This War is Different? and things to think about

[rushmc 23]

No, I haven't researched any of this but..........



> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> Wait, there's more.......................
>
>
>
>
>
> Some people still don't understand why military
>
> personnel do what they for a living. This exchange
>
> between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard
>
> Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty
>
> impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good
>
> example of one man's explanation of why men and women
>
> in the armed services do what they do for a living.
>
> This is a typical, though sad, example of what some
>
> who have never served think of our military.
>
>
>
>
>
> JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004
>
> 11:13
>
>
>
>
>
> Senator Howard Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn: "How can
>
> you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"
>
>
>
>
>
> Senator Glenn: "I served 23 years in the United States
>
> Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149
>
> missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12
>
> different occasions. I was in the space program.
>
>
>
>
>
> It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the
>
> line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time
>
> off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank. I ask
>
> you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a
>
> veteran's hospital and look those men - with their
>
> mangled bodies - in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't
>
> hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at
>
> NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and orphans
>
> of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... and you
>
> look those kids in the eye and tell them that their
>
> Dads didn't hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day
>
> and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I
>
> have more friends buried than I'd like to remember,
>
> and you watch those waving flags.
>
>
>
>
>
> You stand there, and you think about this nation, and
>
> you tell ME that those people didn't have a job? I'll
>
> tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your
>
> knees every day of your life thanking God that there
>
> were some men - SOME MEN - who held REAL jobs. And
>
> they required a dedication to a purpose - and a love
>
> of country and a dedication to duty - that was more
>
> important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice
>
> is what made this country possible.
>
>
>
>
>
> I HAVE held a job, Howard! What about you?"

> For those who don't remember - During W.W.II, Howard
>
> Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist
>
> Party in the USA ....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Point number 1 seems way of...then I made it to point number 2 and had to laugh a little....

very correct, Japan attacked the US. US declared war on Japan...Japan and Germany had a pact, which meant Germany then declared war on the US....

Hence, point 2 doesn't make any sense.....I didn't read the rest since I doubt it would make sense either....

[rushmc 23]

Ahh, you missed more fun

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Anyone who would accuse John Glen of never having a real job is criminally delinquent in their knowledge of 20th century history.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Point number 1 seems way of...then I made it to point number 2 and had to laugh a little....

very correct, Japan attacked the US. US declared war on Japan...Japan and Germany had a pact, which meant Germany then declared war on the US....

Correct, and it seems that many many Americans are unaware of that fact, since it comes up over and over again, even in this forum.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Channman 2]

Hey, DUDE go back to sleep, your boring me.

[tcnelson 1]

yeah, i hate it when people make points that are way of...it really pisses me of.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[kallend 2,026]

Jeez - what goes around comes around, again and again and again...

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=940332#940332


www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1136014#1136014

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=924883#924883

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1175952#1175952

Why not post something original?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Hey, DUDE go back to sleep, your boring me.

I think the only proper response to that would be:

DILLIGAF?

[Channman 2]

Alright folks, were dealing with an educated man here, this could mean trouble for all of us. With 10709 post to his credit...no telling what this man knows or even who he knows....

But I still like the POST, good info, yes sir, good info.

[rushmc 23]

you are in a pissy mood today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Point number 1 seems way of...

Well, here's some numbers I looked up. In 2004, there were 565 murder in New York City. In 2004, there were 848 deaths in Iraq. Not too far off. Now add 445 murders in 2004 for Chicago, and only two American cities combined have 162 more deaths. Now of course the 848 total for Iraq includes all deaths, including vehicle accidents, sickness, etc. So throw in those statistics for New York and Chicago. Now, you've got figures from two American cities drastically towering over the figures from Iraq.

Sources:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t7758.html
http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx

Quote

Hence, point 2 doesn't make any sense.....I didn't read the rest since I doubt it would make sense either....

I can somewhat see your point on the Germany argument, but how bout reading further? What could it hurt? Because the rest of it is 100%, no bullshit valid. Even the rest of part 2. You should read it.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Point number 1 seems way of...

Well, here's some numbers I looked up. In 2004, there were 565 murder in New York City. In 2004, there were 848 deaths in Iraq. Not too far off. Now add 445 murders in 2004 for Chicago, and only two American cities combined have 162 more deaths. Now of course the 848 total for Iraq includes all deaths, including vehicle accidents, sickness, etc. So throw in those statistics for New York and Chicago. Now, you've got figures from two American cities drastically towering over the figures from Iraq.

Sources:

http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t7758.html
http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx

Quote

Hence, point 2 doesn't make any sense.....I didn't read the rest since I doubt it would make sense either....

I can somewhat see your point on the Germany argument, but how bout reading further? What could it hurt? Because the rest of it is 100%, no bullshit valid. Even the rest of part 2. You should read it.

Hell, let's just cut right to the # of vehicle related deaths on US roads (115 per day) and justify several more wars in the Middle East.

What a joke.....

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Alright folks, were dealing with an educated man here...

