|
|
Post by HardcoreHeroes on Apr 7, 2006 0:17:33 GMT -5
I received this email from Nikita Koloff this evening...
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, note 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 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 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.
(I always knew I liked Nikita for some reason.)
|
|
|
|
Post by slickric1976 on Apr 7, 2006 20:01:20 GMT -5
I hope to see him in Spartanburg SC and get a autograph.
|
|
|
|
Post by stompingground on Apr 7, 2006 22:46:24 GMT -5
I suppose he has renounced communism.
|
|
|
|
Post by fredatl on Apr 8, 2006 22:09:46 GMT -5
Isn't Nakita running for office? If so, this is just part of his election rhetoric. You can bend facts any way you want. Notice there is no mention of the COST of all this war on terroism, and still no Ben Laden? No mention of real unemployment? Overall, Bush's ratings are not the lowest they have ever been. Doing a great job?  Apparently, MOST don't think so. Fred |
|
|
|
Post by bobbyryates on Apr 8, 2006 23:08:14 GMT -5
where's he running for office, i never heard this before?
|
|
|
|
Post by GarvinStomp on Apr 9, 2006 10:19:04 GMT -5
I agree with Fred about Dubya. The worst president in American history. Clinton had his moral shortcomings and problems in his personal life, but I think the consequences of the Bush Administration are far more reaching.
|
|
|
|
Post by stompingground on Apr 9, 2006 12:19:31 GMT -5
Who is using rhetoric now? Name some facts or back up your rants. Unemployment is less than 5%. Consequences?
|
|
|
|
Post by precious1 on Apr 9, 2006 12:25:43 GMT -5
Most people think we should be able to go into war without the loss of any lives. They want us to have only air attacks and no ground forces. That just isn't possible. We have become a nation of ninny's. When we went into WW2 we supported our boys. When we went into Korea we were less supportive of our boys. Then when Vietnam came around our boys came back hated thank you very much press. Now we are in this war and noone wants to support our boys except for their family's and a handful of people out there who still love this country. You go to war you can't expect to bring everyone home alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Hammer on Apr 9, 2006 13:36:53 GMT -5
The only reason we are in IRAQ is because they have OIL. No other reason. We were lied to by our government making us believe there were weapons of mass destruction there (which have still not been found). Sure Sadaam was and still is a bad man, but the leader of Sudan is far worse than Sadaam. Why aren't we doing something about him?? I'll tell you why, OIL. N. Korea came out and said they have nukes and dared us to come and do something about it, have we? No, because there is no OIL there. Just look at the price of gas since this thing started.
Sadaam did not attack the World Trade Center on 9/11. Bin Laden did. Don't you Bush supporters think that we owe it to the Americans who lost loved ones on that day to bring him to justice instead of carrying out personal vendettas and filling the pockets of Bushs wealthy oil buddies?
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by GarvinStomp on Apr 9, 2006 14:39:53 GMT -5
The way we went into Iraq was not good. If Bush wanted to go into Iraq, he should've gotten a DECLARATION OF WAR from Congress. There was no Declaration of War when we went into Vietnam, and we all know how that conflict ended. This time around we have ousted an evil man in Saddam, but there are other issues. What do we do now about Iran? Iran was the real threat in the Middle East all along, not Iraq. Bush has us in a situation now where we can't pull out, because if we do Iran could try to take over IRaq and seize the oil. This conflict is costing us a fortune. On top of that, we have had natural disasters (i.e. Hurricane Katrina) that are very costly. The U.S. credit is way over-extended and if the foreign banks ever say enough is enough, the country is in trouble. Our armed forces that are over in Iraq are being stretched incredibily thin. Some of our boys are on their 3rd or 4th consecutive tour of duty without a break. The equipment has gotten worn out and is now in inferior condition. I live less than 5 minutes from Camp Lejeune, and our Marine Corps. has a lot of legitimate concerns. With the military stretched way thin, if North Korea, Iran, or any of these other nations try to pull some crap we are in trouble. Is that good enough for you, CT Proffitt?
