Some Solid Facts about the War

[sprecato_vita]

PLEASE BE SURE TO READ WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID, Scroll down.
Things that make you think a little........

There were thirty-nine combat related killings in Iraq during January.....

In the fair city of Detroit there were thirty-five 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,state the
following ..

FDR...led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.

From nineteen-fortyone through nineteen-fortyfive, four hundred, fifty thousand lives were lost, an average of one hundred, twelve thousand, five hundred per
year.

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

From nineteen-fifty through nineteen-fiftythree, fifty-five thousand lives were lost, an average of eigteen thousand, three hundred thirty-four per year.

John F. Kennedy. ..started the Vietnam conflict in nineteen-sixtytwo. Vietnam never
attacked us.

Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From nineteen-sixtyfive though nineteen-seventyfive, fifty-eight thousand lives were lost, an average of five thousand, eight hundred per year.

Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia
never attacked us.

Clinton 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 three hundred thousand 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 fifty-one-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 third 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 Chapaquiddick.

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.
Wait, there's more.......................
JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR
Date: Mon, Twenty-sixth Jan two thousand four

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

Senator Glenn: "I served twenty-three years in the United States Marine Corps. I
served through two wars. I flew one hundred forty-nine missions. My plane was hit by
anti-aircraft fire on twelve 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.

Now he is a Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher.... If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran. It might not be a bad idea to keep this
circulating 'till November...

[Jasella]

For every solid fact you have on the PRE-EMPTIVE , ILLEGAL war that BUSH waged, I have one to counter it. THIS IS POLITICS.. WE ALL have our own opinions on who is right and who is wrong. THOUGH the fact, the BUSH has killed ALOT OF INNOCENT IRAQI's and AMERICAN's FOR NO REASON, seems rather wrong to me, and I don't see how that can be disputated or accepted.
IT is our opinions that allow us to call this country a democracry. The solid facts you stated aren't so solid, because they can all be refuted..

[sprecato_vita]

Very true, everything can be rebuted. But Sadam also killed thousands of innocent people, and so has Bin Laden.

[MegaVictory]

I so agree!! Thank you for saying this.
"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 three hundred thousand of his own
people."

I agree with this, too:

"Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they
do for a living."
Their time has come; eighty per cent of the time, it is a "free ride," "cushy job." But, there time has come, now. It is time to go and do their job, and fight for what we all believe.

I don't like war, either. I am basically a pacifist. Peace at all costs. But I felt it was necessary, and we have to finish the job, or it will be another Viet Nam, a million casualities (mental and physical!), and losing the war!

And, Kerry can promise us the world, but, what good is it, if we end up bombed and dead!

[Kensington]

The problem I have with a writing such as this is that it's very much apples & oranges.

What does the Medina Republican Guard have to do with Ted Kennedy? What do WMD have to with the Rose Law firm records? It's a cutesy forward someone put together but it really doesn't have much logic. It's mostly "Oh yeah, you don't like THIS about Bush & his war? Well, Clinton got a blow job!" type comebacks.

The thread title is "Some Solid Facts About the War", but after one reply, you said:

..... everything can be rebuted

I don't mean to be dismissive of your political feelings, OSURD. I think it's admirable when anyone takes an active interest in the politics of their country & takes the time to vote. But I don't see what apples have to do with oranges in this forward you copied over.

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!

Just about half the people in the country don't think so, as the polls indicate. Bush doesn't have a mandate to be in this war. And if someone is going to argue for the war, I'd rather see hard facts that you can't dispute, rather than something that is basically slick comparisons that don't hold water & a few other thoughts thrown in.

[SFishy]

I have no problems with "facts" as long as we get them straight. It's not about spin or opinion. It's about history.

WWII: We didn't just enter into the war by going to fight Germany. The US Isolationistic attitude began to deteriorate in the early fortys in dealing with conflict with Japan and entering into talks with Britain. Germany, Italy and Japan created a pact with one another that they would back any attack and equally declare war on the US if any of the three did so. We officially entered the international conflict after twenty-five hundred people were attacked and killed by the Japanese in Pearl Harbor -- and we directly countered the strike by entering into the conflict with Japan. Germany declared war on the US as a result and we entered into the combat with them. We ALL know how it ended -- with nukes. While in may have worked in nineteen-forty-five, the reprocussions of doing something like that today are far-reaching. I'm not prepared to go that far, I'm not sure about you.

Let me remind you that Hitler was killing millions of people and invading countries left-and-right. AND it was not the US against Germany. It was the world against three dictators who wished to achieve world domination (Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo), and against one dictator who saught to destroy a whole group of people.

The Korean and Vietnam wars were supposed to be lessons we learned from... things to not be repeated. I don't think it's fair to justify one mistake with another.

