The President of the United States

[we3luvdisney]

A friend sent me this and I wanted to share it with everyone (author is unknown). Some will agree, others will disagree and I'm sure some will state that the information is wrong or incorrect.



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.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, remind them of the following ...

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 18,334 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 ...

Liiberated 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 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 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 moral is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

 

[jennyanydots]

you are, indeed, wrong on your facts.



your statements about FDR are misleading. Japan and Germany were allies. we could not have fought againt Janpan without addressing Germany.

as for Truman - he didn't start a war -- the North Koreans invadesd South Korea -- and Truman sent Amercian troops as part of a UN effort.

there's a HUGE difference between "taking" Iraq and "controlling" Iraq -- more deaths occurred after the war was "won" than during the combat phase.

Iraq is becoming another Vietnam -- the only difference is the size of the ocuntry. while the actual number of deaths seems low, cosider the number of troops there as compared to the number of troops involved in Vietnam.

 

[plutolover]

Thanks for the info. I totally agree with you. What should we be doing right now? I think alot of people have "forgotten".........


by the way I agree with the original poster......

 

[jrydberg]

Just to be completely clear about the Germany and Japan thing, after Japan attacked us, Germany followed up by declaring war on the US. Had Germany not declared war on the US it is far from certain that we would have declared war on them. I'm fairly sure it would've come to that at some point, but the bottom line is Hitler declared war.

 

[acepepper]

This is a little OT but why did Japan attack America?

 

[TennVolTony]

I also agree with the OP

 

[monkeyboy]

Originally posted by acepepper
This is a little OT but why did Japan attack America?

to expand their empire

remove the US they could attack (and did) smaller nations or colonies to obtain raw materials

 

[caitycaity]

It took less time to take Iraq

have we really taken iraq?

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by monkeyboy
to expand their empire

remove the US they could attack (and did) smaller nations or colonies to obtain raw materials

There were also trade arguments and sphere of influence issues. They wanted to neutralize the pacific fleet so that it didn't impede on their plans that had not relationship to the U.S.

 

[jrydberg]

Basically because we were the only significant external threat to their empire. As they expanded further into the Pacific it became increasingly clear that conflict with the United States was going to be necessary. The end result of that was Pearl Harbor and the attempt to "decapitate" U.S. naval capacity.

 

[Galahad]

Originally posted by caitycaity
have we really taken iraq?

We can more accurately be said to have taken Iraq at this point in the history of that conflict/occupation that we could have been said to have taken Germany at the same point in that occupation. Have you read some of the reports of insurgencies and attacks on allied troops in Germany after the occupation started? It's very interesting.

 

[acepepper]

Originally posted by monkeyboy
to expand their empire

remove the US they could attack (and did) smaller nations or colonies to obtain raw materials

I could've Googled that really couldn't I. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Chicago526]

No offence to the poster, I respect your opinions! But...

Whether or not past wars were or were not justified has not bearing of if THIS war is justified or not.

My problem with Bush starting this war was he had no plans after we "won" the conflict. He had no peace and rebuilding plan in place when we went in. Saddam is/was a bad guy doing bad things, and he MAY have been trying to get WMD's. Removing him from power wasn't a bad thing, in and of itself. The problem is with all the stuff that comes with nation building, mainly, the expence in lives, money, and resources.

I have a BIG problem with the Dems that are now anti-war that said NOTHING when Bush was looking for autherization. This mess has more than one person to blame!

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by acepepper
This is a little OT but why did Japan attack America?

We had an embargo against them on oil of all things.. They wanted more control of the trade routes, particularly in Asia.

 

[jellymoon]

Well, when Clinton lied no one died.

Bush is the deadliest president in recent history.

The only answer is to vote for hope and a change in America. Kerry/Edwards will restore dignity and honor to our nation.

I'm not the kind of person who gets wrapped up in politics, or feelings about politicians, or voting against people. But, for what are essentially crimes against humanity, foreign and domestic, Bush must go home to Texas. That is why my motto is:
ANYONE BUT BUSH IN '04--- even if it is Donald Duck!!!

