Punkrawk

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

My boss gave this to me. I thought it was interesting.
---- QUOTE ----

Regardless of who you will vote for in the election this is interesting.

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. I think history might show Eisenhower committed the troops and Kennedy was honoring that commitment.

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 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... in the fair city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq!

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. 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

--- END QUOTE ---

Personally, I like our president and military. They have a really difficult job to do.

michaeljohn

Moved to the Edge of the Hole because this merits serious discussion. Thanks for the contribution!

___________________________________________
Watch out LEECHERS, the BAN STICK is FALLING!!

Like or download something? Reply and stay here! If you're not replying, I'm banning!

Edit 11-13: Leecher Banning Criteria:
Joined 2007: up to 6 mos.
Joined 2006 or before: 6 mos,
No current replies in your history? 1 mo. for each mo. you haven't replied, up to 6 mos.

Reban for LEECHING: 1 year.


BAN LIST: CLICK!!

ComancheMX

Posts: n/a/0

Threads:

I agree our military is great..of course I might be biased seeing how I am a Marine and have many many friends over there right now..
great post

HIJACKER

Definately a good post, does make you think. The fact where only 39 were lost in January, and 35 were lost in Detroit is a good fact, and I completely agree. War means, lives will be lost, but.. the reasons outweigh and make it legit.

However, same thing goes. Iraq never attacked us, but.. WE declared WAR on them. It was Al-Queda which is mostly in Afghanistan. How come we didn't go to war with them??

___________________________________________
SC-Customs Promo Car, CLICK - http://www.club3g.com/forum/members...rs-eclipse.html

Lorill

We DIDN'T go to war with Al-Queda?

Jimi

Nope. We went to war with Afghanistan and Iraq under the veil of "Al-Queda". In any of the cells of militia we have fought, none were terrorist groups in particular. There are cells of militia still fighting in Iraq, but they are not terroristical groups, they are groups of people who are fighting for their country, as shielded from the truth as they may be.

kgilly

First off WWII was either going to be entered by us sooner or later or we would be attacked. Japan attacked us because of their oil being shut off and if they didnt attack they would have no more means of operating.

Secondly Johnson I still think has something to do with Kennedy's death, but that's another topic so we'll just skip that one!

Third, I have never seen documentation to prove Bin Laden was offered to Clinton...only heresay. And yes he eneterd Bosnia without UN consent...he also bombed Iraq on a couple occasions without UN consent...Fuck the UN!

No there have not been any other terrorist attacks since 9/11, but it was the worst one in history and on Bush's watch...despite the daily briefing entitled
"Bin Laden Determined to Attack" and most of august of that year bush spent at his ranch instead of dealing with this.

Also the war in Iraq is worse than what you are accounting for. Your only counting daths..not injuries....many many more injuries than deaths...my bud is a medic over in baghdad right now and I just got off the phone with him yesterday about it. According to him there are mortars going off like crazy...so we didn't cripple al queda, we aided al quda in recruiting iranians!

Also, we aided Iraq under Reagen, went to war with him with the first bush. Then cheney did business with him, and then the other bush went to war with him.

Bush supports veterans, but then totally mocks them by attacking a purple heart winner. For those of you who don't know a purple heart just means you fought in war and were injured! How can you not deserve a frieken purple heart? If your injured your injured!

I agree he definitely is not the worst president in history...he's just not the smartest since technology and streaming video catch you everywhere, Quail maybe..the dude couldnt spell potato.

Our military IS awesome, but no reason to pull out the marins so fast and then put thm back in to finish the job they shouldve finished whil they were there. That's my 2 cents at least. Not trying to argue just thought I go through each part since this post has so much dang info!

Jimi

and

Car Enthusiast

nibi, you actually agree with that, you are a pretty smart anti bush person, but there is a lot of dumb things in that above post

steadydiet

punkrawk, those are absolutely excellent points...

but, if all your friends were jumping off a bridge would you?

the cool is that you are absolutely correct. however, just because another country has not attacked us, doesnt always mean the war is wrong. and even i shudder at saying that because the pre-emptive strikes clause in the un charter.

nevertheless, what is interesting is that if this war, bush's war that is, would have taken place fifty years ago, there would have been very little anti-war sediment. the reasons for going into a few of those wars, are cleary now, based on lies. but it took us a long time to see the lies in print. see how the admin and govt mislead us. in this war, before it started, there were a lot of people asking a lot questions and asking for a lot of proof that govt didnt show us.

now the war is over, well, "over"...and people are still asking those questions. about half the nation is actually. 50% feel they have sufficient reasoning handed down to them and they are happy and content and support the war. 50% feel like they dont have sufficient reasoning that was handed down to them and are not happy and not content and do not support the war.

what if our information systems would have been what they are say, during vietnam? what if the average american had the same resources we have today? it wasnt until after the war when people started saying we shouldnt have gone.

the point i guess is this. information is what arms the public to make good opinions on policy issues. being well informed is a vital part of a democratic state. (yes i know we are a republic) one of the primary principles is accountability. we cannot truely hold those in power accountable if we do not have facts and information at our disposal in order to make well educated and well informedd opinions.

the course of history shows the people vs. the central government, a series of revolutions where men and women assert their political importance by demanding more rights and more active participation in their governments. armed with information, which is more readily available today than it has ever been, is hopefull creating a public that is well informed enough to play a large part in the affairs of their states. by this standard and comparrison, the information revolution really may become a revolution of sorts.

historically, wars usually bring a nation together. note the word nation here, rather than state. most often the term nation refers to a group of people who have a shared political belief, or paradigm. historically, leaders (democrat, republican, labour, brown, whig, whoever) will routinely lie to their citizens in order to further policy. war is, that is true war is, a continuation of policy, or rather an assertion of policy.

the real question is, next time, when they try to sell us a war, will we check the facts and demand answers? will our representatives listen to our voices and demand answers for us, or show us what they have? if you dont feel satisfied with the job your representatives are doing, you need to let them know. if you approve, let them know too. the point is that we have a dialogue in this country rather that a dictum.

kgilly

It's funny that all you could say is that there was a lot of dumb in the post when everything in there was factual. If you think those facts are dumb then blame the people who did those dumb things. I'm sure you know absolutely nothing about the history of our country, but will do as much searching as possible to try and argue with me. Well have fun, because you already proved you dont know a thing , and I have better things to do with my time.

qwerty1234

It seems to me that the man chosen to head this once great nation is an arrogant, drunken, easilly led, lying mama's boy. We clearly did not get who we voted for. This is a nut who sent a nation's young to fight and die because someone tried to hurt his Daddy.
Several of the preceding posts and quotes talk of the war in Iraq in the past tense, well guy's and girl's it is not even close to being over.

vixy022685

It's that you fought with valor and were injured in the line of duty, while on duty. Not necessarily you just got hurt. Though it's admitable that too many purple hearts were given out during Vietnam because of the hurried and hushed nature of the end of the war, mainly due to the publics disapproval of the war.