Post by: rocky_2197 on September 10, 2004, 01:00:00 AM
you vote...
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.
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. From1965-1975, 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 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.
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 moral is
high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
You decide...
Post by: thomes08 on September 10, 2004, 07:42:00 AM
Post by: nemt on September 10, 2004, 07:43:00 AM
I made a post a while about with an article outline a "what-if" scenario which would've followed, had Republicans in the forties behaved like the Democrats now. It was a pretty good read...I'll have to go find it...
Post by: gcskate27 on September 10, 2004, 09:17:00 AM
but im with thomes... ive most def changed my mind after reading this...
*and from what a great site...
| QUOTE |
| (BracePundit via NY Times) "Everybody told me, 'God, if you're coming to Canonsburg, you've got to find time to go to Toy's, and he'll take care of you,'" Mr. Kerry said, dropping the name of a restaurant his motorcade had passed on the way in. "I understand it's my kind of place, because you don't have to - you know, when they give you the menu, I'm always struggling: Ah, what do you want? "He just gives you what he's got, right?" Mr. Kerry added, continuing steadily off a gangplank of his own making: "And you don't have to worry, it's whatever he's cooked up that day. And I think that's the way it ought to work, for confused people like me who can't make up our minds." |
THATS relevant and objective...
**
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
good point, maybe some attention should be paid to domestic matters...
| QUOTE |
| FDR... led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. |
which was a german ally, hense our entrance into the war...
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
great analogy... they are very similar...
it might have taken less time to 'take' but how long will it take to calm?
Post by: pug_ster on September 10, 2004, 02:03:00 PM
| QUOTE (rocky_2197 @ Sep 10 2004, 09:03 AM) |
| Some background information to consider before the debates and before you vote... 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. 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. From1965-1975, 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 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. 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 moral is high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts. You decide... |
Well, the US don't have the kind of weapons that we have today. So the only way to fight them is to confront them so we probably lost a lot of lives then. You didn't mention anything the way we fight wars after the Vietnam War.
The US is more Technologically advanced than the opponent is the reason why we are more powerful and have less people killed, not because of our Commander in Chief.
Unfortunately, today the enemies adapt by waging Gueralla wars which seems to drag on longer time than wars in the past.
Post by: Baner on September 10, 2004, 02:16:00 PM
Post by: nemt on September 10, 2004, 02:22:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 10 2004, 05:06 PM) |
| Unfortunately, today the enemies adapt by waging Gueralla wars which seems to drag on longer time than wars in the past. |
Every President has been afraid of social and political reprisal for letting the military fight a war the right way. It's time to pull out of the radical hotbeds and send over the Enola Gay...but no one wants to admit it.
Post by: pug_ster on September 10, 2004, 02:27:00 PM
| QUOTE (Baner @ Sep 10 2004, 10:19 PM) |
| So the commander-in-chief had nothing to do with any of the good things that happend in the middle east, but one bad thing occurs and it's all his fault? I Fucking hate ignorant people. |
I would say in Iraq, it is probably worse than when Saddam was in Power. At least when Saddam was in power you wouldn't see people shooting at each other in the streets.
Post by: nemt on September 10, 2004, 02:29:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 10 2004, 05:30 PM) |
| I would say in Iraq, it is probably worse than when Saddam was in Power. At least when Saddam was in power you wouldn't see people shooting at each other in the streets. |
Psst, that's what war is...people shooting at each other.
Post by: nemt on September 10, 2004, 02:33:00 PM
| QUOTE (Spency234 @ Sep 10 2004, 05:35 PM) |
| His point is when Saddam was in power people weren't getting shot in the streets, because they weren't at war. |
No, they were getting dragged out of their homes and then shot in the basement of a building. Or they were being gassed to death. Or they were being sent to die in war in Iran or Kuwait to conquer oil fields.
Post by: gcskate27 on September 10, 2004, 02:35:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 10 2004, 02:36 PM) |
| Or they were being sent to die in war in Iran or Kuwait to conquer oil fields. |
hmmm, can anyone draw a parallel between this example and something else? anyone?