With the Korean war, the president did NOT have congressional backing when we entered... but he did have UN participation. Fifteen other UN members [countries] also fought in the Korean war.

The Vietnam War began in nineteen-fifty-nine and didn't end until nineteen-seventy-five. (Would you like to see the war in Iraq continue that long?)

Encarta Encyclopedia
The United States became involved in Vietnam because American policymakers believed that if the entire country fell under a Communist government, Communism would spread throughout Southeast Asia. This belief was known as the “domino theory.” The U.S. government, therefore, helped to create the anti-Communist South Vietnamese government. This government’s repressive policies led to rebellion in the South, and in nineteen-sixty the NLF was formed with the aim of overthrowing the government of South Vietnam and reunifying the country.

In nineteen-sixty-five the United States sent in troops to prevent the South Vietnamese government from collapsing. [after president Kennedy's death in nineteen-sixty three] Ultimately, however, the United States failed to achieve its goal, and in nineteen-seventy-five Vietnam was reunified under Communist control;...

...The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of nineteen sixty-four gave President Lyndon B. Johnson permission to launch a full-scale military intervention in Vietnam. The first American combat troops arrived in Vietnam in March nineteen-sixty-five.

While Kennedy sent large numbers of advisors to South Vietnam after sixty-two, he never authorized the dispatching of combat troops to South Vietnam.

Regardless, we lost the vietnam war. Most historians consider the Vietnam war a mistake "we learned from". Because of the Vietnam war we were supposed to change how our own government made decisions to commit troops to war conflicts, including how war is defined.

Bosnian War: included the backing of NATO and UN Involvement. Clinton/The US did not act alone.

Have you read the :septll commission reports? Yes, Clinton's administration made some mistakes, but they also briefed Bush's administration on the vast terrorism threat, including OBL prior to their taking office. It's a lot more complicated than "his head was offered on a platter and Clinton did nothing". And I don't see that Bush has caught Bin Ladin either, so no one should be claiming victory just yet.

The "less time" arguments do a disservice to all the service men and women who are still dying daily. While we may have "officially conquered" Iraq in a short amount of time, it's FAR from over. You go on to repeat the John Glenn story -- which I agree with. Of COURSE being a soldier is a REAL job... but don't discredit THEM by ignoring the fact that they are still fighting and dying over there every single day.

I don't argue that Saddam Hussein was a bad man who hurt his people. What I do argue, and what is a stated fact, is that he had no direct links to Al Qaeda or Terrorism (:septll commission report stated there is no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda). Keep in mind, there are a lot of "evil dictators" who the US government does business with on a regular basis (prime example: China, a communist country with a history of human-rights violations). Right or wrong, there are many attrocities that go on in the world that we turn a blind eye to (how about Sudan??? How about the assistance AFRICA could use in the fight against AIDS???). Saddam's regime was built up BY THE US GOVENMENT in the eighties during the conflict with Iran (when Iraq was on "our side"). Same with Bin Ladin -- WE WORKED ALONG SIDE OF HIM in the conflict against Russian forces in Afganistan during the eighties.

Things are not always so black and white. It would be nice if they were. I don't want the Iraqi war to turn into another Vietnam or Korea. I'd hate to see it end with nukes the way WWII did. I don't know that Kerry has the answers, I just know I don't like the current track we're on.

Take care of YOU

[gone]

I really disagree with this post. It's hard to figure out where to start.

First, just because media outlets present polls, that doesn't mean they are news. There are polls out now that say x amount of people surveyed don't like Bush, or like Bush, or like Kerry, or whatever. But polls are a very uncertain science, and never should they be regarded as news. There is a margin of error, and they are only ninety-five percent accurate on top of that, AND the results of polls can vary widely according to the composition of samples. So saying that half of America doesn't support Bush is, to me, not exactly accurate.

I think that saying FDR led us into world war two is also grossly wrong. Countries like the US fight wars because the cause is just, not because they know it's a war they can win. We fought Germany because there were terrible atrocities there.

When I hear people say that Vietnam was the wrong war at the wrong time, or Bosnia was wrong, or Kosovo was wrong, I am very confused. You cannot judge the validity of a war by looking back, seeing if you won, and then if you didn't "win," say that it's wrong. I feel like that's what Kerry is doing. World War Two- Well, that was OK, because we won. But Vietnam- it was the wrong war because we lost. And so on.

Please don't take any offense, OSURD. I am so glad that you are being pro-active and taking a stand. God knows more people need to be doing that.

[macgirl]

This John Glenn speech isn't even recent. I won't spend the time debunking it myself, but I'll quote others who have:

:bullet Germany declared war on us shortly after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Six weeks before Pearl Harbor, a German sub attacked and sank the Reuben James, a US destroyer, in the North Atlantic, killing seventy six Americans. (Woodie Guthrie wrote a song about it). Twelve other US ships were sunk by the Germans aside from the James - all before Pearl Harbor.

