Re: A Conservative Perspective on the Current War Situation, A Montage, and SPT!!! {warning: cut and paste material ahead} (625 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: -0.88 on 12 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by The T Man (View user info) at 2005-08-19 04:09:40 EDT
a. FDR led us into World War II.
So?
b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year.
But Germany did declare war on you before the US did anything to it.
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.
The US itself wasn't attacked, but South Korea, who was allied with and armed by the US was.
d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
And even though Kennedy was a Democrat, everybody still thinks that was wrong. That and the fact that the US action in Vietnam kicked off when a destroyer thought an NVA torpedo had been fired at it. Nothing was ever confirmed.
e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. >From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost .. an average of 5,800 per year.
Your point being?
f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia ithout 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.
But Clinton did act with the consent of NATO. The UN covered the humanitarian aspects and took over peacekeeping operations following the war. NATO intervention served to stop genocide in the region. Oh, and by the way, NO ONE HAS EVER TRUSTED THE SUDANESE GOVERNMENT.
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.
I assume the two countries in question are Afghanistan and Iraq. I'll give you this: Afghanistan was a good call. The terrorists were training there and the government was repressive, the Taliban played a key role in funding and training Al Qaida. Known fact throughtout the international community. The western powers had every right to go in and they did. However, a good part of Afghanistan cannot yet be called liberated. Remnants of the Taliban remain and the transition of power from warlords to the fledgling government will be a long one. Intense operations have started in Kandahar have begun to annihiliate the last vestiges of the Taliban. The Canadian Forces have estimated that there will be Canadian troops stationed in Afghanistan for up to another 20 years, and other estimates done by other nations say about the same. As for Al Qaida being crippled, on that you are completely wrong. Bush has yet to deliver anything on Al Qaida. Al Qaida is still alive and well, as is Osama Bin Laden. I shake with the thought, but if Osama isn't caught by another country, he'll probably lie low for a good many years and then his terrorist group will return with a vengeance. It's not hard to fathom. Ever since the Department of Homeland Security was established, the department has been in turmoil as the different agencies encompassed by it try to mesh together.
When the US first entered negotiations with the North Koreans, they totally fucked up all the work the South Koreans had done diplomatically with the North Koreans to get them to calm the fuck down. The South Koreans were making progress when Uncle Sam burst in and said he had the solution. To America's credit, things did gt smoothed out a bit and North Korea will be more careful knowing there's a superpower on its ass. So why is pissing off and frightening the South Koreans such a big deal? Because not only did American and other Allied soldiers die for it in the Korean War, but if there were 21 000 artillery pieces pointed at your capital city, you'd be a little jumpy too. If a war starts between North and South Korea, Seoul will be leveled.
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!!!!
Funny how more casualties have been sustained after the OFFICIAL end to combat operations in Iraq. It's not about taking Iraq. Hell, anyone could have taken Iraq. Holding it in one piece is entirely different. You know why the Democrats want the war to end a)people are dying-lots of them b) the longer US forces are in Iraq the longer the Middle East remains totally pissed, leading to more terrorist activity c)the US is going to bear the brunt of the bill which will number in the many many billions, and your government happens to have a deficit in the many many trillions. How long it took to take Iraq is irrelevant to everything.
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.
How long it takes to look doesn't matter. What matters is finding them, which, may I point out, the US hasn't.
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!!!!
This is not surprising taking into consideration how much your country spends on defence. Nonetheless, this fact is completely fucking irrelevant.
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high!
WRONG. The US military has suffered a massive drop in recruits. Americans are heading up north in noticeable numbers to get away from Bush and the possiblity of another draft. And those folks are onto something. Old Rummy will not hesitate to instate the draft. As for your commander-in-chief, he is a fucking lobotomized monkey. He has plunged your nation into debt and made the world hate you. Your nation is going backwards in almost every way.
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts
If by biased you mean right wing. Just look at how much Fox, Time Warner, Disney, and their CEOs donate to the Republican party. The Liberal media is bullshit. PBS, CBS, and the Daily Show. In the States thats all you have in the way of liberal media.
But Wait . there's more!
You don't need anymore. You've already made a big enough ass of yourself.
JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum
is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.
Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):
"How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"
Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the
daily cash receipts to the bank."
"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day... to a veteran's hospital and look those men ... with their mangled bodies . in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!
You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...
and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.
You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends
buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags
You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?
What about you?"
For those who don't remember ..
During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA.
Now he's a Senator!
What the fuck does this have to do with anything?!
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.
I actually agree with this statement.
That said,
-2DIEIHOPEYOURMOTHERGETSRAPED
PS. I pulled this off the top of my head. If I really wanted to destroy your entire world I could have done more in depth research but fuck that I'm tired.
User Reviews
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-20 01:28:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2005-08-19 11:39:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-19 04:44:18 (#)
Ranking: 2
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.
How long it takes to look doesn't matter. What matters is finding them, which, may I point out, the US hasn't.
----------------
Wrong and wrong. This is spin.
We invaded Iraq on the premise that he still had the weapons we showed him how to make and was supposed to give up after the kuwait invasion, right?
Now, over the next 12 years the impetus of responsibility to show that all the weapons were destroyed was on Iraq, and Saddam Hussien specifically.
When he failed to act faithfully to the 17 UN resolutions that admonished him to cooperate fully, he was overthrown.
Whether or not WMDs are actually found is not the point. The fact that he never showed evidence that he got rid of them is the justification. THe presence of WMD is what you people are getting hung on. Think outside the box
______________________________________
Rad...if the US government wants us to 'think outside the box' and mininterpret what they're saying, why do they say things so contrary to the point you just tried to make?
