From RDW
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, consider the following:
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
d. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.
e. 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. f. 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..and if you consider how long it took to democracize Japan and Germany after WWII, the time in Iraq since the war ended is not that long either. We've been looking for evidence for 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 Saddam's 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.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Real Debate Wisconsin: Interesting email.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
As I posted over there, Game, the comparison between Iraq and Detroit is utter crap. You can think of it in two ways:
One, there are actually about 3,000 people being killed in Iraq every month, about 1% of whom might be Americans. You can't count only US deaths in "the entire war-torn country of Iraq" and then compare it to deaths of all people in Detroit. I mean, in January, the month for this comparison, there were 650 deaths in Baghdad alone.
Two, there are 140,000 American troops in Iraq, of whom 35 die in a given month. That leaves a violent death rate of 25 per 100,000. There are 835,000 Americans in Detroit, of whom 35 die in a given month. That leaves a violent death rate of 4.2 per 100,000. That means the violent death rate for Americans in Iraq is roughly six times the rate in Detroit.
Either way, that comparison is just, well, wrong; you knew it was wrong when you posted it (since you posted it after I corrected the numbers at Fred's place). You are knowingly propagating a lie. Again.
you are comparing a single city to an entire country...so who is spinning again?
it is telling that you can't argue the rest of the points....I think you tried to at RDW and failed...smart move to not repeat it here
Um, I believe it was Fred's friend who started comparing the entire country of Iraq to one city. I was trying to point out how flawed that comparison is. Breaking it down to deaths per 100,000 is a way to make the comparison more meaningful.
Why should I respond to the rest of a letter from someone who blows the most basic facts in his first paragraph?
"Why should I respond to the rest of a letter from someone who blows the most basic facts in his first paragraph?"
Nice dodge. Of the 3000 killed in Iraq every month (is that lately, or an average since we first went in? could skew it a bit, even considering one month might be more violent than the next) of those 3000, exactly how many are civilians or bad guys. That's a significant distinction. Particularly since the bad guys dress like civilians.
As an aside, I recently read at Carol Platt Liebau's blog, a linked article speaking of 400 trible leaders expressing a desire for unity with the new government. Even considering how tenuous such expressions can be from such factions, it kinda makes the "civil war" angle seem shakey at best.
Here's a more substantive reply:
The whole point of Tony's email, as far as I can tell, is that because the casualty rate for US soldiers is less in this war than in others, Bush is a flippin' genius or something. Exhibit A in Tony's opus magnum was the Detroit analogy, which was total and utter BS. Then he goes through every war since WWII, lists casualty rates, and tries to create equivalence where there is none. For example:
WWII: Germany attacked our allies, and was itself allied the a country that did attack us. There is no equivalence to Iraq.
Korea and Vietnam were both parts of (an admittedly failed) strategy of aggressive defense of our allies against the spread of Communism. We were asked to go into those wars and were members of coalitions doing the fighting. As we learned later, containment--a strategy Bush has chosen not to use--worked better to defeat Communism. And if, as Bush is trying to make us believe, Islamic Fascism is what we're fighting (as we fought Communism), then we attacked the wrong country: Iraq was secular and, while fascist, not in any danger of spreading the way Communism did. There is no equivalence to Iraq.
Clinton's going into Bosnia (notice how Tony conveniently neglects to tell us how many American troops died in that one . . . because it's one) was to stop an active genocide. Such genocide was not happening in Iraq. Saddam was a bad guy, and had killed many Shi'ia and Kurds, but not at the time we invaded. There is no equivalence to Iraq.
In letter f, Tony rambles on about a number of things. Included there is the lie that the Taliban was "crushed" (it's making a resurgence); that al-Qaida is crippled (Osama is supposedly on dialysis, but from the number of bombings and foiled plots you'd never know); the nuclear inspectors in Iran and North Korea certainly aren't earning their paychecks; and then some gratuitous Clinton- and Kennedy-bashing that I won't dignify. There is a legitimate point to be made about the relative lengths of our occupations after WWII; however, neither Japan nor Germany fell into a civil war while we were there.
Is that good enough for you, Game and Marshall? Have I fully addressed all of Tony's points to your satisfaction? Now for my big finsh: This email from Tony is nothing but an old hoax chain email forward. Suckers!
Scam or no, the main point it makes is true: it doesn't bear resemblance to the lib version either. No quagmire, no civil war, no failure, etc.
Hey if Rather can do it...
I'll add one more that Jay didn't mention. The falsehood that Clinton was virtually handed OBL on several occassions has been refuted by the CIA, the FBI, the military, former Republican administration officials, the frickin' 9/11 Commission (which you so often cite as a confirming source) and any other person who actually values their own reputation.
Clinton ordered that OBL be hunted down and captured or killed, but the MILITARY and CIA failed to act because of uncertain intelligence and the fear that civilians or dignitaries might be killed.
We DO KNOW that the Bush administration had numerous opportunities to kill or capture al-Zarqawi prior to the Iraq invations but chose NOT TO for fear that it would damage the case for invasion.
So Clinton failed to kill OBL because of poor intelligence, but Bush failed to kill al-Zarqawi for POLITICAL reasons (and then invaded based on "faulty" intelligence).
It's the Big Lie that keeps on giving. But it's still a Big Lie.
jay and jim, I am impressed. I cant really add much. Once again, Cons show a complete ignorance or disregard for history.
well cons wonderful for you"support the troops" guys work so hard to minimize their deaths. ugh
Ron said,
"well cons wonderful for you"support the troops" guys work so hard to minimize their deaths. ugh"
How do you figure? It was just a case of putting things in perspective. Aren't you the one for perspective? It doesn't minimize the deaths at all, though you apparently would like that it did. The situation can by nasty, but that doesn't mean the lib/MSM version is the more accurate. The point is the the lib/MSM version is overblown and overstated and done so to obstruct and undermine the administration.
its doom and gloom for the Left...
we can put every stat showing how well things are going in Iraq compared to any other war, but the doom and gloomers will never be happy
No, you are right, Game. Things in Iraq are going "swimmingly". Every day!
Ya I give up..the terrorists are on the run. That battle is almost over and Iraq will be a vacation paradise rilly dilly soon.
Ya like, did you hear I'm going to Baghdad for my next vacation? One whole glorious month! Then I get to spend yet another one in Pakistan, and Afghanistan! And, I'm going to fly an actual airplane! >:|>
I hear they're beautiful this time of year.
Maybe I'll get to meet GWB there -- send you all back some horse er, donkey, er, jackass, er, camel dung in his honor --
Ya, me 'n him, we could discuss like, maybe invading China cuz they're not doing what we want, either.
Post a Comment