A little history lesson?

[MPSorc]

This was in an e-mail sent to me by one of my good friends who is in Iraq right now. Maybe some will agree with it, some won't, but i loved it.

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in perspective:

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point:

We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

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 18,333 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.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in
history? Come on!

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 Teddy 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 military is GREAT! PASS IT ON.

[Hulkein]

That's been posted... but yeah, it's a good one.

[Caiylania]

Yeah baby!!! Take that :D

(to make clear, I fully agree!)

[MPSorc]

doah, didn't know its been posted, damn. sorry bout the reposting then. but i liked it.

And I got shit for posting it but I am glad you put it up too.

[TheEschaton]

It is shit. See Edine's post for our dismantling of it. ;)

We've got better things to do than shoot down things which have already been shot down before.

:D

-TheE-

[MPSorc]

dismantle all you want, but our history is our history, we have been in SEVERAL wars or conflicts that we were there not because we were attacked, but because we wanted to help, and it has not been one President that did it, it has been MANY. So something there should tell us all that we are doing something right.

I don't want to get into a rant fest, or a he said, she said, this was done or this wasn't, this guy better than that one, blah blah blah, im tired of all that mess. We are there, we're not backing out, our soldiers, friends, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandparents are all dying out there and i see no right in saying it is wrong, they go to do what they all pledged to do when they volunteered to stand up for what is right. People are dying Americans and not, we can be better than saying it was wrong or right of them to die, we can show support of a quick ending and pray for fewer deaths in the search of that ending.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by MPSorc
i see no right in saying it is wrong, they go to do what they all pledged to do when they volunteered to stand up for what is right. People are dying Americans and not, we can be better than saying it was wrong or right of them to die, we can show support of a quick ending and pray for fewer deaths in the search of that ending. That's not the issue. The issue is Bush.

[Sean]

It is possible to support your troops and not support the war. In my opinion anyway. Ignoring that people think the war is wrong however doesn't solve anything in my opinion either.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by TheEschaton
It is shit. See Edine's post for our dismantling of it. ;)

We've got better things to do than shoot down things which have already been shot down before.

:D

-TheE-

You guys straw manned Edine's post and argued points that weren't conveyed in the message of the essay.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Tijay
It is possible to support your troops and not support the war. Thats my stance.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Tijay
It is possible to support your troops and not support the war.

Indeed.

Raven

[MPSorc]

Ok, i see alot of your points, agree with some (Tijay), but i don't know if anyone or how many people have asked this, but who here can actually say (that was born and aware of the situation at the time) "Why did we pull out of Desert storm leaving Sadam in control of Iraq?" I know it wasn't our purpose of the war to relieve him of his control of Iraq, but hey, it didn't stop us in the past wars.

Or could a better point be, this war isn't like any of the past wars, much like none of the past wars were like the others either.

Bah, political threads make my heart hurt.

"how bout a nice game of chess"

[TheEschaton]

We are there, we're not backing out, our soldiers, friends, brothers, sisters, wives, husbands, sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandparents are all dying out there and i see no right in saying it is wrong, they go to do what they all pledged to do when they volunteered to stand up for what is right.

That idea is bullshit. That one should remain silent against an unjust act, just because we're in the middle of the act, and innocent people have to carry out the act, is bullshit. I see no right in saying nothing if we think it's wrong.


"Why did we pull out of Desert storm leaving Sadam in control of Iraq?

To quote both General Norman Schwartzkopf, and President George H.W. Bush, to "launch a massive ground invasion of Iraq would lead to a horrible quagmire".

Oops.

-TheE-

[MPSorc]

you know, im no history buff, i don't have tons of quotes to pull from, hell I'm not even one to tears appart others peoples posts well. I don't even know if that quote from gen schwartzkopf and bush was before or after desert shield was over, but i did notice that i asked if the people, not stormin norman or Bush SR had to say about it. for round 10 years all people said when Desert storm was talked about was , damn we should have killed sadam, well now we took him alive.

[TheEschaton]

The quote from Schwartzkopf was from after the first Gulf War, to explain why people didn't go after Saddam.

