DescentBB

A friend of mine sent me this today,
think of it what you will...

Things that make you think a little:



There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in 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

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following:

a. FDR led us into World War II.



b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.

c. 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.

d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.

f. 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.

g. In the 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 Wait...


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 for 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 Chappaquid dick.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida !!!!






But Wait...

There's more!




(Although not word for word, this is pretty much what John Glenn replied to Senator Metzenbaum.
Snopes has the piece verbatim if your interested.)


JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

Some people still don't understand why military personnel
do what they do 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 the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
\"How can you run for Senate
when you've never held a real job?\"

Senator Glenn (D- Ohio):
\"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?

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.

Now he's a Senator!

VonVulcan wrote:There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in 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

So the hundred or-so Iraqi's that die every day aren't really human beings?

Dakatsu wrote:

VonVulcan wrote:There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in 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

So the hundred or-so Iraqi's that die every day aren't really human beings?

LOL What? What does that question have to do with anything he posted there?

Hostile wrote:

Dakatsu wrote:

VonVulcan wrote:There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in 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

So the hundred or-so Iraqi's that die every day aren't really human beings?

LOL What? What does that question have to do with anything he posted there?

I guess that I am supposed to assume that civilian/Iraqi casualties do not count as murder or killings.

Ok don't answer the question then. You can assume that if you want, but that sounds pretty insensitive.

I mean that how he counted the number of total murders in Detroit and compared them to the U.S. Military murders in Iraq. There are plenty of other people who are getting killed over there, that are not American. If you were to count this, then the number would be in the, at the very least, hundreds.

Call me crazy, but I think the authors numbers were trying to illustrate a difference of opinion that OUR society is having about the cost of war in terms of lives as compared to the cost of domestic society with the same metric, (obviously from a conservative point of view or spin if you will). I don't think the point had anything to do with the collateral damage being caused by the conflicts in question, nor did it measure the relative importance of life in any culture as compared to another...., which is why I asked you what your question had to do with anything that was said in the original post.

And now I don't understand what this means either - \"I mean that how he counted the number of total murders in Detroit and compared them to the U.S. Military murders in Iraq.\" You mean what? Please finish this sentence. The other people being killed are not relevent to the original points being made. That of course does not mean that the other people are not relevent to anything, just the original points being made....

Well put Hostile.

Nice post Vulcan.

I'm sorry, but I take issue with this. The first paragraph was enough for me. is the writer trying to tell us 39 deaths over the four (will become five) years that the US is in Iraq?

I don't think so.

and this one in particular..

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush
has liberated two countries,

Wrong.

crushed the Taliban

Wrong

crippled
al-Qaida,

Wrong again.

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.

oh so so wrong.

it just makes me shake my head.

its an chain e-mail, what did you expect?

It's e-propaganda, probably straight from a Republican incumbant's desk.

No mention of the billions of dollars wasted that we can never pay back. No mention of the economic fallout looming within the decade because of this, the runaway inflation, and the outright raping of the people in gas prices.

It's amazing that an intelligent person (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt Vulcan) can believe stuff like this. At least check history before you say crap like this. Germany did not attack our mainland no, but they had U-Boats in the Gulf of Mexico, they attacked our supply ships to England...they were in the middle of it the entire time. Korea was started by the UN, not by Truman. The US filled it's role by sending troops to defend South Korea...

I dont' really know one single person that thought the war would take two months and be done. What we have seen is complete and utter incompetence that has cost so many American lives. There was no plan from the beginning, that much is certain now. Each time one of the people from the \"circle\" comes clean (George Tenet) they all say the same thing, that it was bungled from the start and there was absolutely no planning. Can you really expect 250 million people NOT to ask questions when everything starts to turn to bull?

The war is lost but it's not the troops fault. I'm stealing that line from Bill Maher...I wish the Dems would use it. I still have yet to figure out why people think you're against the troops if you say the war is lost. It's not their fault that the chain of command is full of boobs...it's too bad. 3500 American lives (and more to come)...at what point is it too much? Does anyone even know what we're over there for anymore?

All I'll say is that if you strip out the propaganda and the motives behind some of the comments, there are some pretty weird things happening in regards to what people think of what's going on with today's conflicts. And that goes for both sides of whatever line you want to draw.

