Some facts for Democrats to chew on...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by dsharits, Aug 25, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dsharits macrumors 68000

    dsharits

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    Location:
    The People's Republic of America
    #1
    Here are a few interesting tidbits I found comparing Bush’s “faults” to other historical events. Check these out.

    • 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 WWII. 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.

    • JFK started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. North 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 three 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 how long the war is taking, but…

    • It took less time to take Baghdad than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound on our own soil. That was a 51-day operation.

    • We found evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq in 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! Military morale is high! The biased media hopes we are just too ignorant to realize the facts.


    Enjoy,
    Daniel
     
  2. LeeTom macrumors 68000

    LeeTom

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    #2
    Still, when he and Cheney and Rummy get together, they DO kill kittens. I saw it on the news. So I'm going to vote for Kerry.

    Lee Tom
     
  3. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #3
    Before I comment on this, care to share/link where this info comes from? It is not that I necessarily dispute the accuracy, but it does seem to be written by someone who is not you...so give credit where credit is due, if applicable

    Thanks.
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    I see that, in common with the Pentagon, you only count US military dead. The Iraqis are people too, you know. As are the "contractors".

    Germany declared war on the USA. FYI.

    You should check your atlas. Bosnia and Serbia are not the same country.

    Or, to put it another way, he has bombed two countries back to the stone age, crippled their infrastructures, killed 20,000 of their people, imposed unrepresentative puppet regimes, lost control of most of both countries outside their capital cities, let the Taleban and Al Qaeda re-form, cosied up to the monstrous Gadaffi (poster-boy for the human rights movement), failed to capture the main terrorist leader in three years of looking, deposed a head of state who was largely unconnected with terrorism, and trashed international conventions on human rights, the US constitution and the Geneva Convention.

    Good Job!
     
  5. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
  6. macsrus macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Terra Firma
    #7
    I dont see how that is related at all as whether the loss of life in Iraq is justified.... Secondly It seems to cheapen the lives of the soldiers to make this comparison....IMO

    I dont think anyone can argue that FDR's decision to enter the war in Europe was wrong or bad.... If anything maybe we actually stayed out to long.
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Does the original poster have an opinion? I think we should be told. Lazy trolling.
     
  8. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #9
    your tidbit on Clinton being offered Bin Laden is false.

    Some of the rest speaks of the great strength of our military. Was there ever any question that the US could beat Iraq militarily? No. But what about the part that the Bush administration is more directly responsible for, like post war planning? Do you think he is doing a good job there? Does anyone?

    Vietnam was a mistake and Johnson used questionable intelligence, prompted by an upcoming election to escalate that useless war. Sound familiar? Johnson was from Texas too.

    I'm not sure why we were in Korea either but I am not too familar with that war.

    Who cares it's only 39 people a month being killed! Loss of limbs don't count! Iraqi civilain deaths don't count either! If Johnson did it then Bush should be able to do it too!
     
  9. macsrus macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Terra Firma
    #10
    I dont disagree with anything in this post... except.... Kennedy is to blame for Vietnam....

    also from most things I have read Clinton was offered bin Laden by Sudan
    here is just one link
    http://www.infowars.com/saved pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
     
  10. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #11
    You must work for the RNC :)

    - Detroit murders would be curtailed with better gun control laws and more sensible tax policies that just don't give money back to the rich on the hope jobs will created.

    - Actually as pointed out in other posts, that Germany had plans to attck the US after the declaration of war on Japan.

    - I am not versed on the politics of the Korean War. So i will leave your comments stand. Though another war that the US failed to win.

    - It was Eisenhower that first sent "advisors" in to Vietnam. That started the ball rolling.

    - Johnson was being missed led, and was to weak to stand up to the advisors that pushed for further involvement in Vietnam. History, may end up saying the say about GW.

    - Bosnia could have turned in to another Final Solution. In this case Clinton waited too long. With Iraq, maybe we should have acted sooner after the first mass killing by Saddam. But "Daddy" was to weak to finish the job. So now his son is trying to do it in more unstable times in the Middle East.

    - Liberated is not quite right yet. What replaces the regimes we removed may in turn be much worse.

    Some other points to think about:

    - We know know that the plans for Iraq were first discussed in 2000, before 9-11. Little was done to hunt for bin Laden by GW.

    - $100 billion dollars have been spent in Iraq, with at least $8 billion being "missing" at this point.

    - Bush refused to testify under oath to the 9-11 Commission. Questionable for a President that wanted an accountable presidency. Along with a VP that held closed door meetings on energy policy. Easy to point to the market and place blame on world events for the high energy costs. But remember the "laughing' by Enron traders I think it was.

    Yeah, I fell for your bait, but it was too easy to see the missing points.....
     
  11. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    #12
    I thought that the main gripe with Johnson was that he would o.k. all of the bombing targets, and he didn't allow the military to do their job.
     