Post by: Baner on September 10, 2004, 02:39:00 PM
edit: stupid grammer
Post by: pug_ster on September 10, 2004, 02:42:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 10 2004, 10:25 PM) |
| Every President has been afraid of social and political reprisal for letting the military fight a war the right way. It's time to pull out of the radical hotbeds and send over the Enola Gay...but no one wants to admit it. |
Exactly, Bush underestimated what happened there because after he defeated Saddam's Military, he thinks it is easy sailing from there. After removing troops from Iraq the Insurgents started popping up because Bush couldn't win the hearts and minds of the Iraq people.
The other day I saw a report from pbs about an embedded reporter in Iraq. A reporter from the US don't want to be known that he is from the US because they fear trouble. Most Iraqis thinks Americans are Occupiers. The militia in Iraq are not 'rag-tag' people who are fighting in Iraq are not a bunch of idiots. Some of them are actually College Educated and believe in what they are fighting for.
Post by: nemt on September 10, 2004, 02:44:00 PM
| QUOTE (Spency234 @ Sep 10 2004, 05:44 PM) |
| That's why he said "probably worse". He didn't say they were better off then, but you definately did not make things better for them, if anything worse. |
Now Iraqis have access to medical care, education, electricity and water, and other services they could only imagine before the liberation; and with the mass graves and torture chambers closed forever, they finally have a stable, safe future.
Post by: pug_ster on September 10, 2004, 02:52:00 PM
| QUOTE (nemt @ Sep 10 2004, 10:47 PM) |
| Now Iraqis have access to medical care, education, electricity and water, and other services they could only imagine before the liberation; and with the mass graves and torture chambers closed forever, they finally have a stable, safe future. |
Iraqis had medical care, electricity, and water before the war. Now, much of this stuff is being destroyed because the cities are a basically a battleground. And more people in Iraq today believe that the Americans are the cause of this problem and join their cause to fight against the Americans.
Like I said, if the US can't win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, the war is going to get ugly like the ongoing war in Cheznya.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 10, 2004, 09:06:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
Actually, the Clinton administration was never made an actual offer from the Sudan govt. but a middle man that claimed to have been sent from there, they followed through with an inquiry to the Sudan, and they said they had no idea about that offer.
The Clinton administration has thwarted many more attacks than Bush has.
As far as I can tell, Bush hasnt thwarted any.
How many times was Bush and his cabinet briefed about the dangers of air-hijacking before 9/11?
More than they need to be for them to give a shit.
Thanks Bush.
Post by: rocky_2197 on September 10, 2004, 10:39:00 PM
Clinton administration was offers Osma three times, as in the book "Derlection of Duty" and using the intenet and other resources You would have known that.
To me it is better that we go to war and prevent future attacts on Americans and other civilians. To oust a cruel dictator and free a nation is worth any military life. That is what they Voluntaired to do.
Back ground info on me: I am an Arab American. A US NAvy Sailor. A husband of a US Sailor. A Father of one. A Republican.
This is my third war I have proudly served in to protect the fredoms of my country and to keep the US safe for my child and future children to live in.
War is a nasty thing but a neccery evil that we must pertake in to protect the right and fredoms of any nation and people.
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 10, 2004, 10:59:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| Clinton administration was offers Osma three times, as in the book "Derlection of Duty" and using the intenet and other resources You would have known that. |
And if you weren't a complete moron you'd know that that was total bullshit, it was a story propagated to sell that very book.
Post by: rocky_2197 on September 10, 2004, 11:05:00 PM
| QUOTE |
| And if you weren't a complete moron you'd know that that was total bullshit, it was a story propagated to sell that very book. |
That was just one place that I have found proof on the Clinton administration failor to get Osma.
May be if you did a little more reading to educate yourself, rather than call names like a 13 year old child you might make a valid point.
Post by: The unProfessional on September 11, 2004, 02:07:00 AM
| QUOTE |
As far as I can tell, Bush hasnt thwarted any. |
tell me what happens when a plan is thwarted... yeah... that's right... you never hear about it.