I just called the line at the war was too costly at the point when I found out more Americans were recently killed \"fighting terrorism\" than by recent terrorism itself.

Sniper wrote:All I'll say is that if you strip out the propaganda and the motives behind some of the comments, there are some pretty weird things happening in regards to what people think of what's going on with today's conflicts. And that goes for both sides of whatever line you want to draw.

Seriously.

It amazes me the way people sometimes view numbers.

39 American soldiers are killed in combat in a particular month in Iraq, and 35 people are murdered in Detroit in the same time period. The combat deaths get front-page coverage nationwide, while the murders might not even be on the front page in Detroit. (There are a lot more deaths than just the "combat-related" ones in Iraq, of course, and we don't hear much at all about them.)

3000 Americans were killed on 9/11. That's a huge deal. 3000 unborn Americans are aborted every single day. Those of us who think that's a huge deal are "interfering with a woman's right to choose".

60-70 thousand Iraqis have died as a result of OIF and OIF2. In the same time period, 200-500 thousand Sudanese have died in Darfur as a result of that conflict, but the only time we seem to hear of it is as a criticism of the Iraq war.

American and Iraqi deaths combined are far, far fewer than American and X deaths in previous wars, whether you count civilians or not. Yet somehow Iraq goes down as the biggest quagmire, the worst-fought war ever, a totally unwinnable conflict.

One gay man is beat to death for being gay, and we still hear his name years later. A black man is killed by a white man, same deal. But if Black gang members kill Latino gang members, or Whites kill Asians, nobody cares.

Fifty-Seven MILLION people died in 2002. Suicide, murder, and war combined killed fewer people than diarrhea. Suicide, by the way, killed more than murder and war combined; war is near the bottom of the list.

The things we make a big deal out of aren't always the things we should.

Zuruck wrote:It's amazing that an intelligent person (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt Vulcan) can believe stuff like this. At least check history before you say crap like this. Germany did not attack our mainland no, but they had U-Boats in the Gulf of Mexico, they attacked our supply ships to England...they were in the middle of it the entire time. Korea was started by the UN, not by Truman. The US filled it's role by sending troops to defend South Korea...

Actually the Korean war or conflict as some like to call it was started by hostile actions of the North Koreans.

This is what I found out, I would say you are in error concerning Korea. I have not looked in detail at the other issues you raised and probably won't.

Source:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/AMH-25.htm


"In independent actions on the night of the 25th, President Truman relayed orders to General of the Army Douglas MacArthur at MacArthur's Far East Command headquarters in Tokyo, Japan, to supply ROK forces with ammunition and equipment, evacuate American dependents from Korea, and survey conditions on the peninsula to determine how best to assist the republic further. The President also ordered the U.S. Seventh Fleet from its current location in Philippine and Ryukyu waters to Japan. On the 26th, in a *broad interpretation* of a U.N. Security Council request for "every assistance" in supporting the June 25 resolution, President Truman authorized General MacArthur to use air and naval strength against North Korean targets below the 38th parallel. The President also redirected the bulk of the Seventh Fleet to Taiwan, where by standing between the Chinese Communists on the mainland and the Nationalists on the island it could discourage either one from attacking the other and thus prevent a widening of hostilities."

You notice at the beginning of the paragraph, "In independant actions" And also the words that I put asterisks by, "broad interpretation" says to me that Truman was acting far and above what the UN had called for. If the US had not *assisted* South Korea, there would have been no Korean war.

TIGERassault wrote:I just called the line at the war was too costly at the point when I found out more Americans were recently killed "fighting terrorism" than by recent terrorism itself.

And your point is?

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:I just called the line at the war was too costly at the point when I found out more Americans were recently killed "fighting terrorism" than by recent terrorism itself.

And your point is?

Bee

My point was... uh... just that. A reply to the origional post.

TIGERassault wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:I just called the line at the war was too costly at the point when I found out more Americans were recently killed "fighting terrorism" than by recent terrorism itself.

And your point is?

Bee

My point was... uh... just that. A reply to the origional post.

Umm... help me out. What part did you reply to? I can't decipher your post.

Bee

Lothar wrote:The things we make a big deal out of aren't always the things we should.

Your Republican party membership card is glowing so bright it's burning through your shirt.

Just drop the right-wing denial game and acknowledge (& apologise for?) the inaccuracies in the letter.