Bush said the same thing in his autobiography, which was well after that war as well.


-TheE-

[Warriorbird]

Edine didn't even credit the post to the source.

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Edine didn't even credit the post to the source.

WTF? i copy and pasted what I got in the email. I at no time said I did the research or hinted at it. Get the stick out of your ass.

[Tsa`ah]

See the big blunder of that whole article is the assumption that "President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya ... without firing a shot."

The Taliban is far from crushed and still controls portions of Afghanistan, al-Qaida is far from crippled. Libya allowed UN inspectors inside their borders, not US inspectors. Libya was already in the process of becoming a democracy by the hands of a man the Reagan administration villainized during the 80's.

The article is heavily ladened with conservative bias for Bush that it attributes success to a man that had little or nothing to do with a success and grants him victory where he has actually failed.

You think Afghanistan and Iraq are liberated? Tell that to the over 600 dead US soldiers, the thousands of dead civilian Iraqi, and the Mayor of the Afghanistan capitol.

[Testosterone]

I'm all for a war on Islam, Judiasm, the rest of the non European world. I'm not for a war on these so called isolated "extremists."

When Bush goes on national television and tells the American people that "Islam is a religion of peace" he is deceiving every one of us. There's no peace in fucking Islam. The whole muslim world worships Osama Bin Laden. Their whole goal is to kill everyone who's not Muslim.

[Jazuela]

Originally posted by Testosterone
I'm all for a war on Islam, Judiasm, the rest of the non European world. I'm not for a war on these so called isolated "extremists."

When Bush goes on national television and tells the American people that "Islam is a religion of peace" he is deceiving every one of us. There's no peace in fucking Islam. The whole muslim world worships Osama Bin Laden. Their whole goal is to kill everyone who's not Muslim.

Heh - so you say the goal of Muslims is to kill everyone who's not Muslim. And your goal is to wage war on (kill) everyone who isn't European.

I find that just a wee bit ironic.

Oh and for the record - I am a EUROPEAN Jew. You gonna kill just the Jewish half of me pal? Because if you kill all of me, you're killing a European - which is contrary to your agenda.

[HarmNone]

Heh. Do not confuse poor Testy with facts, Jazuela. He is much more suited to free-form hatred. When confronted with facts, he simply babbles and drools. :)

HarmNone

[Chadj]

Bush is still a total moron. And one of the worst in history. Kosovo and such was a NATO decision, not just an American decision. That concentrates on wars only. Bush has fucked up back at home a fair amount. But as far as his war goes.. think about it. All the other wars had enemies that had at least some defenses. In the latest Iraq war, the US sent over a large army, complete with the newest weapons, bombed the shit outta targets that couldn't take out the planes, and fought against the Republican Guard that was disorganized, untrained, and technologically behind.

the above is my opinion, which was derived from what knowledge (quite possibly limited knowledge) i have on this subject. Being Canadian, I have to worry more about surviving polar bear attacks then what the hell some texan is doing with his army toy.

[Warriorbird]

Plagarism is not crediting a source. I'm sorry that you suck, Edine. Whether I agree with MPSorc or not, at least he had the mental wherewithall to not plagarize.

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Plagarism (Plagiarism?) is not crediting a source. I'm sorry that you suck, Edine. Whether I agree with MPSorc or not, at least he had the mental wherewithall to not plagarize (plagiarize?).
Maybe you should go read the thread again. I made it obvious that it was not my work in the post which came after my original, and the ones which followed.
All I did was copy and paste it from a Email that I was sent. It did not have where or who it came from, as MPsorc's version does.

[Skirmisher]

I KNOW that Dave was not just correcting someone on their spelling.

It must be a smudge on my screen or something.

[Mint]

Originally posted by Skirmisher
I KNOW that Dave was not just correcting someone on their spelling.

It must be a smudge on my screen or something.

Hey! I have the same smudge. Imagine the odds...

:saint:
Not as much that as it was to prove a point, skirm.
Warriorbird is among the lot that has joined in on bashing me as you are. I just would expect those that do not to be guilty of the same things as they bash me for.
The only posts he has made in this thread are direct attacks at me. I guess I am the only person who thinks that is somewhat odd\lame.