Our government didn't say "we are looking for proof that he destroyed his weapons."
they did say that we thought he HAD the weapons, facilities, and means to use them.
"There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest."
-Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From Press 9/6/2002
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
-George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly 9/12/2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
-George W. Bush, Radio Address 10/5/2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
-George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002
we never found them. want more? ok...here's more.
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
-George W. Bush, State of the Union Address 1/28/2003
"...the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.... Under [UN] Resolutions 678 and 687 — both still in effect — the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."
-George W. Bush, State of the Union Address 1/28/2003
"...I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] — that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."
-George W. Bush, September, 2002
i could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on....you get the idea.
Not saying anything about the war or anything about WMD, just putting your argument into perspective for the people that might actually think you're right...
put plainly: you're not right. you are wrong.
-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-
wrongo.
Those statements are made based on the intelligence able to be collected at the time. Intelligence based on Iraq's non-compliance with the 17 UN resolutions. We had to assume that he still had the stuff.
In other words, we believed they had everything they refused to prove they did not have.
Can you wrap your mind around that?
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-20 01:24:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-08-19 12:06:17 (#)
Ranking: 2
...for joining the fight and being far more correct than Rad's post.
-------------
After preaching about how there is no black and white, but all grey areas, ETS goes on to contradict himself by assigning a value that you are more correct than I; ignoring completely the fact that I am using facts to substantiate my opinions, while you admittedly pulled yours out of your ass and based your facts around your opinions.
With opponents who implode their arguments like this, who needs logic to beat them. All you have to do is analyze what they are saying and pick out the contradictions and fallacies.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-08-19 16:52:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
It took less time for to -2 this post, than to read it!
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-08-19 13:25:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-19 04:44:18 (#)
Ranking: 2
Whether or not WMDs are actually found is not the point. The fact that he never showed evidence that he got rid of them is the justification. THe presence of WMD is what you people are getting hung on. Think outside the box.
====
I wasn't going to respond to this post, but this comment demands an almighty WHAT THE FUCK???
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2005-08-19 12:06:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
...for joining the fight and being far more correct than Rad's post.
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2005-08-19 11:39:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-19 04:44:18 (#)
Ranking: 2
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.
How long it takes to look doesn't matter. What matters is finding them, which, may I point out, the US hasn't.
----------------
Wrong and wrong. This is spin.
We invaded Iraq on the premise that he still had the weapons we showed him how to make and was supposed to give up after the kuwait invasion, right?
Now, over the next 12 years the impetus of responsibility to show that all the weapons were destroyed was on Iraq, and Saddam Hussien specifically.
When he failed to act faithfully to the 17 UN resolutions that admonished him to cooperate fully, he was overthrown.
Whether or not WMDs are actually found is not the point. The fact that he never showed evidence that he got rid of them is the justification. THe presence of WMD is what you people are getting hung on. Think outside the box
______________________________________
Rad...if the US government wants us to 'think outside the box' and mininterpret what they're saying, why do they say things so contrary to the point you just tried to make?
Our government didn't say "we are looking for proof that he destroyed his weapons."
they did say that we thought he HAD the weapons, facilities, and means to use them.
"There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest."
-Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From Press 9/6/2002
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
-George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly 9/12/2002
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
-George W. Bush, Radio Address 10/5/2002
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
-George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002
we never found them. want more? ok...here's more.
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
-George W. Bush, State of the Union Address 1/28/2003
"...the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.... Under [UN] Resolutions 678 and 687 — both still in effect — the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."
-George W. Bush, State of the Union Address 1/28/2003
"...I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] — that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."
-George W. Bush, September, 2002
i could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on....you get the idea.
Not saying anything about the war or anything about WMD, just putting your argument into perspective for the people that might actually think you're right...
put plainly: you're not right. you are wrong.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-08-19 10:56:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
And all that aside, your post sucked.
Let's get an Iraqi government set up and then get the flying fuck out, never to go back. 5 years after we leave, it will be an Islamic state anyway.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-08-19 10:55:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Whether or not WMDs are actually found is not the point. The fact that he never showed evidence that he got rid of them is the justification. THe presence of WMD is what you people are getting hung on. Think outside the box. "
-----------------
I seem to recall a certain POTUS saying that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and the capability to produce nukular weapons. That was the justification for war. Only after nothing was found did it become about liberation.
THAT is spin.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-08-19 07:13:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by swamp_donkey (user info) at 2005-08-19 06:55:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"PS. I pulled this off the top of my head. If I really wanted to destroy your entire world I could have done more in depth research but fuck that I'm tired."
--------------
WTF is that? You can ram your liberal theory up your small colon via your anal sphincter.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-19 04:46:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
PS. I pulled this off the top of my head. If I really wanted to destroy your entire world I could have done more in depth research but fuck that I'm tired.
-------------------
okay.
What I get from this statement is "I am pulling shit out of my ass and trying to pass it off as the truth."
Do your research, and do your own post.
http://www.ubersite.com/m/24173
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-08-19 04:44:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
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.
How long it takes to look doesn't matter. What matters is finding them, which, may I point out, the US hasn't.
----------------
Wrong and wrong. This is spin.
We invaded Iraq on the premise that he still had the weapons we showed him how to make and was supposed to give up after the kuwait invasion, right?
Now, over the next 12 years the impetus of responsibility to show that all the weapons were destroyed was on Iraq, and Saddam Hussien specifically.
When he failed to act faithfully to the 17 UN resolutions that admonished him to cooperate fully, he was overthrown.
Whether or not WMDs are actually found is not the point. The fact that he never showed evidence that he got rid of them is the justification. THe presence of WMD is what you people are getting hung on. Think outside the box.