 

[BostonTigger]

Originally posted by Chicago526
My problem with Bush starting this war was he had no plans after we "won" the conflict. He had no peace and rebuilding plan in place when we went in.

I like Bush and plan on voting for him, but I have to agree with you on this point.

 

[jellymoon]

What is there possibly to like about Bush????

He is: destroying public education, sending thousands of young Americans to their deaths for NO GOOD REASON, exporting jobs, swindling old people, chunking out tax giveaways to corporations and wealthy folks, and he can't even speak in unbroken, sensible sentences. Not to mention--- he lies, lies, and lies again. ABOUT IMPORTANT THINGS THAT MATTER TO US!

He is an embarrassment. There is no doubt that this man will go down in history as being by far our worst, least able, most dim-witted, and most deadly (if you count deaths and multiply it by a factor to take into account the senselessness of the death and destruction)..

 

[AirForceRocks]

But, for what are essentially crimes against humanity, foreign and domestic, Bush must go home to Texas.

Crimes against humanity? You must be lobbying for a seat on the ICC...

Iraq is becoming another Vietnam -- the only difference is the size of the ocuntry. while the actual number of deaths seems low, cosider the number of troops there as compared to the number of troops involved in Vietnam.

Sure, let's take a look at the numbers.

Between the beginning of the Viet Nam war in December of 1961 through 1964, troop levels were steady at about 17,000 in-theater. There were 392 fatalities by the end of 1964, or a rate of approximately 2.3%. And that was BEFORE the build up of combat troops.

In 1966, with 385,000 American troops in Viet Nam, the death toll was 5,008 KIA, or a rate of 1.3%. 1967 was worse, with a 1.9% KIA rate. The KIA rate climbed again in 1968, to 2.7%, then went back down in 1969 to 1.9%. It continued it's drop, down to 1.2% in 1970.

Now let's look at the American fatality rate since the beginning of the war in Iraq. With steady troop levels of approximately 135,000 - 175,000 troops in the country since March, 2003, the following numbers apply:

As of 14 Jul 2004, there have been 892 American troops killed, including accidents, illnesses, suicides and combat deaths. At the high end of the troop count, that's a rate of .5% and at the low end of the troop count, a rate of .6%. In other words, the rate is half that of the lowest rates shown above in the Viet Nam war.

Of course every death is a tragedy, but let's not pretend that the death rate in Iraq is anywhere near what it was in Viet Nam, because that simply isn't true.

 

[AirForceRocks]

He is: destroying public education

By increasing federal spending for public education? I thought you were in favor of that.

sending thousands of young Americans to their deaths for NO GOOD REASON

Thousands of young Americans have died in Iraq? Really? I guess I missed that.

exporting jobs

He's exported jobs? I could have sworn that the companies controlled that sort of thing. Another thing I've missed.

swindling old people

I'm looking forward to hearing how having the government pay for their medication rather than paying for it themselves amounts to swindling.

chunking out tax giveaways to corporations and wealthy folks

The only tax giveaways to individuals are the EITC payments made to people that pay zero, zilch, nada in federal income tax. If you're speaking of the tax cuts, you're off again. We're certainly not wealthy (less than $70,000 annually), and the tax cuts saved us $2400/year. If your taxes didn't go down at all, perhaps you should consider changing accountants.

and he can't even speak in unbroken, sensible sentences.

Funny, I've never had any problem understanding what he says. That nuk-u-ler thing bugs me, but it bugged me when President Carter did it too.

Not to mention--- he lies, lies, and lies again

Such as...?

 

[Beast]

sending thousands of young Americans to their deaths for NO GOOD REASON

REALLY??? When did we reinstate the draft? I must have missed that one. Last I knew (including when I enlisted), you still had to enlist in the military. No one forced them to join.

And if they thought they were enlisting during "peacetime" (newsflash here...) there's no such thing. At least not for several thousand years.