You never hear this stuff. Wonder why.

Tom Simrak · Post by **Tom Simrak** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:19 am

Subject: Know These Facts Before Election Day

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.
When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, consider 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. Vietnam never attacked us.
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 the 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 & 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 her 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, drowning Mary Jo.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
The Military moral is high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to
realize the facts.
PASS IT ON.

If you can read this thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English thank a soldier.

Mr Big Wrench · Post by **Mr Big Wrench** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:48 pm

NUFF SAID !!!

The Republicans don't want you to hear the facts, Just the spin.

You can twist the numbers many ways, but the result is always the same, DISTORTED.

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:58 pm

Mr Big Wrench wrote:The Republicans don't want you to hear the facts, Just the spin.

Well, I agree. Although I assume it was a typo when you wrote Republicans, I think it's true about both parties.

Mr Big Wrench · Post by **Mr Big Wrench** » Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:22 pm

NO DOUBT, THEY BOTH LIE.

FunRunner · Post by **FunRunner** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:42 am

Excerpted from IBD, Nov 1, Charles Krauthammer
In the 1990's Afghanistan was allowed to fall to the Taliban and become the global center for the training, indoctrination and seeding of Jihadists around the world, including the mass murderers of of 9-11.

Last week, just three years after a two month war that destroyed the Taliban, Afghanistan completed its first free election, choosing a pro-American democrat enjoying legitimacy and wide popular support.

This represents the single most astonishing geopolitcal transformation of the last four years. (deposing Saddam Hussein ranks second. The global jihad against America was no transformation at all: It existed long before the Bush administration. We'd simply ignored al-Qaida's declaration of war.)

Perhaps even more astonishing is how this singular American victory has disappeared from public consciousness.

Looking back to 2001 we had nothing in place from the Clinton administration; no plausible military plan. Virtually no intellignece. No local infrastructure. No neighboring bases. The Afghan Northern Alliance was fractured and weak. And Pakistan was actively supporting the bad guys.

Despite our success in Afghanistan, and comparative miserable failure by the Russians in years of battle, John Kerry has managed to transform our Afghan venture into a failure-a botched operation in which Bush let bin Laden get away because he "outsourced" bin Laden's capture to "warlords" in the battle of Tora Bora.

Outsourced? the entire Afghan War was ourtsourced. How does Kerry think we won it? How did Mazar-e-Sharif, Kabul and Kandahar fall? Stormed by thousands of American GIs? The fell to the "warlords" we had enlisted, supported and directed. It was the militias that overran the Taliban.

"Outsorcing" is a demagogue's way of saying "using allies." (Isn't Kerry's Iraq solution to "outsource" the problem to the "allies" and the UN?)

And in Afghanistan it meant the very best allies: locals who had a far better chance of knowing what cave to storm without getting blown up.

With his endlessly repeated Tora Bora charges, Kerry has made Afghanistan a major campaign issue. So be it. Whom do you want as president? the man who conceived the Afghan campaign, carried it through without flinching when it was being called a "quagmire" during its second week, and has seen it through to Afghaistan's transition to democracy?

Or the retroactive and "evolving" genius, who always knows what needs to be done after it has already happened.

sbheg · Post by **sbheg** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:27 am

Tom Simrak wrote:Subject: Know These Facts Before Election Day

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.

You forgot all the civilians that were killed in Iraq during the month of January!

I can make any numbers tell my story that is what is great about statistics.
sbheg

L&L Corvairs · Post by **L&L Corvairs** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:58 am

sbheg wrote:
Tom Simrak wrote:Subject: Know These Facts Before Election Day

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.
You forgot all the civilians that were killed in Iraq during the month of January!

I can make any numbers tell my story that is what is great about statistics.
sbheg

No offence, but I don't really care how many of THEIR civilians are/were killed. That's a TOO BAD for them. When THEY quit bombing/shooting at OUR soldiers, I am sure we will quit shooting back, and killing civilians in the process.

