duanekeys. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Thursday, August 05, 2004

A friend sent this to me. I can't really vouch for any of these facts (perhaps I'll look them up later, or you all can comment on their truthfulness) but it presents an interesting case anyway:

"There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the 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. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, consider 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. Vietnam never attacked us. 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. 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 chemica l weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find her 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, drowning Mary Jo. It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!! Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts. "


3 Comments:

Blogger meghann said...

thanks for that info, things look a lot different on paper when the numbers are side by side.

9:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

from http://www.quinnell.us/politics/debate/debate19.html


By this author's own logic, FDR didn't lead us into WWII, Japan did. And, of course, Germany didn't attack us before Pearl Harbor, but Japan and Germany were allies, and you can't declare war against one member of a coalition and not fight the others as well. Besides, there are more reasons to go to war than just getting attacked -- mass genocide happens to be one of them. Hitler certainly was doing this, and he had attacked a number of our allies, which is another reason to go to war. Only a heartless moron would say that WWII wasn't a necessary war, so comparing it to Iraq is ridiculous.

U.S. Korean War involvement began under Truman in response to the invasion of South Korea by North Korea and was a proxy war fought between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It was also fought with U.N. approval. It is also not comparable to the Iraq war, and is, instead, similar to the Gulf War. (http://history.searchbeat.com/koreanwar.htm). The Vietnam Conflict existed long before Kennedy was even old enough to run for president. The first American troops in Vietnam would arrive in 1950 under Truman, not Kennedy. The Domino Theory, which justified increased American involvement in the war was formulated by Eisenhower. Vietnam was a quagmire long before we got there, as it was a problem for the French, who lost more than 90,000 troops there before asking us to take over. LBJ was the American who most screwed up the situation, but Nixon made things worse before he pulled us out. (http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html). Neither of these wars is comparable to the Iraq war as they both took place during the height of the Cold War and were thought to be necessary in order to prevent a Soviet takeover of the entire Asian continent. No Korea and Vietnam didn't attack us, but it was thought that unchecked Soviet expansion would give them an empire much like the one Hitler established leading up to WWII.

Clinton's actions in Bosnia were done for the purpose of stopping a genocide that was happening at the time, unlike the Iraqi actions that were similar to genocide, which happend in the 1980s with American assistance, not in the 2000s. Certainly Bosnia didn't attack us, but they were comitting mass murder of civilians. And it was approved of by NATO and handled properly. How many coalition forces died in Bosnia? Or Kosovo for that matter? (Bosnia and Kosovo were related actions, of course). The idea that Clinton did nothing about Bin Laden is laughable. First of all, Bin Laden rose to prominence because of support by Ronald Reagan's CIA (another part of the Cold War). Second, Clinton attacked Bin Laden's camps in 1998, but no one in the world thought Bin Laden was a serious threat until the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, a mere two months before Bush became president. Clinton administration officials prepared a plan to get Bin Laden and then Bush took office. They tried to give the plans to the new administration and warn them of how dangerous Bin Laden was, but rather than doing anything, Bush decided to start from scratch and re-study everything that the Clinton administration had done. They finished their report in September 2001, just missing 9/11. If any president should've done more to stop 9/11, it is clearly the Bush administration, whose own officials say that it was mishandled (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040321/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser_15). And Richard Clarke (see previous link) isn't the only former Bush administration official who thinks Bush screwed up, Rand Beers quit the Bush administration and joined John Kerry's campaign (http://www.blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/000220.html). And don't forget what David Kay (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0123-12.htm) and Paul O'Neill (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20040111-1659-bush-oneill.html) said. And none of these guys are liberals and they all worked for Bush. The clear evidence from Bush administration officials is that Bush didn't do enough about terrorism before or after 9/11 and made up evidence for invading Iraq.

