I got this email...
I'm sure you have seen this before...but just think about this:
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 in spectors 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 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 morale is high!
>>The biased media hopes we are too ignorant>to realize the facts
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Food for thought
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
Blah, blah, blah, blah. We've been over these inaccuracies several times probably including on this blog. What's the point of doing it again?
Just because: The Supreme Court made sure that the votes never were counted in Florida and 68% of Americans don't agree that Bush is doing a great job.
Jim and Jay,
Why does this tactic so scare you? Could it be well worn by you lefties?
BS my rear! You just don't like taking your own medicine.
pcd: I'm not afraid. I am, however, aware of how to use snopes.com and actual sources of information (as opposed to, say, an email forward). The post I linked to above deunks the claims made in the email, as does snopes. Would you care to counter with facts, or are you scared to debate something based on the merits?
Seriously: Cite one relatively authoritative source demonstrating the truth of this email, and I'll quite blogging for a week. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Jay,
Don't have to. You are trying to just refute the first clame to refute the WHOLE email. Now, you want to go down each and every point made? I don't think so.
The first point is among the most crucial, and one on which this entire junk forward is based.
Besides, did you read what I wrote? I did debunk the WHOLE email. Or do you need remedial reading classes along with your remedial logic classes?
Jay, you must be kidding. You did no such thing. Maybe you ought to step back from your personal partisanship and try that again.
No personal partisanship is EVER shown by pcd. Nope! Actually I think he should be a spokesperson for the Republican party. He should be put forward as a shining example of conservative thought. He is isn't he? Let him speak for you. The more widely known his attitude and way of thinking the better. I vote pcd for Republican spokesman!!!!!!!!! Go PCD!
Here's some food for thought. I've said this before.
During the Korean War, we lost 33,000 people, and the communist regime was left in charge and is still threatening us today.
During the same amount of time in Iraq, we've lost 3,000 people, pwned an army twenty times its size, Saddam Hussein is on trial for being Saddam Hussein, and a democracy is in place.
Of course, the Syrians and the Iranians are slowing the progress of standing up the Iraqi security forces by arming their proxies. But Bill Nelson thinks fascists can be partners in peace, so an outstanding future in Iraq is assured!
Jay,
Wanted to respond to your comments when I read it but was on my way to work (what the hell are you doing on the computer at 5:24 in the freakin' AM?). By the time I got home after bowling to respond, my internet service was inexplicably down. Now that it's up...
Though I'm not up on the exact totals either, I believe the comparison is good since the whining usually concerns American deaths in Iraq. With that in mind, the perspective the stat tries to keep things in makes more sense. Concern for Iraqi deaths only comes about when more punch is needed for the lib arguments.
BTW, my printer connection is still on the fritz, so I couldn't print out your blog post. Thus, I must respond in pieces.
"WWII: Germany attacked our allies, and was itself allied the a country that did attack us."
Sadam offered big bucks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers blowing up our civilian Israeli allies. There was and is evidence and arguments backing the notion of Sadam supporting terrorists. I believe over at Captains' Quarters there is review of captured Iraqi documents that cover this. Plus, from an intel standpoint, what passes for evidence is different than what is required for criminal trials. I say this because much of what the intel community works on would never pass muster in court, yet, they know that it's solid enough to be acted upon.
The argument against Iraq due to it's secularism, when Islamofascism is our target, is weak. Bush clearly stated after 9/11 that we would go after states that support terrorism. The feeling was that Iraq fits this description and as stated, captured intel seem to further support this. Plus, there's a fine line separating the religious assholes with the secular in that part of the world, particularly when they all want a piece of us or Israel.
As to genocide at the time of attack---what the hell is that? It isn't enough that the guy was doing it? And having done it, isn't he capable of doing it again? And what he and his sons did routinely to his own on a daily basis, is it because he wasn't messing with enough at one time? That's a really silly argument. Sadam was a butcher and the fact that he still breathes is tragic. We stopped all the nasty shit he was perpetrating on his own people.
Of course the Taliban was crushed. They were deposed in a violent manner. "Crushed" doesn't mean they were completely annihilated, only that they were rendered ineffective following our attack. It is from being crushed that they are attempting a "resurgence". If they weren't "crushed", from what would they be "resurging"?
We killed and capture many Al-Quada leaders. This cripples them, it doesn't mean they can't take action. This is especially true considering their structure of independent and autonomous cells that can act on their own. Yet, they have fewer top dogs from whom they receive directions.
Every civil war I can think of includes as one side, the prevailing government, in whatever form it may be. What is going on in Iraq is NOT a civil war, but a nasty gang war. It more closely resembles the Crips and Bloods, then it does the US and the Confederacy. Yet that's the type of conflict the term conjures and that's why the libs love to use it. It makes the situation seem worse than it is and that plays into their Bush bashing.
I took a quick scan of your Coulter lies piece and it seems that you are playing the same game that Jim does with what libs or Dems actually say verbally vs. what they say by their actions. The whining about Bush's intel gathering tactics demonstrates that they don't want Bush to capture conversations between terrorists abroad and their connections here. That's a fair assessment of the situation and thus, not a lie at all. What the libs/Dems say are more often bigger lies than anything Coulter says about them. The best example recently is the "Domestic Spying Program". This is a purposeful distortion of the truth about the intentions of the intel gathering tactics being employed by the Bush admin. In other words, an outright lie, and typical of the tactics of the left.
Post a Comment