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:17 am

L&L Corvairs wrote:No offence, but I don't really care how many of THEIR civilians are/were killed. That's a TOO BAD for them. When THEY quit bombing/shooting at OUR soldiers, I am sure we will quit shooting back, and killing civilians in the process.

No offense to you, L&L (I appreciate your fairness in the forums), but IMO it's this kind of indifference that makes so many countries hate us. If you take the following leaps of faith:
*Many of the Iraqis killed are innocent of any wrongdoing
*Many of the Iraqis killed are not supporters of the insurgents
...then our indifference to the deaths of those who are also innocent victims of the insurgency is inexcusable.

No doubt, some of those who are killed (maybe most, for all I know) are not supporters of the United States. But that in itself is a problem, considering that the administration promised us that our soldiers would be welcomed as liberators. So is it fair to us to consider the population as both enemies of Saddam who are on our side, and at the same time supporters of the insurgents who are against us? They can't really be both.

Rekd · Post by **Rekd** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:21 am

Not to mention that most civilians there were killed by insurgants, not the US military.

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:23 am

Rekd wrote:Not to mention that most civilians there were killed by insurgants, not the US military.

That's 100% true.

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:30 am

One more point about being the toughest guy on the block, which the United States most certainly is:

You can get away with being the biggest and strongest in the crowd only as long as the crowd, for the most part, sees you as benevolent. If the crowd thinks you're flexing your muscle unfairly (as the world does with us in Iraq), you will ultimately go down.

The US cannot continue forever with the attitude that we'll do whatever we please, and if the world doesn't like it the hell with them. Just like in high school, bullies who push to far get dealt with severely. You find yourself surrounded by enough enemies, and you get your butt kicked.

It wouldn't even have to be a literal butt-kicking. Think about it. If enough countries decided to stop trading with the U.S., we would become a third-world country in short order. We wouldn't have enough oil to function. We import huge amounts of food, steel, all kinds of resources. If there were an embargo against the United States, there really isn't anything we could do about it. We wouldn't have enough troops to beat the world if every male between 18 and 50 were drafted.

I'm not implying that we are in iminent danger of such a thing...I'm just saying that it does matter what the rest of the world thinks.

airkuld · Post by **airkuld** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 2:49 pm

"We wouldn't have enough oil to function. We import huge amounts of food, steel, all kinds of resources. If there were an embargo against the United States, there really isn't anything we could do about it."

Poiks, the countries that embargo'd us would have a lot tougher time of it than we would in a lot shorter order. Who exactly will the Arabs sell their oil to if we don't buy it? No matter how cheap, people only buy as much as they need.

We have an abundance of natural resources here, we don't exploit them because we use others resources because it's cheaper. The US wouldn't just fall off a cliff overnight, far from it.

And I'm sorry, but it wasn't the world that was attacked on 9/11, it was US.
CNN doesn't have a lot of pictures of people declaring "France, Germany, Portugal, the Great Satan" It's us.

Others are slow to rise to help, but so were we when Hitler was ravaging Europe. But the radicals in the Arab world pose a huge threat to global security, just as Adolf H. did, and if it gets worse, more of the sidelined people will come in on our side, they'd be foolish not to.

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:13 pm

airkuld wrote:Poiks, the countries that embargo'd us would have a lot tougher time of it than we would in a lot shorter order. Who exactly will the Arabs sell their oil to if we don't buy it? No matter how cheap, people only buy as much as they need.

I understand that's true. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. If someone makes you angry enough, don't you agree that you would stop doing business with them even if it would be harder on you than it would on them? People are willing to make great sacrifices on principle.

I'm not talking about kissing "A", either. I'm just saying that being the biggest, toughest guy on the block brings a lot of responsibility. If you're viewed as a bully, people want to bring you down.

If the world community outside the USA decided to bring us down, the fact is, they could. If they all stood together against us, and refused to do business with us, we would be done.

