Some debating points to consider

This came in an e-mail yesterday. Thought I'd share.

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/terrorist country of Iraq.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state 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...
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 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.


Comments

  • 23 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • I heard a report on NPR that it's expected most of the military will vote for Bush. The military doesn't normally allow polls of their soldiers, but there was a poll recently of career officers. They were 80% in favor of Bush.
  • I would expect that a poll of NPR listeners would be somewhere around 90% Kerry. But I hope I'm wrong.
  • NPR = National Republican Radio?
  • Uh, I think that would be NRR, Ray.
  • Oops.

    National Preservative Radio
  • From the other side of the debate:

    Information is taken from the Encarta Encylopedia.

    WWII resulted from the failure of peace efforts from WWI. Early in 1941 Congress approved a measure to lease/lend 7 Billion dollars worth of equipment and resources to allies to avoid sending troops overseas. During this time relations with Japan continued to deteriorate.
    On December 11, 1941 GERMANY and Italy declared war on the United States.

    Both the Korean war and the Vietnam war were fought on the belief that communism would spread without US and other world involvement.

    The UN authorized the use of force/troops in 1994 in BOSNIA. By 1994 over 24,000 UN troops were in Bosnia. 1995 NATO authorized and carried out airstrikes. It is completely incorrect to state that the US entered this situation alone. The Bosian situation ended with the signing of the Dayton Peace Accord in December 1995.

    Facts can be spun in any direction...it's important to look beneath the surface and make sure the information you receive represents the entire situation.
  • "Both the Korean war and the Vietnam war were fought on the belief that communism would spread without US and other world involvement."

    Denise; the spread of Communism did seem to stop after each of those engagements, did it not?

  • I just read an article in the paper from an AP writer about a soldier who is determined to return to active duty after losing his leg in a roadside bomb in Iraq. The article mentions there are at least 4 other soldiers who have returned to duty from the same type of injury.

    I don't think Kerry could claim that as a testimonial.
  • That's sort of unfair, don't you think??

    He didn't lose a limb and we're somehow supposed to think he was less dedicated?

    Using that kind of logic, what are you saying about Bush?


  • I don't think NG was relating the AP story to Kerry's military service, rather to his stance on the Iraq war. I think her point was that service people who have been injured still feel strongly enough to want to return to see the job in Iraq finished. The story is a testamonial to their trust in the President's leadership and a rejection of the "wrong war, wrong time" view that Kerry has put out there. NG, please correct me if I am reading your point wrong.
  • I get a completely different take on it if a country applauds a soldier who has a limb amputated and returns to active duty in a war zone.

    From what my husband tells me about his time in Viet Nam -- fighting a war would be no time to get used to dealing with such an injury. It makes a nice story, to be sure, but now you have me imagining five soldiers fighting in Iraq when they should be doing something else. (Well, to be truthful, IMHO all of our soldiers would be better served doing something other than fighting in Iraq).
  • Yes, Kiwi, you're right on target. I didn't realize I was being so cryptic.
  • Fair? As I understand it, not only did he not lose a limb, he didn't even lose any blood. A scratch on his ass and a paper cut, all 4 wounds field treated with band aids ahd he shortens his tour by 8 months and gets 4 purple hearts. I'm not worried about being fair to JK. In my opinion he wasn't fair to his men; to his comrades who were POWs; and he still hasn't been honest with us about his military duty/discharge. I wouldn't follow him into the latrine, let alone into battle.
  • Additionally, Kerry has tried to promote his military service as a virtue, inviting scrutiny. Bush makes no boasts about his military service and those who have tried to denigrate him have been hoist by their own petard.
  • What in the world would there be to boast about?

    It sounds like we all need to exhale.
  • That's the point, Dasher. Bush has nothing to boast about and neither does Kerry. But, Kerry tries to anyway. In the end, what either of them did 30 some years ago doesn't matter that much.
  • The thing we need to know NOW is what on earth Kerry is going to do about terrirism, the budget, social security, homeland security and other items that matter today and will matter tomorrow. His and Bush's war records, though scant, has no real value in today's scheme of things.

    Kerry's m.o. seems to be to make something out of nothing to favor himself and make nothing out of something when referring to Bush.

    My daughters both are voting for the first time this year. It's interesting to see them think through all the propaganda and hogwash.
  • I agree his war record (not what he did when he was out and others were not) matters little - except he keeps raising it as a reason to tfrust him and he still hasn't authorized release of his discharge docs. But he has certainly not distinguished himself as a leader in the Senate - or in any other way that I can see. A pig in a poke may be better than the horse your're riding, but there is no evidence to indicate to me that it is. The devil you know.....
  • Talk radio is full today of rumors that Kerry actually received a less than honorable (not dishonarable) discharge that was then changed to honorable and that his discharge hearing resulted in some 200 pages of record, which he will not release. The military has said they are ready to release if he authorizes it, which he must. It is also said to be fact that nobody in recorded history received that many purple hearts in that few days without a drop of blod and only his own paperwork declaring his injuries, unsupported by the accompanying paperwork of any other officer.

    But, we are slapping at gnats swirling around horse sh*t! Kerry has not a chance of winning the presidency. He has no defining character, no moral compass, no ethical gyroscope.
  • So he's covering up his past already which means billions of our tax dollars will be spent uncovering it while the real world goes on without much news coverage. Sounds like history repeating itself again.
  • Again, you're using one set of "rules" to review the Kerry record and another for Bush.

    If you'll recall, the issue of service came up in the 2000 election and Bush's team swore that everything had been released regarding his national guard service. He's been saying that for the last 4 years, while documents continue to trickle out.

    So if we're going to say the Kerry is disingenuious for not releasing his documents, then the same must be true of Bush.

    The bottom line is that none of this really matters. But the special interest groups (from both sides) have done a great job at keeping the issue at the forefront of this election.


Sign In or Register to comment.