I read your post, and all i can think is all the other times you have towed the party line. You were pro-Iraq-invasion, you remain un-apologetic about the war, and now in this email you see nothing but a lesson for us all?

I dunno if you're consciously doing it, i dunno if my paranoia is going outof control, but i know that i don't like what i read here.
If people don't keep on their toes it's nothing but a right-wing circle jerk.

★■◆● maybe this is just what they call the gap widening

(obligatory nothing personal disclaimer yadayada)

LOL @ nothing personal... man, calm down and come back when you can talk rational.

roid wrote:acknowledge (& apologise for?) the inaccuracies in the letter.

I didn't write the letter. I don't care about the letter. I didn't acknowledge or respond to the letter, except for pulling one particular stat from it. If y'all want to waste your time arguing about the letter, go for it, but I really honestly don't care. It's obviously propaganda, it obviously should be taken with several grains of salt, and those of you arguing about it are doing a fine job, but I'm not interested.

The thing I found interesting in Sniper's comment was the observation that there are "weird things" with regards to "what people think". In other words, there are flaws in our perception. The letter attempts to point some of them out regarding Iraq. I wanted to point out how much broader those problems of perception are.

Our perceptions aren't just screwed up when it comes to Iraq. They're screwed up when it comes to abortion... when it comes to death worldwide (diarrhea kills more people than violence)... when it comes to "hate crimes" and gang violence. What makes the front page on the newspaper is whatever the reporters and editors think is worth talking about. And as much as we say we don't let them shape our perception, somehow they do it anyway. We think violence against gays is a huge deal because of Matthew Shepard, and we don't even stop to think that we know his name because that's the only (high-profile media) case of people randomly killing a gay person in my entire lifetime. We think of war and murder as horrible plagues on humanity, but how many of us take the time to deal with people who are suicidal? For every Cho-on-the-front-page-for-weeks there are thousands of kids who die bleeding in their bathtubs and get a 2-line blurb on page 47 of the paper.

You were pro-Iraq-invasion, you remain un-apologetic about the war

Yes, I do. Yet another way in which I think people's perceptions are screwed up. We get so caught up in talking about how X many people were killed... don't get me wrong, those lives, whether Iraqi civilians or American soldiers or terrorists from Syria, are important. But it's also important to crush Islamofascism, to crush that movement that says "death to everyone who doesn't submit to Allah and the Imams", and to stop those who supply that movement (including Saddam, who was not a part of the movement.) Just like it was important to crush the Nazis and fascists in WWII.

We of course have to weigh the costs. People die in war, possibly lots of people. We do what we can to minimize that -- to try to kill only those who are actively fighting against us -- and sometimes we fail, and sometimes we fail miserably. But I think it's foolish to give up because of the failures, to decide that after all, Islamofascism really isn't a big deal. We need to keep fighting them on the ground... but we also need to do better in fighting their hateful ideology on the airwaves and in the hearts and minds of people worldwide. I wish those of the opposite opinion regarding the fight on the ground would at least acknowledge the fight of ideologies, instead of wasting their time talking about how Bush looks like a monkey and Cheney shot his hunting buddy.

I don't know Lothar. Some things you say I agree with and some make my liberal glands squirm around a bit. The whole \"We must crush Islamofacisim\" stuff is a very grey area to me. It seems that ever since WWII the U.S. is constantly finding a cause that \"must be crushed\" and then proceeds to do so on the soil of some other nation at the expense of thousands or even in the case of Vietnam millions of lives of the citizens of some other country.
500 billion a year would buy some very effective anti-terrorism policies and actions that would likely keep the home soil safe and spare the lives of \"collateral damage\" all over.
Yeah, yeah we've been over the \"free the oppressed masses in countries ruled by cruel dictators\" lots of times and it's pretty much BS. If something threatens the political power and/or cushy lifestyle (and my family and I benefit from that cushy lifestyle thing quite nicely thank you) of the U.S. Then it becomes a global threat that must be crushed before it dominoes over the ocean and enslaves the American People and pollutes their Precious Bodily Fluids. Well you know, something like that.
I guess I'm just old and cynical. Too much blood on the ground since 1951. The face of the enemy always changes to suit the times and war never ends.

Lothar wrote:LOL @ nothing personal... man, calm down and come back when you can talk rational.

it made me feel a little better

there's too much to say

P.S. America RULES!