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 .

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 ti! me 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 morale is high!



The biased media hopes we are too ignorant

to realize the facts







But Wait . there's more!







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 sp! ace 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!







If you can read this, thank a teacher.

If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran. :heart

As some already know, I am in the Air Force and work for the Department of Defense, have now for 13 years. If I was in the marines, I would probably say "Hooorah!"





:devil

[Edit: Damnit, your post wasn't working the first time I opened it :(]

There's so much wrong with that post (other than the irritating formatting) it's hard to know where to begin. But I'll note a few things:
b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
They were allies, so declaring war on Japan put us into war with Germany (and Italy). And Germany had already launched a war of aggression against our own allies. Iraq also hadn't attacked us and were in no position to do so (and wouldn't be for years, if ever).
Vietnam never attacked us.
Vietnam was a disaster, though it's ironic to note that those on the left generally decry Vietnam as just that, while those on the right support the war as a necessary battle against the spread of communism. But all that's neither here nor there. The fact that Vietnam was a mess doesn't ameliorate Iraq being a mess.

Trikki's (and the source's) central point seems to be: "Not enough people have died for me to care." Bravo!
Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
He went in to stop ethnic cleansing (just like he/UN should have done in Rwanda and like Bush/UN should be doing in Sudan).
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.
If true, he should have accepted. But at least he warned Bush of bin Laden, and the CIA warned Bush that bin Laden planned terrorist attacks in the US, for all the good it did. And Bush had the opportunity to take out Zawaqiri <sp>, but didn't take the shot because it might lower support for his war. Now the guy is causing us even more trouble than the still free bin Laden.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
Not that I've heard. There is no war, in any case. It's an occupation beset by an ever-growing insurgency. The real complaint is that all the pre-war promises of rapid results, low cost, low duration have been proven false. War planning was horrible, and post-war planning non-existent. And, because of tax cuts and increased spending, we have an enormous deficit and a debt increasingly absorbed by China.

Your John Glenn speech is distorted from the original in the 70s. You can find info on that here (http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/glenn.asp). And, in fact, they have an update that repeats your entire post, noting that it is not from John Glenn.

Wish I'd noticed that before I started this post; I wouldn't have bothered with the rest. Now you're stuck with it.

Always check your sources, Trikki, before you make yourself a fool.

:devil

You mentioned how many were killed in Iraq in Janurary, I wonder how much it was last month. Everytime I open my local paper for hibituraries there is like 6 to 10 names of young men departed from death over there. They do not mention the ones that come back missing a limb or body part. They also do not mention the marriages/families it ruins from being away from ones they love for long periods of time. And to say if they truly loved each other they could overcome but we are all human and distance making the heart grow fonder is BS. There is not only lives beng lost over there. :(

I hope they do something to speed up whatever they are doing over there and be done with it. Before the war personally touches lives of so many that the majority will be sick of it like they were of vietnam.

As a 40% disabled Nam vet my reaction to the speech on the floor is a resounding cheer, regardless of who said it or the context. The words quoted (or misquoted) make me feel good inside.

As to the rest of the post, it just made me chuckle as being simply another right-wing sniping fest at Democrats, with the usual predictable errors.

BTW, Kennedy should not be blamed for starting the Viet Nam involvement, since that was being done under Eisenhower (sp). There were advisors over there doing training and intelligence gathering, and their support troops, long before Senator Kennedy announced his candidacy.

Being an Independent, it is really entertaining to watch the manner in which the two major political parties have made an entire cottage industry focused on digging up ways to fling poo at each other.

of course what's stated there is American combat deaths. Add up how many insurgents died, how many Iraqi police and military died, how many innocent civilians died, and you are going to get a MUCH higher number. Every life matters, not just the American soldiers. Even the terrorist that dies matters to someone somewhere. How about the children taken out by the insurgents or by our bombs, why aren't they included in this? They died needlessly also.

also we've had over 13,000 soldiers injured in Iraq thus far, many of whom have lost a limb. There's much more to war than a simple body count.