:bullet both South Korea and the United Nations requested US presence in Korea; thirteen other UN nations sent (and lost) troops there. North Korea invaded South Korea first. The US saw this as communist effort at expansion, and feared it would result in communism spreading into South E ast Asia. North Korea's attack on South Korea was nearly complete, had it not been for General MacArthur's famous landing at Inchon (he was later fired for going overboard).

:bullet Truman first started with Ten Million Dollars of Direct Aid in nineteen fifty. By the end of nineteen fifty three, the US was paying for eighty percent of the war. It was Eisenhower who promised troops to Vietman in nineteen fifty four. Johnson certainly escalated Vietnam, but Nixon continued those policies for years afterwards.

:bullet The French and US both took part in the Bosnian operations as part of NATO. That implies "consent".

:bullet Bin Laden had certainly expressed interest in terrorist acts against the US. However, Clinton chose to follow the law. He could have ordered him assassinated or captured. Rumors and speculation are not sufficient evidence for unilateral effort. Clinton was accused of "wagging the dog" by conservatives for his pursuit of Bin Laden.

:bullet Both Clinton and Bush missed opportunities with regard to Bin Laden. Clinton's administration took action through the CIA and issued clear warnings to Bush and his administration. By the time Clinton left office, Bin Laden was "priority one"; Bush was well briefed. Nevertheless, one of Rumsfeld's earliest actions was to cancel drone surveillance of Bin Laden. The USS Cole was attacked in October of two thousand. Bush cannot disclaim prior knowledge of the threat.

:bullet all media propaganda aside, the Taliban is far from crushed. They are a significant guerilla force in Afghanistan, supported by Pakistan.

:bullet al-Jazeera Satellite Television has reported that al Qaeda's presence in the US is growing, not shrinking.

:bullet the numbers of American personnel killed in Iraq are too high, regardless of how they compare to domestic crime. One life lost in a wrong war is too much. It also disregards the thousands of soldiers who have been injured in Iraq.

I could say more. I will, if you want me to. But the disinformation in that post is so great, that if I were to refute each individual point, I'd be here until the cows came home. (and I live in a city, so that would take a while! :winky)

Learn some history. John Glenn seems to be missing it. Yes, he was a marine and an astronaut, but he was also a politician. He's distorting the facts for his own means.

My brother-in-law served in Iraq. He was lucky enough to get out alive and unhurt. Of course, he was a medevac pilot, so he ferried the hurt and dying to safety. He has not shirked his duty. I will not shirk mine. I am proud of him, but I feel sad that he had to go there to begin with.

[Dorian]

As most post-ers here have stated, your original post Osurd is frighteningly one-sided and ill-informed. To me if feels tantamount to propaganda.

I am all for expressing one's feelings and opinions (as I often share my own here) but there is something threatening to me about the attitude in this post given the date and time.

I am glad SFishy and others have responded and I hope that anyone who had the energy to read through your post also has the energy to trudge through the rebuttals in SFishy's and others' responses.

:love Kate

[SFishy]

Greenangel,

Vietnam was not wrong because we lost -- that is only one small piece of the history of the Vietnam war.

Part of why it was wrong was because troops were committed to the effort without the US officially declaring war, and because of it, the heros that fought the battles were forgotten. They came home to no parades, and had to fight for any benefits.

Vietnam changed how we determine troops get to go into war. It wasn't until after Vietnam that a president needed to get congressional approval before committing troops to any effort for more than ninety days.

We underestimated our enemy. We were often not wanted there. The US engaged in Chemical Warfare that caused massive harm and long-term birth defects to the Vietnamese people and our own soldiers. Vietnam changed how we engaged in foreign policy. There were MANY mistakes of Vietnam that we were supposed to have learned from, and it isn't just because "we lost".

The Vietnam War was the longest and most unpopular war in which Americans ever fought. And there is no reckoning the cost. The toll in suffering, sorrow, in rancorous national turmoil can never be tabulated. No one wants ever to see America so divided again. And for many of the more than two million American veterans of the war, the wounds of Vietnam will never heal.

PBS Vietnam Online

Analysis of effect [of the Vietnam War] on the United States

Take care of YOU

[Kensington]

Can statistics be manipulated & data be left out of them? Absolutely. But poll after poll after poll, in print, television & online news media, have shown America is virtually split. If just about half the people are saying they support Kerry, then that means they do NOT support Bush.

There's no clear way to manipulate almost fifty percent of the population giving Kerry their vote into them somehow being supportive of how Bush is running things & wanting four more years of it.

Again, there is no mandate for Bush's agenda nor his war efforts. Same as there is no mandate for Kerry. An almost fifty-fifty split means the country is torn in half.

