My reply to a Repugnican friend of mine.

[sellitman]

Justifying the lies and deaths in Iraq with homiside statistics is sad. We try to limit homicides don't we? Why should an ILLEGAL War be differen't?

We have NEVER invaded a sovereign nation to OCCUPY it. We didn't occupy Germany, Korea Vietnam or Bosnia.
We also never FIXED elections in the country we were supposedly bringing Democracy to, as it looks like Junior has done. (I guess they were so experienced in doing that that they found it impossible to resist)

Under Junior North Korea now has Nucular bombs, it didn't under President Clinton.

Where was Junior before 9-11? What was he thinking? Isn’t it remarkable that, after reading a briefing headed “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States” while on vacation at his Texas ranch, he continued to toodle about in his pickup, clearing brush? That, hearing of 70 FBI investigations, President Bush didn’t hail the FBI chief down to the ranch to ask what these were all about? That he took that simple statement to mean that the FBI knew of any and all Al Qaeda operatives in the country and had the problem entirely under control? There is no mention in any testimony before the 9/11 Commission of his asking a single question of the CIA briefing agent who wrote and went to Crawford, Tx, to present the report.Clinton warned Junior of 9-11, Junior just didn't want to break up his vacation I guess. The system was BLINKING RED!!! Reading the list of hair-raising threats against the U.S., why didn’t the alarm bells go off? “The system was blinking red”, as CIA chief George Tenet put it.
Ask yourself, wouldn’t you, out of sheer fright that something could happen any day, have convened your cabinet to drill down into what was being done by all departments day in and day out to head off an attack? Isn’t this what we should expect of the commander in chief charged with protecting the country?
Instead, in this socially promoted product of Andover, Yale, and the Harvard Business School, we have a man who doesn’t read newspapers (believes they are just “opinion”), doesn’t watch television, unlike presidents before him limits briefing papers to little more than a page, and just assumes everyone is doing their job.
George W Bush has been advirtized as as the anti-terrorist president. Instead, he stands revealed as inattentive to the Al Qaeda threat before 9/11

Speaking of Al Qaeda...Junior let Bin Laden go at Tora Bora and then has spent the last few years going after the wrong guy in the wrong country. Afganistan is getting worse by all accounts and now Iraq has become a breeding ground for Al Qaeda. Going to war against an Arab state (that had not a single proven link to the terrorist movement) has served as a recruitment poster for Al Qaeda. Good job George!

Here is a good quote I thought you might like:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.
---Excerpt from "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998):
---Link: http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:08:33 EDT, EDV@XXXXX said:
>
> JOHN GLENN - WELL SAID
>
> Things that make you think a little........
>
> 1. 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 country of Iraq.
>
> 2. 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 killing a woman.
>
> Wait, there's more.......................
>
> Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do
> for a living. This
> exchange between Senator 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 our
> military.
>
>
> JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR
>
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
>
> Senator Howard Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn: "How can you run for Senate
> when
> you've
> never held a real job?"
>
> Senator Glenn: "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? I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your
> knees
> every day of your
> life thanking God that there were some men - SOME MEN - who held REAL
> jobs.
> And they
> required a dedication to a purpose - and a love of country and a
> dedication
> to duty - that was
> more important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made
> this
> country possible.
>
> "I HAVE held a job, Howard! 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.
>
> If you can read this, thank a teacher.... If you are reading it in
> English
> thank a Veteran.

[bryant69]

1. I like the first line

The bit about justifying war by homicide statistics.

I'm not sure about the rest of it, seems like you jump all over the place, including info that is unproven.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[sellitman]

2. I was trying to answer his post in order.

It wasn't meant as a timeline.

Kevin

[bryant69]

6. Why?

What is the value to responding to each point? Best to focus your response like a laser - take down the base of the argument and the rest will follow.

[RPM]

3. uh - we did occupy Germany

for a good long time - some would say we never really left

[Toots]

4. We didn't occupy Germany

Then why does the US have a medal named German Occupation Medal?

[GCP]

5. Regarding FDR

<< FDR...led us into World War II Germany never attacked us: Japan did.>>

You could have mentioned that Germany declared war on the US after japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

These repukes know nothing.

[newportdadde]

7. There is no point in you debating this guy.

He obviously has an entrenched opinion that your not going to budge. Not only that he likes to forward on trash and make strawmen rather then argue about todays problems.