In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida

Ask Britain, Spain, Saudi Arabia, and the Phillipines if Al Qaida is crippled.

The Military morale is high!

This is a blatant falsity here. Speaking to my brother in law, who is an officer in the marines and been to Iraq twice thusfar, this simply isn't true.

Even I can smell the bullshit all the way over here in Sweden.
We get it Trikki, you're a patriot. Good for you.
Now get your head out of the ass of the two-party system and look around. There's a lot more going on here than taking one out of two possible sides.

Since this thread is on its way,... I'll share something truthful about the two senators from Ohio.
Please 'set the way-back machine' to 1978..and Mrs. Harmon's third grade social studies project. Assignment: Write a letter to the state senator of your choice. Most of the class chose Glenn, I chose Metzenbaum.

Three weeks later, the class received four letters...all Metzenbaum.

If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran. :heart
Sooooo with "terribly-copy-paste-2004-anonymous-half-truths-associated-to-Glenn", we know that USA can read in english because it has an history of attacking countries that never attacked first (not to mention this is so wrong, as well).

Impressive! :D

On a more serious note, there is nothing wrong in my books with people who choose to serve their country as military, and "do the job" when it needs to be done. (my father served 15 years in military, was in Tchad, etc) But blindy following and executing, never wondering "why?", or not questionning the veracity of a received email "because a veteran and hero wrote it"...
Sad in pants, sad in pants indeed!

Blah blah blah Bush=teh debil blah blah blah

Nonsense! He's a godly man, and really should select a godly nickname to make sure his godliness is readily apparent. I think "Bush666" has a nice ring to it.

This is a blatant falsity here. Speaking to my brother in law, who is an officer in the marines and been to Iraq twice thusfar, this simply isn't true.


I've heard similiar. Almost every soldier I've spoken with that served in Iraq honestly wanted to help the Iraqis, but few of them would have describe morale as high and many of them were very dubious about the war in general.

There was a documentary called Soldier's Pay out on DVD now I'm keen to look at, still in the mail.


BTW, Kennedy should not be blamed for starting the Viet Nam involvement, since that was being done under Eisenhower (sp). There were advisors over there doing training and intelligence gathering, and their support troops, long before Senator Kennedy announced his candidacy.

That is incorrect. Eisenhower was most adamantly against military involvement in Southeast Asia and specifically advised Kennedy against the war along with Douglas MacArthur. Who actually gets the blame for the war is the perenially caustic French, who constantly demanded support in the insurrection there in exchange for agreeing to NATO's initiatives FOR EUROPEAN DEFENSE (yeah, just think about that for a minute). Eisenhower did support the French there for that reason, but was absolutely against ever sending combat troops, and Kennedy is fully responsible for that.




They do not mention the ones that come back missing a limb or body part.

Quite true, and many, many of our casualties are disabled or seriously wounded to the extent that they would not have survived in any earlier conflict. The VFW has had their hands full trying to keep up with the huge influx of lifetime disability veterans coming in, and aren't getting the necessary funding.

Reminds me it has been a long time I didn't visit my old church (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/)...
I wonder what they would say about your theory Thormir!!

Being an Independent, it is really entertaining to watch the manner in which the two major political parties have made an entire cottage industry focused on digging up ways to fling poo at each other.

This cottage industry can thank the 24 hour news cycle for that.

Thank you for your service.

I guess I will have to continue to disagree on this point Malse, because Eisenhower did have advisors and intelligence officers in Viet Nam, with support staff. If he had not been supporting the French, it is an open question whether Kennedy would have felt the need, or been pressured by his Pentagon advisors, to send combat troops into the area.

This country had always been firm on the idea of taking care of our own, and as long as we had people in country, the onus was on our leaders to take whatever steps they believed necessary to ensure their safety; an absolutely ridiculous argument in hindsight, seeing we spent the lives of over 50k young men and women in the long run to protect those initial couple hundred.

