Things that make you think a little........

D

Doerdie

New member
1. There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of
January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of
January.
That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn
country of Iraq.

2. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war,
state the following:
FDR...led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per
year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a
platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

3. In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has
liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing
a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own
people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take
the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing
records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick killing a
woman.
 
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
Click to expand...
Not exactly true. The US had supported the south and French before them since about 1946. The first combat troops hit the beach in 1965.
 
Great post!

Puts some things in perspective.....and god fodder for discussions with those who would not see.
 
Remember though, the davidians had two evil 50BMG riles as well as assault weapons living peacefully and minding their own buisness. All we have to deal with in Iraq are terrorists with RPG's, IED's, snipers, ambushes, landmines, moartars, and such things. We have it easy in Iraq. :p
 
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take
the Branch Davidian compound.
Click to expand...

Hell, it took less time than it took Janet Reno to take Elian Gonzalez
 
Some clarity points need to be made...

"Germany never attacked us: Japan did."

Wrong, actually. The United States had at least two destroyers, including the Reuben James, torpedoed by German U-boats in the months prior to the outbreak of the war. Those destroyers were engaged in the "neutrality patrol," a thinly veiled cover that really meant "US warships breaking neutrality by escorting British supply ships loaded with war-goods sold to the British by the Americans."

Germany also declared war on the United States. When someone declares war on you, you generally try to take them seriously, whether the declaration is one of words or an all-out attack.

"Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us."

No, but despite what John Foster Dulles said, or really didn't say, Korea was an ally (the United States had been instrumental in forming South Korea), and it was also seen as a vital buffer against possible Chinese/Russian designs on Japan. After the US debacle in China, no president, Democratic or Republican, could have left the situation go.

"John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962."

Also a tenuous assertion, really. The United States was actively supporting French activities in Indochina since the end of WW II. After the French collapse in 1954, President Eisenhower's administration took an active role in the formation of the state of South Vietnam, and committed American advisors to training South Vietnamese forces. Kennedy largely continued policies that were established under Eisenhower in Vietnam.
 
Germany: Invaded Poland, France and was bombing England (amongst others).

North Korea: Actively attacking S. Korea with Chinese support.

Vietnam a (supposed) free country being taken over by Chinese supported revolutionaries.

Iraq (the first time): Invaded Kuwait, and threatened to continue into Saudi.


Iraq (this time): Stayed home, watched television.



I doubt Mike or my posts will be included in the mass emailing, but we're not the only ones who know a little history and can compare apples and apples.
 
Just to be the devil's advocate for a minute.

1. There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of
January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of
January.
That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn
country of Iraq.
Click to expand...

Good point. Except that 35 dead is better than 74 dead, the latter 39 of which died needlessly - and that's just 1 month.

2. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war,
state the following:
FDR...led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per
year.
Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
Click to expand...

Poor analogies. FDR led us into WWII - for a good reason, clearly stated. The Korean and Vietnam conflicts, however (arguably) misguided were carried out with a stated reason (stopping the spread of communism), supportable by facts, and politically supported by the people FOR THE REASON GIVEN. Even if this were not the case, why would past mistakes justify continuing current mistakes? If anything we should learn from the lessons of the past; not use them as a justification for making the same mistakes again. And most importantly, in the present situation, NONE of the GIVEN/STATED reasons for starting this war were valid, and we knew or should have known this all along. If the real REASON is stopping fundamentalist Islam spreading, or controlling oil reserves, or installing a democracy,or revenge, then fine - but that/those reason(s) should be STATED and DEBATED as such on its own merits, BEFOREHAND, just as stopping communism's spread was the reason laid on the table and debated, and won the politics of the day on its own merits in that era (with the opposing political winds winning out the day in the end - in the late 60s/ early 70s, causing a withdrawal from Vietnam).

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a
platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Clintion was a putz. Osama attacked us on several occasions - which leads the the question of why in gawd's name did this admin. choose to take valuable military assets away from the hunt for Osama and into a needless war instead?

and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own
people.
Click to expand...

Who's the said terrorist you speak of? And don't say Saddam, because it's been shown quite clearly that there is no evidence whatsoever that he had any links at all to terrorists who opposed the interests of the United States of America.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take
the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
Click to expand...

Good point. Too bad the war itself was a bad idea from the get-go, and should have never happened. Thus it should have taken ZERO days.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing
records.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because I think that you quit looking once you declare that what you're looking for doesn't exist (which is what happened).

Bush does deserve credit for hurting Al Qauida (some; not nearly as much as he could have, had we not diverted valuable resources to Iraq), and for preventing another terrorist attack. Good for him. He also deserves the blame for saddling our children and grandchildren with humongous debt for said needless war (which impaired our ability to fully crush Al Quaida for a lot less money and lives lost).
 
FirstFreedom said:
the latter 39 of which died needlessly
Click to expand...
Only if you believe that American servicemen, freeing millions for democratic elections, and actively changing the "New World Order" in the Middle East is a waste of time; while protecting your drug selling turf in Detroit is somehow "worthy" of the sacrifice.
Rich
 
Good post.......... and by the way Detroit is a big city I find myself working in 5 days a week........ It's hardly fair to call it a Hell Hole or Drug Turf...... True both discripitons explain some of the less than nice areas but to generalize the whole she bang as you have......... Can I ask what your local metro area is..........bet it's less than perfect too..... ;)

again good post......... ;)
 
FF-
Kinda wedged yourself there, no?
Are you claiming that young Men and Women, giving their time, blood and lives in serving their country, are equivalent to the Fools that give their lives over a piece of Detroit Drug Turf?

Back up, Brother. You're about to loose this argument, BigTime.
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top