The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are far from "liberated." Sure, they aren't under the control of their former rulers, but we have to run them now, despite the fact that their citizens don't want us to. If we left either country at this point, things would fall apart and both countries would fall apart into civil war and would be flourishing training grounds for further terrorism. The Taliban is so crushed that it controls Southern Afghanistan and we even considered negotiating with moderate elements of the Taliban since we can't get the job done there. Maybe if we hadn't invaded Iraq, we could actually control Afghanistan, where the only place we really have much control is the capitol. The idea that we've crippled al-Qaeda is just plain stupid. Just last week they pulled off the largest terrorist attack in the history of Spain, a country that has lived with terrorism nearly as long as it has existed. Nuclear inspectors are not in North Korea as of now and Libya and Iran's inspections are being done by the U.N. and have nothing to do with the U.S. Certainly the Bush administration is resposible for the capture of Saddam Hussein, (although maybe it was the Kurds that actually captured him), but he certainly wasn't a terrorist, he was a dictator. I know conservatives like to simplify the world, but there is more than one type of bad guy. And like many have pointed out before, Hussein's capture hasn't made anyone safer. Ask the citizens of Madrid. Sure, we have yet to have another attack here, but al-Qaeda generally takes a few years to plan their attacks, so it isn't likely that we should've seen one yet. And Bush did all this while ruining our relationships with almost every other country in the world. A telling fact is that in international elections, every strongly pro-Bush candidate that has run in recent years has lost (South Korea, Germany, Spain).

Comparing numbers that have no relationship is fun and scores some cheap points, but it isn't really logical and it doesn't prove anything. Besides, when someone says Bush is the "worst" president, there are many other things by which to judge a president than just wars they have engaged in. It's hard to say which policies of the president have been worse, foreign or domestic, but only a simpleton would judge a president solely based on foreign policy

5:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...and you can't declare war against one member of a coalition and not fight the others as well."

I think that is the author's point when bringing up WWII. Of course there is no *direct* link between Hussein and Bin Laden (unless you want to employee the tactics used in Farenheit 9/11 to "link" Bush to Bin Laden) and I'm not claiming there ever was one. I'm also not claiming that Hussein and Bin Laden ever formed a "coalition" however I'm sure they considered themselves allies in their fight against the United States. Sure there is more than one type of bad guy... and?

"Besides, there are more reasons to go to war than just getting attacked..."

Preventing an attack is a good enough reason to me. Like I said, they may not have had a "coalition" but they certainly helped each other when it was in their mutual best interests. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/)

"Only a heartless moron would say that WWII wasn't a necessary war..."

I don't believe the author was not saying that WWI was unnecessary...

I don't have the time nor the patience to respond to the rest (arguing on the internet is retarded anyway). However I will speak to the rest of those comments in general. The same mentality that now considers the war on Iraq unnecessary is the same that called the "proxy" wars unnecessary while they were being fought. Of course we have the benefit of hindsight to see that those proxy wars (along with economic pressure, timing, and some luck) did help to end the cold war.

So you believe the war is unnecessary, fine. I do believe it is necessary. We're not going to change each other's minds. But what I have yet to see is someone offer a solution to the problem (besides elect anyone but Bush). Maybe going into Iraq wasn't the best strategic decision, but offer a *real* solution for the problem as it exists. You don't like that we're in Iraq, but we are. So do we just pull out? You're obviously an intelligent person so you would consider the ramifications of leaving Iraq in it's current state, I'd like to hear the rest of your plan.

You're right, we've removed a brutal dictator and Spain still got hit by terrorists. Of course there have been several reports of other captured terrorists and thrwarted attacks but most liberals will choose to ignore those facts or chalk them up as self-serving conservative propaganda.

My question is how do you prevent future attacks?

If we're not taking the fight to terrorists (and there ARE terrorist in Iraq and Afgahnistan), then what do we do? Sit back and wait for another 9/11? I sure hope not. It's really easy to examine the past and see, oooh president's X's policies created the current problem, we shouldn't have done that. Well what policies would you put in place to solve the problem TODAY (not yesterday, 4 years ago, or 20 years ago)?

8:14 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home