And on one other note, did you mean the Veteran's Administration is having trouble keeping up with the number of disabled coming in and being underfunded? The Veterans of Foreign Wars is a separate organization, and I never knew they received any government monies, although I was once a member of the local post.

I guess I will have to continue to disagree on this point Malse, because Eisenhower did have advisors and intelligence officers in Viet Nam, with support staff. If he had not been supporting the French, it is an open question whether Kennedy would have felt the need, or been pressured by his Pentagon advisors, to send combat troops into the area.

I don't really see how it's much of an open question when a) we have advisors, training staff, and military logistical support investments in dozens of countries (Israel in particular) and have never gone to war as a result, and b) Eisenhower's public stance before, during, and after his presidency was that a war in Southeast Asia was not a realistically winnable affair and that under no circumstances should the US entangle its military there. There was a succinct comment he made to either Truman or Kennedy on the subject that I can't find at the moment, but I'll keep looking for it.

US advisors were in Vietnam for the better part of 10 years before combat units were sent over (roughly 56 through 64). In the late fifties the overall situation in Vietnam was considered to have stabilized, it wasn't until the Diem assassination (early 63 IIRC, shortly before Kennedy) that things really startd going downhill fast. It was almost four full years after Ike left office that Johnson initiated acts of war. I find it incredibly dubious to try to shift the blame out of a complete term of Kennedy/Johnson presidency.

Ike was also almost unilateraly against a military answer to Communism, prefering to push for nuclear disarmament and deterrence, and in his words "waiting for the world to educate itself out of Communism." By contrast both candidates in the 60 election favored mass armament and military intervention, to Eisenhower's public annoyance.

You'll have to forgive my argumentative chip on the subject, Eisenhower is in my estimation the most underrated president in our history and I've studied quite a bit about his life and politics. (FDR was fascinating as well, but he gets a lot more credit since it's more laudable to solve a crisis than prevent it).

And on one other note, did you mean the Veteran's Administration is having trouble keeping up with the number of disabled coming in and being underfunded?

That was my mistake, my friend's father is both a regional VA director and involved in the VFW and I often blur the two.

I don't really see how it's much of an open question when a) we have advisors, training staff, and military logistical support investments in dozens of countries (Israel in particular) and have never gone to war as a result, ..........it wasn't until the Diem assassination (early 63 IIRC, shortly before Kennedy) that things really startd going downhill fast.


The mind-set 40-50 years ago (the 56-64 time frame) was dramatically different than what it is today, not having had the benefit of the Beatles, Grateful Dead, CNN, mass media, the internet, etc; we did not have people in dozens of countries that were in jeapordy, and when an incident did occur it gripped the nation as a whole, like that of the U.S.S.Pueblo.

I still recall reading newspaper accounts in school of the escalation of the conflict in Viet Nam, and the dashing Diem and Madame Nhu (I think she is the reason I am so taken with asian ladies), and when he was killed it seemed everyone knew that something really bad was going to happen.

I appreciate your knowledge of the matter, and your studies. I am hopeful we can agree to disagree on our respective points of view.

I've heard similiar. Almost every soldier I've spoken with that served in Iraq honestly wanted to help the Iraqis, but few of them would have describe morale as high and many of them were very dubious about the war in general.
Stories like this (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001012879) certainly aren't going to improve things on that count. =/

I will bet that more people were killed (murdered) in the USA than our soldiers in Iraq this month or this year...... not that any of that is okay but, just to illustrate a point.

To illustrate the point that you're going to sign up to serve in the war you support, because it's safer there than here? Or the point that you don't understand proportions?

300,000 troops or so have served in Iraq. Over 1800 have died. So, if ~1.8 million people were murdered in the US over the past year...you might have something approaching a point. This analogy doesn't include the hundreds of billions of dollars spent (but not budgeted), the lack of WMDs, the armor shortage, stop-loss, torture, etc etc, but taking all that into account, an actual "point" is far better illuminated.