[HarmNone]

Am I going to have to get out my "do not correct spelling and grammar" stick again? It is soo heavy and hard to handle!

In short, cut it out with the corrections, people! Nobody here is so perfect as to be able to correct others' spelling and grammar.

HarmNone, hunting for her stick

;)
I am done harmnone. I unlike others do not call the guilty of such actions "stupid, idiots, morons etc." because of it.

My point was made I hope.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Chadj
the US sent over a large army, complete with the newest weapons, bombed the shit outta targets that couldn't take out the planes, and fought against the Republican Guard that was disorganized, untrained, and technologically behind.Compared to us, everyone is disorganized, untrained, or technologically behind. At best they get two out of three.

And if you listen to Edine, Kerry made sure the U.S. troops went over with a Colt .45, a Derringer, and a stick of dynamite. ;)

[TheEschaton]

Compared to us, everyone is disorganized, untrained, or technologically behind. At best they get two out of three.

But the whole point is, we went over there because Iraq was ready to take over the free world, silly. ;)

As it were, I think a Texas high school football team coulda taken that country over.

-TheE-

No lanistrom, But Kerry did vote against our getting Interceptor body armor for our toops. (only after he voted for it of course :rolleyes:

Originally posted by TheEschaton

As it were, I think a Texas high school football team coulda taken that country over.

-TheE-
so you are trivializing the deaths of the men who died before we controlled the country?.

[longshot]

Originally posted by The Edine
;)
I am done harmnone. I unlike others do not call the guilty of such actions "stupid, idiots, morons etc." because of it.

My point was made I hope.

Anyone can make a mistake.

A repeated and unchanging pattern of behavior... call yourself whatever you like except intelligent.

The issue with the article at hand is the very beginning... saying that the war was started by terrorists.

The war in Iraq has zero to do with terror.

None.

My problems with the war are that they were based on the lies of "imminent threat of Saddam", "weapons of mass destruction" and "Iraqi support of Al-Qaeda". None of these are true.

We were lied to.

Longshot please read this again, the start of the editorial


We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

I see the war on terror, not opperation OIF.

[TheEschaton]

A) I don't trivialize anyone's death. But Iraq was not the threat it was made out to be.

B) In saying that Iraq "is the main theatre in the war on terror", the President is saying it was involved in terror, against the United States, and it was about to attack us. The first was marginally true, the last two outright false.

-TheE-

[i remember halloween]

the world's problem is not the different people, it's the different religions. it's time people let that bullshit go and realize it's all a crock.

[Back]

After 9-11 we went to Afganistan. I'm proud of that. It was payback, with intrest. The US did in weeks what the Russians tried for years.

Iraq is a completely different story. What this adminstration will tell you is that its the key to peace in the middle east. Thats right from their mouths. Bush said it in his last public press conference. I don't see how bombing a country that did not, and literally could not, attack us, can be called bringing peace to the middle east. Its a mess, a big mess, and its going to take generations to fix.

That said, while I don't think going to Iraq was a good idea, I can see that we are going to have to do everything we can to see it out to its best ending.

As military operations go, Iraqi Freedom was impressive. Not that I am an expert on military history, but I'd guess that less lives have been lost in this operation than probably any other large scale taking of a nation. Regardless, how do you justify the loss of a real persons life with the claim you are freeing them? This is a link to iraqbodycount.net if you are curious about the other side's losses. (http://www.iraqbodycount.net)

If you want to take the moral high ground, wouldn't you find some other way to solve a problem than to go in shooting knowing that innocent lives are going to be lost?

Part of Deputy of the Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz's radical new theory on defense is to be preemptive. A 21st century page to Sun Tzu's book. Kill your neighbor before they kill you. Sorry but I see something inherantly wrong with that, especially when you factor human beings into the equation because we all know people aren't perfect so someone somewhere along the line fucks up and an innocent family ends up mourning the loss of a loved one.

[i remember halloween]

what fucking losers run that site?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
I don't see how bombing a country that did not, and literally could not, attack usDidn't 9/11 show that anyone can attack us?