|
|
|
|
Post by acezappa on Apr 9, 2006 14:41:30 GMT -5
Without going directly into the political angle of this discussion, I will say that the main reason why we're losing so many soldiers in this war (whether it's over oil or whatever) is because we aren't able to go in there and actually fight the way that needs to be in order to win. These people we are against, whether the war is justified or not, hate us and our country and will do whatever it takes to see us destroyed, so they have no limits as to what they will do to see this happen. Our soldiers are held by certain standards and rules of engagement. If the government and most of this country wasn't a bunch of pansies, then maybe we could have actually gone in there and gotten the job done the way it should've, with fewer of our people getting killed, then there would be no war, we'd have all the oil, and wouldn't have to live in fear of a repeat of 9/11. I may not agree with everything that's gone on with Bush and all that, but since 9/11 I have been 100% goal oriented in seeing this world rid of this despicable scum. And I agree, I think Sudan and N. Korea should be taken care of, too. We just have to stop and think (and this a non-partisan for ya) that when this world is run by inept politicians, what should we expect? Show me a politician that actually gives a damn about we the people, and I'll show you someone who's just got better abilities at hiding their true intentions. Plain and simple. I hate political discussions, lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by GarvinStomp on Apr 9, 2006 14:53:00 GMT -5
I have had a lot of experience with politicians in the past, and you are right most of them are self-serving in nature and they will and do stretch the truth and go back on their word and deceive. And that is on both side of the aisle. Democrats are no better than Republicans and vice versa. I think it is more of a societal problem nowadays than a political affliation problem. Our society as a whole just doesn't place much value on honesty and integrity anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobbyryates on Apr 9, 2006 16:06:40 GMT -5
what Hammer said is right.
let me ask some questions and make some observations to you guys to reply on:
1. bush said on 9/11/01 "this will be a long war". whoever said wrestling was fake, they should watch these guys work. this war is as predetermined as any big match.
2. imagine how many US troops would still be alive if heicopters never took off the ground. every few days, a helicopter either crashes, or crashes into another helicopter. there is a reason for this. i don't know it, but there has to be a reason for it than chance.
3. with so many troops out of the country, what will happen when they return? where will they work? since the war started, their jobs have been filled by US citizens and the ZILLIONS of legal and ILLEGAL immigrants. if the troops come back, unemployment would likely rise to catastrophic heights.
4. when King Bush I was in power, gas stayed over $1 a gallon and never went back. now that King Bush II is in power, it hasn't dipped below $2. well, it did for a few weeks last year, but now it is on the way up again towards the $3 mark just as rapid as before, or faster.
5. bin laden and hussein are both tyrants of the worst kind. but as Hammer said, the sudan is in deep trouble and the US government is not invading. not only that, look at the stats nikita gave beginning this thread...35 homcides in detroit so far this year? that's one major city. crime should be punished in the US, not coddled and sit in the judicial system for years. these idiots for certain crimes need to be executed now and as soon as new criminals are brought in. that would also help with the US growing probem of over population.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluedevil71 on Apr 9, 2006 16:49:58 GMT -5
And this is why I didn't like this thread when it started, because I knew it would incite political takes one way or another. I'm not siding with anybody's views here. I have my own (and, yes, at one time they were posted here before I took them off).
As for the stats provided in the first post, some of them are way off. The facts are inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by stompingground on Apr 9, 2006 17:10:03 GMT -5
It will be hard to have high minded discussion, but if we keep personal attacks out of the mix maybe both sides can be heard. I'm a registered independent. I've voted for as many democrats as republicans in the past. When I hear any president demeaned, I turn a deaf ear to the speaker. This goes for the Republicans who bashed Clinton as well as the Democrats who constantly call Bush a liar every chance they get.
The congress did vote to give the President the power to invade Iraq. If Saddam was still in power, the rape rooms would still be open, the mass graves would continue being filled, and he would be in charge of the oil.
As for the helicopter question, could you clarify your point? Do you want to do away with helicopters?
I don't understand the "King George" reference. What are you implying?
Remember that Saddam was given chance after chance to comply with the UN inspectors. His bluff was called. Now Bush is trying to bring a democratic republic to a region that I feel is not ready for freedom. They didn't ask for freedom and they certainly did not fight for it. I don't believe that the President has evil intentions, that's crazy talk.
|
|
Apparently, MOST don't think so.