But you're right on one thing: none of it is "okay."

I think "Bush666" has a nice ring to it.

Late on this but it popped into my head as I was reviewing posts...how about:

George W. Beelzebush :devil

He was just two weeks away from finishing up his six-year stint in the Guard when he was told that his tour of duty was being extended and that he would serve in Iraq for at least a year, maybe longer.

Obviously extending someone's stint against their will is somehow legal, but are they using some "national security" reason to accomplish this forced extension?

Yeah, it's the "recruitment is down but if we call for a draft we're politically screwed" reason.

This was left on my Reputation:

"you have no fucking reading comprehension, read the whole fucking thread dumbass"

The funny thing though is you gave me POSITIVE rep points for it.... now who is the dumbass HAHA!

I am willing to bet we can get my rep down to negative pretty fast but ya gotta have the common sense to hit the right button dumbass. If you need some sort of instruction I'm sure Thormir or someone can give you a few pointers....

At least get it right.... And what is with all the anon rep point giving.... I haven't checked it in a while but at least last year (or when ever) when we started it people had the balls to leave there name..... people are so pussified.

AND also, it is laughable that some of my posts are just deleted .... who is deleting them? who is running this BB?

What Senator John Glenn... (showthread.php?p=92655#post92655) 08-12-2005 03:12 PM Bise (member.php?u=51) I dissaprove of you comment - bise
Well, Bise is still a dumbass, but yeah, make sure you have your pixels in the right circle when giving someone a rep beating.
AND also, it is laughable that some of my posts are just deleted .... who is deleting them? who is running this BB?
If I delete a post I'll leave a snarky note saying why. I haven't noticed any posts coming then going, but Sanchek is better suited to discover that sort of thing than I.

Maybe the forums themselves have awakened into some sort of AI and are disgorging the contents of your posts like a bulemic downing shots of ipecac. Couldn't say, but unless you're posts are laden with pejoratives and exposes on the disposition of bodily fluids, it's unlikely than staff are deleting them. And even then...we'd leave a note.

Ahhh so it was you :) Anyway I haven't ever gotten a snarky note from any staff at any time... but apprarently it's coming? The posts that are deleted are usually one line quips aimed at humor.... but I think I can get over it with some counceling..

Oh an Thormir... notice that the rep hit was actually signed.... that was the whole point...

I suppose I could have been clearer. I didn't give you the rep hit. I mean really, look at the writing...clearly not my style. I tend to sign my rep hits (like you did yours), and I'd certainly own up to them. Obviously, if I'm willing to call you a dumbass here I'm not going to obfuscate calling you a dumbass there. =)

What Senator John Glenn... (showthread.php?p=92443#post92443) 08-12-2005 03:14 PM I don't agree with your post here but No room to tell ya why because my posts get deleted - Bise

Keep trying Bise, eventually you'll get it correct who gave ya the hit.

This was left on my Reputation:

"you have no fucking reading comprehension, read the whole fucking thread dumbass"

The funny thing though is you gave me POSITIVE rep points for it.... now who is the dumbass HAHA!

I am willing to bet we can get my rep down to negative pretty fast but ya gotta have the common sense to hit the right button dumbass. If you need some sort of instruction I'm sure Thormir or someone can give you a few pointers....

At least get it right.... And what is with all the anon rep point giving.... I haven't checked it in a while but at least last year (or when ever) when we started it people had the balls to leave there name..... people are so pussified.

AND also, it is laughable that some of my posts are just deleted .... who is deleting them? who is running this BB?

You think that rep hit was bad? Check this bullshit out......

You should spend less time playing smart and more time posting pictures.

All I have to say about that is...Ouch, that was the first time I actually felt humiliated on a message board. Hats off to you mr. anon. That was a good slam. Prick. :spade

:devil