  12. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #13
    Missing point in many posts is the WWII did a lot for lifting the country out the the depression. Same as the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and now in Iraq.
     
  13. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #14
  14. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #15
    This sounds more like an argument for gun control rather than a argument that this war was a good idea.
    Germany and Japan were allies. Saddam and Osama were not.
    A longer war with more peole killed does not make *this* war a good idea
    So JFK made bad decisions as well? Amazing.
    Johnson, Bush...let's never elect a president from Texas again, eh? They cause too much damn trouble. (Apologies, Desertrat)
    Clinton went in with NATO, (he had enough legitimacy to at least pull that off, unlike Bush who has England, Djibouti and North Bulemia in his "coalition") and didn't occupy the country afterwards, spending over one hundred billion dollars, tying up two hundred thousand troops, and inflaming hatred against the USA.
    One of those countries we ditched, and is now in such a state of chaos that elections have been pushed back twice, and not half the money promised to rebuild it has been sent by the country which torn it down in the first place. The other country is Iraq. The Taliban are a rising force in Afghanistan, not one that's out of the picture. If al-Qeada is so crushed, then why are we still on Magenta Alert, and shall be until the election? (and doubtless afterwards, if Bush wins) Lybia - I'll give you. Iran - yeah right. North Korea - he followed Clinton's plan. He then captured a military dictator that this nation was more than happy to support in the past when it was more convenient.
    So we've proven we can destroy a country quicker than at any time in history. This is an accomplishment?
    "evidence of weapons of mass destruction program related activities" is a significant departure from "immenent threat" and "grave and gathering danger" He's still a liar in my book.
    Attacking Ted Kennedy does what for your argument?
    So maybe we should be spending money of fixing the election system rather than blowing up things at will half a world away?

    If winning battles were the only measure of a president, then yes, he dun blowed up ev'rythin' better'n anybody else. Unfortunately, he also has to win the *war*, lead, rather than command the nation, work to keep the economy strong, and keep America true to itself. Alienating allies, pissing off the entire Muslim block, losing a million jobs, and turning America into "FORTRESS USA" is not what I would call a great job. Your facts are all true. You just failed to list the consequences of those acts. Hey! I think I just found Rove's strategy! Just list the first half of what happens, and ignore all the ****ty stuff that comes afterward! Neat!
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    Ah lets see if I get this logic. We have to stop Saddam now, because we don't want to appease him like we did with Hitler. But Democrats = Bad for going after Hitler.

    There is an inherent contradiction in that logic. Either you should praise FDR for finally going after Hitler (much like I'm guessing you praise Bush for finally going after Saddam) or you should condemn Bush for going after Saddam in the same way you just condemned FDR for going after Hitler.

    Which is it?
    :confused:
     
  16. macsrus macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Terra Firma
    #17
    Agreed.... FDR's lend lease program was probably the greatest economic boom program to the U.S. in history....
    The U.S. stayed out of the war and made money like crazy selling to its allies....

    Not the kind of program I would approve of today.
     
  17. macsrus macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Terra Firma
    #18
    While that may or may not be true... It doesnt change the fact the Clinton Administration was offered... and did not respond or follow through.
     
  18. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #19
    offtopic:
    actually did you know that the german IG Farben (who was one of the biggest..if not not _the biggest_ ...chemical companies in world that time) and it's daughter companies sold gasoline to the german _and_ the US airforce ... war profiteering at it's best....

    ontopic: what shall i say what haven't been said before

    edit:
    oh yeah.. i nearly spilled the water, i was drinking,on my screen when i was reading that ;)
     
  19. macsrus macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Terra Firma
    #20
    Actually the most offensive company was BAYER.... who I believe was also part of the IG Farben group ....

    All the Bayer executives should have been tried for war crimes....

    Wait its worse than i remembered.... And they are still up to the same old crimes...
    http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/profiles/bayer/bayer5.htm
     
  20. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #21
    IG farben have been founded by Bayer,Agfa and BASF and a few smaller ones
    and after the war they took the money out (and sold the american daughter companies to standard oil... i think)
     
  21. macsrus macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Terra Firma
    #22
    read the link I posted.... its an awful company...
     
  22. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #23
    i know i know...there are so many companies who earned lots of money with ww2 and are still in business that it's not even funny...

    gee ... rheinmetall is actually still making tanks and guns and highly profitable (the M68 of the american M-60 and the M256 of the M1A1 abrams are both Rheinmetall designs and are made under license...the M68 actually is based on a german WW2 tank gun..)
     