Let your friend know that Japan and Germany were in an alliance. He is right Germany didn't 'attack us', but we also didn't just go after Germany. We declared war on Japan FIRST not Germany, German as its ally declared war on us, we then subsequently declared war on Germany.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001288.html

His email mention JFK and vietnam so since JFK did that then Iraq is okay. The situations and the times are completely different..

I've been in your shoes with my RW friend before.

So I'd suggest doing what I've done with my Republican friends. Don't discuss politics because its not a valuable use of your time. Your taking the time to refut his statement and forwarded trash... he then just ignores your facts and fowards more garbage. Not worh it.

[Deep13]

8. response

"1. 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 country of Iraq."

Bullshit. No US city has that many murders. Anyway, crime here does not justify a criminal war there.

"FDR...led us into World War II Germany never attacked us: Japan did."

Again, bullshit. Germany declared war a few days later. The bombing by Japan put us into WW2. Does the writer suppose Japan was an easy adversary? Besides, German had been making life very difficult for our friends for several years.

"North Korea never attacked us."

The Korean war was specifically authorized by the UN as a response to communist aggression against S. Korea.

JFK sent advisors to Vietnam. LBJ turned it into a war. Yeah, he screwed up. Again this was in response to agression against an ally. Does the Right think we should not have fought the cold war?

Bosnia was approved by NATO and was fought to stop a genocide after years of prodding by human rights activists. Clinton never had a real chance to get bin Laden before 9/11. He did, however, thwart a similar effort in 12/99 that was larger in scope.

Bush made a half-assed effort in Afghanistan and not the place is in chaos with the Taliban making a come-back. Opium is now their #1 cash crop. Bush basically stole Iraq. He made up some excuse about a need to take out Saddam who was pretty much under our thumb anyway. He fired Richard Clark and outed a CIA agent to squelch opposition and lied to Congress and the UN. Now Iraq is worse than it was when Saddam was around.

Bush did not put inspectors in N.Korea. If anything, his obstinence is impeding any progress. France and Germany are spear-heading the effort in Iran. Iraq was a waste of resources and attention that could have been used on these more dangerous threats. A terrorist be definition is one that works outside of government. Saddam was a monster, but not a terrorist.

It's not just Ds who are unhappy with the progress of the war. Iraq has not been 'taken.' The fighting continues everyday. The remark about Mrs. C is nonsense and irrelevant. We have been searching for WMDs since the first Gulf War ended. Likewise is the comment concerning Ted Kennedy. It is calcuted to get people mad at Ds and get their attention off what W is doing wrong.

No one seriously questions why military people serve or that, for the most part, they are doing all that they can do.

I've had clients worse than any American communist.

[Village Idiot]

9. My 1000th post...the second sentence is BULLSHIT.

"We have NEVER invaded a sovereign nation to OCCUPY it. We didn't occupy Germany, Korea Vietnam or Bosnia. "

You MUST be reading the revisionist history published in the USA.

Occupy definition: "To seize possession of..."

The USA maintains military bases ALL OVER THE WORLD, remember? Does this not count as "seizing possession" of foreign lands, then WHAT THE HELL DOES???

Germany was OCCUPIED BY THE USA for DECADES, and REMAINS OCCUPIED BY THE USA.
South Vietnam was OCCUPIED BY THE USA for over 10 years (1964-75).
South Korea HAS BEEN OCCUPIED BY THE USA since 1950.
Bosnia-Herzegovina IS STILL OCCUPIED BY THE USA.

And these are just the RECENT countries...

How about places like FLORIDA? Texas? California? Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, etc.? Do you actually think that ANY of these places were UNOCCUPIED when the USA moved in??? The Marquesas? Algiers? Cuba? Puerto Rico? The Phillipines?

What about Nicaragua? Shit, they were there since 1853...they even actually "elected" an American "president" of Nicaragua in the early 1910s - and they didn't leave until 1925!!!...what about Panama? Columbia? Yokohama? Okinawa? Even the peaceful Hawaiian Islands have been "occupied" by the USA since the 1870s...

More, more, more...Egypt, Samoa, Haiti, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, US Virgin Islands and others occupied since WWI, and many since WWII...and of course, do not forget Iraq and Afghanistan...


If you can not see many of these as occupations, you are subscribing to US revisionism...The list goes on and on...if a previously sovereign nation suddenly finds US troops within its borders, THIS IS CALLED OCCUPATION!!!


Remember: "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it." - Santayana.

[sellitman]

10. I don't equate setting up a military base

with toppling and running the whole government. I think most folks can see the difference. We have a base in Cuba....are we in control there?

I stand by my statement.