Chances are, we probably still are.

Quote

With 10709 post to his credit...no telling what this man knows or even who he knows....

Grasshopper, if you really want to be enlightened, read every single one of mine! No waste to be found...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Hell, let's just cut right to the # of vehicle related deaths on US roads (115 per day) and justify several more wars in the Middle East.

The intent was not justification, but providing perspective. At least that's what I take from the original poster.

[EBSB52 0]

Have we all forgotten about Italy? They were the first to declare war upon the US; remember the good ole days when countries would do that?

That’s brilliant, blame FDR for WWII…..


As for Truman, I think the dropping of the bombs was an unnecessary punctuation to the end of the war that was inevitable. The Korean conflict was BS too.

Viet Nam was BS too, I mostly blame LBJ who I believe had Kennedy killed and turned VN into an ATM just as the chimp is doing with Iraq.

As for blaming Clinton for Iraq or OBL, you forgot to mention Bush 1 for stirring up Iraq and not finishing the job - not surprised at the omission. OBL was pissed about the Gulf War and Saudi’s reaction to side with the US, which was motivation for both attacks on the WTC’s. But to decry all these Dem presidents for starting wars that were not provoked by attack and then omit the Gulf War, well, let’s say we read your bias loud and clear.

As for Bush liberating countries; we’re still there. Until we leave and wait for a year can we say what lasting so-called good we’ve done.

Also, you didn’t mention the justification for entering wars and which parties behave which way. FDR was justified in WWII, it’s an utter joke that you attempt to argue the other way on that. Bush 2 wasn’t justified and the ghost WMD’s have been forgotten all about and now it’s supposedly some other missions. Everyone knows the intent was to go after a personal grudge, SH.

Wait a minute, was this Clinton or Glenn?

…you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men…

I honor the soldiers past and present, hell, I was one, but we have only been attacked by a country once in the 20th century.

And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible.

So I don’t totally buy into this. I think the country is made possible on the backs of working people. Even during WWII the working people, Rosie the Riveter made the war success possible. Again, I take zero from any soldiers past and present, just not sure that all hinges on them.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

i hate it when people make points that are way of...

way of what?

Quote

it really pisses me of.

Pisses you of what?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

But to decry all these Dem presidents for starting wars that were not provoked by attack and then omit the Gulf War, well, let’s say we read your bias loud and clear.

Fine add the 1st war to the list. The point is that Iraq right now was started no differently than pretty much all of our wars/conflicts in the past. The point he's making is that people bitch about how Bush started the war, when in fact pretty much all our previous wars this century have been started the same way - without attack.

Quote

As for Bush liberating countries; we’re still there

It doesn't matter that we're still there. The word liberate means "to set free." We did set the Iraqi people free. You can't argue with that. The word liberate does not have any strings attached such as "the liberator must leave the country before it can be considered liberated."

Quote

FDR was justified in WWII, it’s an utter joke that you attempt to argue the other way on that

Dang straight he was. Our intervention in WWII saved lives. But guess what, so did our intervention in Iraq. It's an utter joke for you to not see that. Both wars we were not directly attacked, but we still went in. Both wars we have set people free and saved lives. So in my mind, both are justified. Don't assimilate the justification of a war with how it is ran.

Quote

Again, I take zero from any soldiers past and present, just not sure that all hinges on them.

Nothing hinges all on a single entity or person. That quote is just saying that soldiers deserve a lot of respect...and they do. However, so does the good working class man/woman, police officer, firefighter, etc. So it's true that soldiers' sacrifices have made and kept this country free, but they could not have done it w/o support; that's undeniable.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Hell, let's just cut right to the # of vehicle related deaths on US roads (115 per day) and justify several more wars in the Middle East.

The intent was not justification, but providing perspective. At least that's what I take from the original poster.

I read a lot of partisan commentary, so I think that was at least part of the agenda.

[sfc 1]

Quote

Well, here's some numbers I looked up. In 2004, there were 565 murder in New York City. In 2004, there were 848 deaths in Iraq. Not too far off. Now add 445 murders in 2004 for Chicago, and only two American cities combined have 162 more deaths. Now of course the 848 total for Iraq includes all deaths, including vehicle accidents, sickness, etc. So throw in those statistics for New York and Chicago. Now, you've got figures from two American cities drastically towering over the figures from Iraq.

What about the iraqi civilian deaths, they all died in iraq. I guess they don't mean anything to you, 10000s of them have died, do an online search for more details, so many that no-one has accurate data.
Your analysis is BS. I guess they were really happy to be liberted of their lives.
How many soldiers died in New York and Chicago in 2004, that would be a more meaningful comparisson than what you posted.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

But to decry all these Dem presidents for starting wars that were not provoked by attack and then omit the Gulf War, well, let’s say we read your bias loud and clear.

Fine add the 1st war to the list. The point is that Iraq right now was started no differently than pretty much all of our wars/conflicts in the past. The point he's making is that people bitch about how Bush started the war, when in fact pretty much all our previous wars this century have been started the same way - without attack.