[elf]

Osurd,

One of the most disturbing things about this post is the disregard for human life. One cannot justify that one thousand lives being lost is not a big deal when when X- hundred thousand were lost each year during other wars. It is sad that all of these lives lost are reduced to this, meaningless numbers used to justify one's position.
I will leave you with a timely and true quote:

"Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."~ George Orwell

:peace:peace:peace
susan

[SFishy]

Elf...

Thanks for sharing that quote -- our times have been called "Orwellian" so frequently these days, and it's quite frightening to say the least.

Take care of YOU

[Vicks]

First of all, this post goes to show how many fishies are intelligent and interested in politics. I too, dont' care what a person beleives as long as they care, far to many people don't care and that is sad.

Personally, all I want is to have respect in this world again as a United States citizen. I am not proud right now of my country, and I want to be. I have a huge magnet at my desk at work that right now is in a drawer because I am not proud right now, to be a US citizen. Yes I support our troops, and all of the other troops there from the other coalition countries, yes I want to finish the job. But the job, won't get finished, unless there is some give and take. Ultimately to have true peace in the world, we need to understand and work with Eachother. And right now, the US isn't being viewed as a country "Willing to work with outhers"

As a history major, I value fact a lot, but one thing noone can deny is that this war in IRAQ whether WMDs were found or not, was a war launched upon a country, that did not fire upon us. They did not attack us in anyway. It sets a precident, for other countries. Other countries such as Russia, have said that "the US set precidence by going into IRAQ without being fired upon - so we can now go into chenya without being directly fired upon" It scares me that a new precident has been established.

Vicks

[shortstop]

all I want is to have respect in this world again as a United States citizen. I am not proud right now of my country,
I feel the exact same way. I feel like we're the bullies in the school yard pushing little smaller kids down for their lunch money. I am actually a little scared for our future. Who says that the new "precident" doesn't extend to us? We've pissed off enough countries...and we don't know what the future is...there are still nuclear weapons out there and the countries that have them aren't our friends.
I don't know. I just know that I don't likeit.

[joelle]

As a Canadian, I will say reading a lot of your reply's is very uplifting...I think the states does have a rep as a school yard bully right now...I think the more people who are aware of this and wish to change it, will do so just by speaking out! I know I find it positive to read the responses here. I'm very proud of my country and hope those of you who are right now doubting your country will have reason to be proud and your faith restorted very soon!

[gone]

A quick reply to Kensington,

No disrespect meant at all, but just something I was thinking about in response to your comment about the country being divided. Yes, there have been a lot of polls saying that x amount of people support Bush, and x support Kerry, etc. And it's a good argument that since there were so many of these polls for so long, that must mean that the country is divided.

But I'd challenge you to think about who's doing the polling- there are four or five major, well-established polling organizations in the US. We have Gallup, Pew, Roper, Harris (mostly online polling), and a few others. Now, although these are different businesses, a lot of the ways they do their polling are similar. So yeah, there's been a lot of polls over the last few years saying that x amount of people support Bush, x don't etc. But they're a lot of polls from five or six organizations, who use similar methods. So just because there's a LOT of polls doesn't mean there's variation in the way they were done, or that they're even valid. It could be that these polling agencies keep using the same methods and keep hitting a certain group of Americans for their polls, and that might not be representative of the US as a whole

Just my two cents. And I'll get off my soapbox now...

[Kensington]

Hey greenangel,

No disrespect taken at all. I am curious if you think the polls are skewed & that actually either Bush or Kerry has a firm majority but the polls don't accurately reflect that?

[gone]

Hey Kensington :gimmehug

Oh I just hate polls in general. I had a few classes on them in college and developed a real skepticism for them... It's darn difficult for people to gague "public opinion"...

I think that the election is probably going to be close. The real key is going to be voter turnout. Because yes, it could be pretty much even in terms of who supports what candidate, but it's who turns out to vote that's going to determine the election.

[hopeovertherainbow]

one word....propaganda?

[New-Bride]

:hugon Osurd :hugoff

I too feel that your post was slightly one-sided. I am a very passionate democrate and will chose my vote based on what i feel, what i can know for sure, and on the issues that affect me personally.

There can be just as many rebuttels (spell??) for each bulletin on your thread. That's the fun of politics. If i had more energy this morning i'd try to type some!!!!

One thing that i had previously read in newsweek, and that was also mentioned by senator kerry during the ****st debate, is that ninety percent of the casualties thus far in Irag have been american. Does that seem like the "war" is going well? I think we need a change. More americans have died in Iraq after the cease-fire. We are sitting ducks. I would rather see our national defense protecting our soil rather than protecting Iraq's soil. That is just my opinion.

Good :challenge post though!! Take Care :boink