Post by: nemt on September 11, 2004, 07:54:00 AM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 10 2004, 05:55 PM) |
| Iraqis had medical care, electricity, and water before the war. |
Do you know anyone who's lived in Iraq before and after the war? Because I do, and life is better for everyone without Saddam, except of course, his loyalists. You're blinded by the liberal media, and it's made you into a mindless clone. Nothing you say has value because of this.
Post by: gcskate27 on September 11, 2004, 09:21:00 AM
Post by: Maximumbeing on September 11, 2004, 10:41:00 AM
If you cannot tell that that statement is bullshit, than you obviously aren't fit to walk the streets.
Post by: MrWizdumb on September 11, 2004, 01:57:00 PM
Post by: nemt on September 11, 2004, 02:40:00 PM
| QUOTE (Maximumbeing @ Sep 11 2004, 01:44 PM) |
| Even if I were a 13 year old, I wouldn't believe some disgusting piece of trash such as, "Our President was offered a leading terrorists head 3 times for nothing, and he refused JUST BECAUSE!" |
No, he refused because he didn't want to appear as though he was softening up US foreign policy regarding the Sudan.
..and he was wrong, and 3,000 people died for it.
Post by: The unProfessional on September 11, 2004, 04:56:00 PM
| QUOTE |
if u agree this is a "war on terrorism" what about the other national terrorist groups? taliban (if u consider that a terrorist group) and al-qaeda are 2 of many. |
People complain that we're spending too much money on the "war on terrorism" (maybe we are). But they got wrong when they then ask why we're not simultaneously attacking every bad guy on the planet. Can't have it both ways, folks.
Post by: pug_ster on September 11, 2004, 10:40:00 PM
| QUOTE (Spency234 @ Sep 10 2004, 10:35 PM) |
| I'm pretty sure that's his point. His point is when Saddam was in power people weren't getting shot in the streets, because they weren't at war. Sorry pug_ster had to jump in. |
Thank you for clarifying this. Nemt, I think you have to read the whole message and not read one of my sentences to take it out of context.
As for Clinton getting rid of Bin Laden. Of course you will get this information when you read an anti-Clinton book. On an Clinton interview a few months back about his book, he said that he tried to get rid Bin Laden many times. From the information from a 'reliable source', Clinton tried to get rid of Bin Laden using Special Forces.
Post by: DOS4GW on September 11, 2004, 10:59:00 PM
Post by: The unProfessional on September 12, 2004, 01:15:00 AM
| QUOTE |
I think what the American people deserve is Osama bin Laden being held for his crimes |
Damn straight
Your question is better substantiated. So often I see the question as to why we're only after saddam. Perhaps the reason we're after saddam is because he's a relatively weak adversary.
Post by: pug_ster on September 12, 2004, 07:27:00 AM
| QUOTE (The unProfessional @ Sep 12 2004, 09:18 AM) |
| Perhaps the reason we're after saddam is because he's a relatively weak adversary. |
Well, don't forget about the oil. Those bastards from Halliburton are in charge of operating oil wells in Iraq. Those insurgents would be more than happy to blow up the oil pipelines there.
Post by: MrWizdumb on September 12, 2004, 10:38:00 AM
| QUOTE | ||
People complain that we're spending too much money on the "war on terrorism" (maybe we are). But they got wrong when they then ask why we're not simultaneously attacking every bad guy on the planet. Can't have it both ways, folks. |
but everyone's solution for taking down terrorists is getting rid of all threats.. which is fucking impossible. i wish i could believe there was a central base or something we could attack, but that isnt the case at all. i overall just think its sort of useless thinking we'll accomplish a lot against terrorists with what we're doing. i wish it could work of course, but i dont think it will.
Post by: nemt on September 14, 2004, 07:24:00 AM
Yes, there was violence in divided Berlin...but it wasn't politically/religiously motivated.
Post by: pug_ster on September 14, 2004, 10:03:00 AM
I think the Bush admin duped most of the American public for this when the real enemy is Al-Qaeda.