Quote

As for Bush liberating countries; we’re still there

It doesn't matter that we're still there. The word liberate means "to set free." We did set the Iraqi people free. You can't argue with that. The word liberate does not have any strings attached such as "the liberator must leave the country before it can be considered liberated."

Quote

FDR was justified in WWII, it’s an utter joke that you attempt to argue the other way on that

Dang straight he was. Our intervention in WWII saved lives. But guess what, so did our intervention in Iraq. It's an utter joke for you to not see that. Both wars we were not directly attacked, but we still went in. Both wars we have set people free and saved lives. So in my mind, both are justified. Don't assimilate the justification of a war with how it is ran.

Quote

Again, I take zero from any soldiers past and present, just not sure that all hinges on them.

Nothing hinges all on a single entity or person. That quote is just saying that soldiers deserve a lot of respect...and they do. However, so does the good working class man/woman, police officer, firefighter, etc. So it's true that soldiers' sacrifices have made and kept this country free, but they could not have done it w/o support; that's undeniable.

Fine add the 1st war to the list. The point is that Iraq right now was started no differently than pretty much all of our wars/conflicts in the past.

Not WWII, a country attacked us there - here a radical group attacked us.

The point he's making is that people bitch about how Bush started the war, when in fact pretty much all our previous wars this century have been started the same way - without attack.


Riiiiiight, and Kennedy sucked for starting VN, LBJ sucked more for perpetuating it, Bush 1 gained zero except to irritate OBL with the GW, and Bush 2 sucks for doing this money war, k? We agree.

It doesn't matter that we're still there. The word liberate means "to set free." We did set the Iraqi people free.

For fun, I just looked it up.

LIBERATE: To set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control.

Ok, as soon as we leave they will be liberated, just as I wrote.

You can't argue with that.

I just did and that's the primary definition, not an obscure one or secondary one.

The word liberate does not have any strings attached such as "the liberator must leave the country before it can be considered liberated."


According to my dictionary, American Heritage, 3rd edition, 2134 pages long it does.

Our intervention in WWII saved lives. But guess what, so did our intervention in Iraq.

You can't surmise that w/o being able to read the future.

It's an utter joke for you to not see that.

It's amazingly clairvoyant for you to 'guess' that with all the lives lost that there would have ultimately been more lives lost w/o action.

Both wars we were not directly attacked, but we still went in.

Maybe you forgot that litle Pearl Harbor thingy. Maybe you forgot about the alliance with Germany. Maybe you forgot about the declarations of war by Italy and I think Germany and Japan followed shortly after that.

Both wars we have set people free and saved lives.

Both wars killed many too, but in the former (WWII) we were personally attacked by a country.

Don't assimilate the justification of a war with how it is ran.


I'm purley speaking of the justification now, not the running of it/them.

Nothing hinges all on a single entity or person.

I didn't ever diminish my statements to one person, I addressed them as a group.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, here's some numbers I looked up. In 2004, there were 565 murder in New York City. In 2004, there were 848 deaths in Iraq. Not too far off. Now add 445 murders in 2004 for Chicago, and only two American cities combined have 162 more deaths. Now of course the 848 total for Iraq includes all deaths, including vehicle accidents, sickness, etc. So throw in those statistics for New York and Chicago. Now, you've got figures from two American cities drastically towering over the figures from Iraq.

What about the iraqi civilian deaths, they all died in iraq. I guess they don't mean anything to you, 10000s of them have died, do an online search for more details, so many that no-one has accurate data.
Your analysis is BS. I guess they were really happy to be liberted of their lives.
How many soldiers died in New York and Chicago in 2004, that would be a more meaningful comparisson than what you posted.

Before you hang that statement on me maybe you should look up the author of that - I responded to it, I didn't write it.

The Iraqi civilians do mean quite a but to me, hence I am adamantly against the war.

[Tonto 1]

Quote

Fine add the 1st war to the list. The point is that Iraq right now was started no differently than pretty much all of our wars/conflicts in the past. The point he's making is that people bitch about how Bush started the war, when in fact pretty much all our previous wars this century have been started the same way - without attack.

Umm.. Lusitania?

Man. Your country's history teachers must SUCK!

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea

Um... IIRC, Britain got Libya to open up to Inspectors, Europe has been talking to Iran and got them to allow inspectors in, and the UN got their inspectors into Korea.

US involvement in each of the above appears to have been limited to posturing and playing the "bad cop" in a complex "good cop/bad cop" negotiation.

But then I'm working from memory here.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Fine add the 1st war to the list. The point is that Iraq right now was started no differently than pretty much all of our wars/conflicts in the past. The point he's making is that people bitch about how Bush started the war, when in fact pretty much all our previous wars this century have been started the same way - without attack.

Umm.. Lusitania?

Man. Your country's history teachers must SUCK!

t

You got that right.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.