10 failures behind it.

"Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner should be required reading for anyone interested on the subject.

What? You mean Tom Clancy isn't real? :hunch:

:wink02:

You know what is real interesting? Look at the Space program. It seems that we started having troubles with our launch vehicles right about the time that those WWII scientists, especially the German ones, would have been retiring (early to mid 80's).

I would push the CIA's ability to be successful further than you would, but again, by the time the people in the field that were in the OSS were done, look what happened to the CIA.

Now, most of the WWII generation is out of politics. Look what is happening to our political rhetoric and system.

Are those just a series of coincidences, or is there a link?

revefsreleets
11-12-2008, 06:31 PM
Actually, I have a slightly different take. I think we lost our ruthlessness. WWII was "Total War", and we have become a nation of measured responses who run their war machine based on popularity polls.

Excuse me. I meant to say "National Defense" machine.

Preacher
11-12-2008, 06:49 PM
Actually, I have a slightly different take. I think we lost our ruthlessness. WWII was "Total War", and we have become a nation of measured responses who run their war machine based on popularity polls.

Excuse me. I meant to say "National Defense" machine.

You won't get ANY argument from me there.

revefsreleets
11-12-2008, 07:07 PM
Think Eisenhower was thinking "Collateral Damage" in the Normandy Invasion?

Patton...Jesus, Patton would puke if he could see what we've become.

Preacher
11-13-2008, 03:10 PM
Think Eisenhower was thinking "Collateral Damage" in the Normandy Invasion?

Patton...Jesus, Patton would puke if he could see what we've become.

:rofl:

Had we followed Patton, there wouldn't have been a cold war... though the Korean war would have gotten quite interesting opening up a front in China!!

EDIT: Oops.. Patton died from a neck injury in Europe. It was McArthur that wanted to go into China.. Thanks FS for reminding me!

revefsreleets
11-14-2008, 10:41 AM
Certain segments argue that Mac would have had is lunch ate had we gone into China. I think had we waited two weeks and fully re-supplied and provisioned, called in the reinforcements, we'd have been fine.

Preacher
11-14-2008, 03:37 PM
Certain segments argue that Mac would have had is lunch ate had we gone into China. I think had we waited two weeks and fully re-supplied and provisioned, called in the reinforcements, we'd have been fine.

Yeah, I wonder. That close to the revolution, how many nationalists were still on the mainland that slipped into Mao's new kingdom? I also wonder what Chung Kai Sheck (sp) would have done?

Man it would have been ugly.