Post by: dss311 on September 14, 2004, 11:11:00 AM
| QUOTE |
| People complain that we're spending too much money on the "war on terrorism" (maybe we are). |
Estimates say the annual cost of the war in Iraq is about 50 Billion. The cost for "containment" of Sadam was approximatley 25 Billion annually. In the long run, the cost to liberate Iraq and get rid of Sadam will easily justify the amount spent when looking at it just in financial terms.
Also, someone in an early thread was talking about the cost on Desert Storm. This bill was paid for by 95% of the other countries in the region.
Post by: rocky_2197 on September 14, 2004, 12:16:00 PM
Post by: hardcoregamer on September 14, 2004, 12:23:00 PM
| QUOTE (pug_ster @ Sep 14 2004, 11:06 AM) |
| The Bush admin say that 'We must fight the war on Terror.' Currently we are fighting a war in Iraq. So most of the Joe Schmoe's in the US who don't follow the current events believe that Iraq=Terror. I think the Bush admin duped most of the American public for this when the real enemy is Al-Qaeda. |
Al-Qaeda recieved money weapons and training from Iraq. Zacharias Mussawi recieved medical attention as a favor from iraq when he lost his leg in afghanastan.
There are terrorist in iraq, and that is who we are fighting.
Post by: dss311 on September 14, 2004, 12:24:00 PM
rocky_2197
Those are good comments and I like the different angle you have suggested in your post. We do need to use "deterrents" and any other means to deal with the crazy world of terrorist. Libya has already began to change their ways after they saw our resolution to deal with the terrorist.
Post by: pug_ster on September 14, 2004, 12:35:00 PM
| QUOTE (rocky_2197 @ Sep 14 2004, 08:19 PM) |
| The war in Iraq needs to be thought of as a deterrent more than a war on terrorism. By liberating the Iraqi people and ridding the area of a cruel dictator (who supported terrorists) we send the message that if you support terrorists than we (the US) will not stand for it. The deterrent is similar to having the nuclear weapons that we (US) used in the cold war and to the present day to deter nations from attacking us. Since the enemy these days are not Nations rather they are individuals, makes the weapons useless as a deterrent. The mixture of having individuals not a nation to fight against and the fact that many nations have nuclear technology, makes nuclear weapons as a deterrent in effective. So now, we go to war in Iraqi (the small guy) and relative easy country to fight so to speak. This is now a deterrent, our new nuclear weapon. By toppling Saddam, the US send the message that we will even go to war to protect our country. This a scare tactic to show, other countries like Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia, that if you support terrorists, the US will not stand for it and will go to any lengths to protect our freedoms of our country. The nations of the world see the war and think we dont want to fight against the US and then start to rid there own countries of the terrorist scum. So in essence end justifies the means. |
I would disagree on that. Bush said himself that Saddam has no connection with Al-Qaeda. Yes, he was cruel to its own people, but Saddam has nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.
The government of Iran is working with Al-Qaeda in connection with the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks so the US should attack them instead of Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.../site/newsweek/
Post by: rocky_2197 on September 14, 2004, 01:00:00 PM
Did Saddam not pay suicide bombers families to attack other nations? Were there not any terrorist training camps in Iraq? Now if there was, then wouldnt that mean him (Saddam) supported the terrorist?
Now Bush said him self that Saddam had no Direct connection with 9/11. But Saddam still supported the terrorist, there for he was the small guy out of the many nations that support terrorist organizations. So we the US made an example out him and used the war in Iraq, as a deterrent to the other nations. Thus, making it (the war) our new Bomb!
TO dss311 thanks for the support on this post. The need of deterents in a war like this are much more valuable then any thing else we can do. Nuclear weapons are just not effective as a deterent and we can not just buy off every nation to support us, the US just doen't have that much money to give. Libya is just the start of things, more nations are folling suit and we will have pleanty of support soon. This is still going to be a long drawn out war, but in the end the world will be much safer, and hopefuly a better place.