  23. themadchemist macrumors 68030

    themadchemist

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Location:
    Chi Town
    #24
    I'd like to see you argue that the cause of many of these murders, an environment of vast socioeconomic stratification, was more promoted by Democrats than Republicans. No, I'd chalk these deaths more up to the Reps than the Dems, because the Republicans have consistently ignored the sociology of our society to embrace a somewhat-flawed doctrine that working hard is all it takes to succeed and that we all have an equal footing. Indeed, the Republicans' legislative stances have only further facilitated the robbery and subjugation of the poor to maximize the profits of the rich; these same Republicans are the first to turn around and blame the poor for their own struggles.

    You conveniently ignore the fact that Germany and Japan were formal allies. Therefore, an attack by Japan was effectively, and attack by Germany. Moreover, you forget the following timeline:

    December 1941:
    7th. Japan attacks United States.
    8th. United States declares war on Japan.
    11th. Germany and Italy declare war on the United States.
    11th. United States declares war on Germany and Italy.

    Note the stunning lack of pre-emption and the abundance of justification, something that the Bush administration woefully lacks. Also, note that FDR's Axis of choice actually had a formal alliance, instead of being at best unrelated and at worst mortal enemies.

    Sorry, you can't justify one mistake by citing another.

    At least we had a NATO coalition and at least we didn't lose any troops. But I'll agree with you that UN consent would have been better. I'll also add that greater care with respect to civilian casualties should have been taken.

    Fox News can take credit for this half-truth's popularity. A dubious go-between who was trying to maximize his own perceived political power suggested that Sudan could offer up OBL. However, Sudan's willingness or ability to successfully execute this supposed promise was unknown and probably unlikely; given the situation and knowledge at the time, to have provided incentives to Sudan to cooperate would have most likely been costly and ineffective. If anything, portions of financial incentives would have only gone to further propagate terrorism, with the chances of actually securing bin Laden being slim to none. The Clinton administration considered the offer and decided that it was not worth pursuing.

    Incidentally, the go-between now works as a political analyst for Fox News.

    Osama bin Laden HAS attacked the United States on multiple occassions, and it has been said that the Clinton administration did more to fight terrorism than any previous administration. In fact, reports dating from soon after Clinton left office suggest that perhaps focused a little bit too much on this bin Laden character, given the information known at the time. Funny thing, Bush and Clinton have had equal success at catching bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, even though Bush had a much greater reason and spent much more money to do so. While I think that catching one or two heads won't destroy al-Qaeda, it would have been nice, given the billions of dollars, to have actually caught bin Laden. Clinton tried unsuccessfully, yes, but that was at a time when the stakes were so low that a Bush administration, which wanted to scale back the military and had a Justice Dept. that considered prostitution a greater priority than terrorism before 9/11, would not have done nearly as much.

    As you and I both know, this point of yours is not fact, but highly-debatable rhetoric. As hundreds of people have posted thousands of messages in this forum debating these very issues, I will not take the time to do so here. Instead, I'll suggest to you that you avoid masking dogma as fact, because it is a misleading and disingenuous technique, though one that seems very popular amongst your friends in the Bush administration.

    Wow, I never noticed the shocking similarities between Iraq and the Brandh Davidian. For example, I was not aware:

    -that we spent tens of billions on the Branch Davidian affair
    -that we deployed a large portion of our military to the Branch Davidian compound
    -that we engaged in massive nation-rebuilding and democracy-building after taking the Branch Davidian compound and that the rebuilding of the nation of Branch Davidian would take billions more dollars, the time and risk of thousands of troops, and several years to complete.
    -that we concerned ourselves with precise and painstaking efforts to avoid any civilian casualties if possible at Iraq, as we did for quite a while at Branch Davidian
    -that we lost more personnel after the taking of Branch Davidian (you know, during its subsequent occupation and rebuilding) than we did during the "invasion" itself

    Wow, I love the way you string two totally unrelated pieces of information together in a manner that does not contribute to the debate whatsoever. Good for you!

    Hmm, does this include the time it took the Supreme Court to block the results of the recount or not? How about the time it took to systematically preclude the African American vote? Great statistic! The demand for transparent and fair elections sure is frightening; maybe, if we invade a few more countries in an essentially unilateral manner, we can make up for this sinful desire for free and fair elections. Man! I just listen to these cries for an equal vote and it makes me sick...Especially coming from minorities, huh? Who gave them the right to vote, anyway?

    More with the rhetoric disguised as fact, huh? And to top it all off, you inject your opinion as fact and pre-empt criticism by accusing the entire media (armed, more often than not, with more complete and accurate "facts" than you) of a greater bias than yours. Indeed, your acute jingoism and blind partisanship should constitute the objective standard for journalism, while pieces that contain more reason and grounding must, of course, be slanted. I'm not denying that different organizations in the media are skewed in different ways, but this so-called vast left-wing media conspiracy is incredibly slight compared to the wonderful example of right-wing bias you have just provided us.

    I did, Daniel, more than you could possibly know.
     
  24. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #25
    i think the point is: the US army could take detroit even faster than it took baghdad.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page