TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Check this out

Check this out

I found this interesting, It was posted in another forum I participate in.

quote:

Take time out this weekend and give a little attention to our upcoming elections in November and look over your choice.... remember, there will be nothing you can do after this for the next four years...so read and heed... Now a word of caution because I'm not positive these numbers are precise but if I read it correctly, 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 one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq. ----Unknown Author Subject: Worst president in history? 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. Lyndon Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year. President Nixon ended it. 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, He 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. 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!

is this other forum the one where you "win" all of those "debates"

I didn't win all of them.But,it is the same forum.
It was posted by a fellow republican, Her uncle sent it to her.

Ok explain this to me. At the top is says:

Subject: Worst president in history?

And it ends with:

Our military is GREAT!




Eh?

hehe,

quote:

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

for some reason I keep laughing at that. Probably because hehe. i dunno, ill just keep laughin.



and the detroit statistic is outstanding.

quote:

Originally posted by Cal Ok explain this to me. At the top is says: Subject: Worst president in history? And it ends with: Our military is GREAT! Eh?

If you read every word of it,then you'd understand.

I think this was posted on this forum once before ... maybe I saw it on snopes. Where to begin?

Well with respect to the number of deaths in a month argument as compared to detroit (what does that say about detroit?), it does not reveal the true sense of violence. Yes there may have been less deaths in total (a testament to the capability of the military), but there have been 20 attacks per day ... essentially 20 attempted murders per day. Furthermore the statistic precludes any mention of crimes committed against Iraqi citizens.

The other supporting arguments are gross simplifications. FDR did not declare war on Germany, Germany declared war on the United States.

The United States did not start the war against N. Korea, it went in under the UN mandate in order to preserve South Korean sovereignty.

I'm really quite tired so I'll let others respond to other portions of the argument.

so, Detroit is almost as ghetto as Iraq. You are comparing a city to a country you know?

And if we hadnt gone there I see no reason for our soldiers getting 'murdered' in the first place|

I'm not even going to bother debunking that, anyone with half a brain should be able to see through it.

I would like to focus on one claim though. Specifically the claim that Bush has crippled Al-Qaeda. In my mind, if they were crippled/paralysed, then they would be unable to, well, you know, blow people up.

In my opinion Bush has probably bolstered Al-Qaeda's ranks with the diversion in Iraq. Instead of running with his personal vendettas, why didn't he actually continue the offensive against Al-Qaeda in Afganistan, northern Pakistan and Saidi Arabia?

i don't know why i'm answering to this, since it's just too easy to see through....

but i just have to ask you a simple question, when did iraq ever attack USA?

Here is a little paper that gives a good perspective on the War on Terrorism, it is written before the war in Iraq, but somehow it gives a good explanation for it too.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew i don't know why i'm answering to this, since it's just too easy to see through.... but i just have to ask you a simple question, when did iraq ever attack USA?

When they marched into Kuwait and threatened the worlds oil supply.
When they threatened the worlds oil supply,The US jumped and stopped it.

quote:

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!!!!

BWAHHAAAAAA!



[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 When they marched into Kuwait and threatened the worlds oil supply. When they threatened the worlds oil supply,The US jumped and stopped it.

yeah sure that was gulf war ONE, what about this one!?

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 When they marched into Kuwait and threatened the worlds oil supply. When they threatened the worlds oil supply,The US jumped and stopped it.

Answering the question might be a good start. He didn't ask whether they threatened the world's oil supply, but rather whether Iraq had ever attacked the US itself.

Incidentally, are you suggesting that Kuwait is the sole source of oil in the world today?

quote:

Originally posted by Cal Ok explain this to me. At the top is says: Subject: Worst president in history? And it ends with: Our military is GREAT! Eh?

It was originally posted in the Rush Limbaugh forum. Does that answer your question?

..........



I've decided... I'm not even gonna start.

I remember listening to some right wing fascist on Fox News make the same argument about Iraq, that the casualty figures are very low, therefore the war is OK. Comparing the murder rate in Detroit to the US casualty rate in Iraq is false logic of the worst kind.

Firstly the USA has far fewer troops in Iraq than the population of Detroit and the number of US military personnel is far few than previous wars meaning the casualty figures have to be less because their are less soldiers to be attacked. Which means the percentage chance of getting killed or wounded if you are a US serviceperson is far greater than walking in the 'hood in Detroit.

I dont know the actual numbers, But lets say there are 100,000 soldiers in Iraq. Most of those would be non-combat personnel so they are not in combat operations. Further many of those soldiers would be located in the areas in Iraq without violence such as northern Iraq near the Kurdish territories.

But if you are not one of those lucky GI's and you get posted to combat operations in a violent area of Iraq like Fallujah your percentage chance of getting wounded or killed would be fairly good.

I would imagine, the chance of getting injured or killed in a combat unit would be far higher than the chance of getting in a car accident for example.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow It was originally posted in the Rush Limbaugh forum. Does that answer your question?

and you would know this how?

I'm on to you igottaknow! I'm on to you!

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus and you would know this how? I'm on to you igottaknow! I'm on to you!

*Inconspicuously closes browser window with Christianforums.com open*

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.