BTW, I'm not trying to say that this will or would happen; just that it illustrates why we can't just tell the entire planet that it's our way or the highway.

Rekd · Post by **Rekd** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:46 pm

Poiks wrote:...
BTW, I'm not trying to say that this will or would happen; just that it illustrates why we can't just tell the entire planet that it's our way or the highway.

:sigh:

Yeah, Jon: The whole world is gonna stop doing business with us...

Not even remotely close to reality there, buddy. You gonna share? Looks like some pretty good stuff you're smokin.

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:03 pm

What exactly is your problem, Rek'd? If you're playing games and trying to drag me into the mud again, it's not going to happen. You're doing a pretty good job of portraying yourself very negatively...you don't need my help.

Crowdog · Post by **Crowdog** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:05 pm

Poiks wrote:We wouldn't have enough oil to function.

Only because the Democrats block sensible oil extraction from places like ANWR.

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 4:28 pm

Crowdog wrote:
Poiks wrote:We wouldn't have enough oil to function.
Only because the Democrats block sensible oil extraction from places like ANWR.

Although I agree that we should drill there, I have been under the impression that we could only service about 15% of our oil needs from there. But again, I agree. We should be drilling there, and we should be developing alternative fuels. Regardless of what happens, it appears that the oil is going to run out.

sbheg · Post by **sbheg** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 5:19 pm

L&L Corvairs wrote:
sbheg wrote:
Tom Simrak wrote:Subject: Know These Facts Before Election Day

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.
You forgot all the civilians that were killed in Iraq during the month of January!

I can make any numbers tell my story that is what is great about statistics.
sbheg

No offence, but I don't really care how many of THEIR civilians are/were killed. That's a TOO BAD for them. When THEY quit bombing/shooting at OUR soldiers, I am sure we will quit shooting back, and killing civilians in the process.

No offence, but Iraqis were not the guys flying into the WTC or the Pentagon on 9/11, they were Saudis. If Bush had landed 100,000 troops into Afghanistan, then followed the trail of Osama Bin Laden and then marched through any and all countries that Osama went too, I'd have no problem, because we would be after the perpetrator a Saudi Royal. Why is he not invading Saudi Arabia, they are the true money behind 9/11?

No offence, but why is it okay for us to attack a sovereign nation and create a situation in which 15,000 Iraqis have been killed, how many severely injured and deformed, there was no immediate threat from them? OBL did not even like him, he was a secular leader, therefore he could not reason with him, because he himself was an infidel in OBL eyes. I am not saying Saddam was a nice guy or did not deserve to be ousted

sbheg

Rekd · Post by **Rekd** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:51 am

sbheg wrote:No offence, but Iraqis were not the guys flying into the WTC or the Pentagon on 9/11, they were Saudis.

Mayhaps you haven't read the 9/11 report.. Here's a little hint at the contents: (I know reading and comprehension is a pita, but this should make it nice and easy for you.)

IRAQ WAS AIDING TERRORISTS

If you still have questions, let me know, I'll explain it again. It's simple though, really.

No offence, but why is it okay for us to attack a sovereign nation and create a situation in which 15,000 Iraqis have been killed,...

Not sure where you got the logic for that statement, (CNN comes to mind).. but here, let me help you understand again:

IRAQ WAS AIDING TERRORISTS

If you still have questions, let me know, I'll explain it again. It's simple though, really.

Mr Big Wrench · Post by **Mr Big Wrench** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 2:44 am

You can add Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan to the list of who is aiding the Terroists, So as far as I am concerned, Lets Kick there arses also !!

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:09 am

Mr Big Wrench wrote:You can add Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan to the list of who is aiding the Terroists, So as far as I am concerned, Lets Kick there arses also !!

Pakistan?

sbheg · Post by **sbheg** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:00 pm

So you read one line, one more than your fearless leader did. You should be president your reading quotient is greater then the presidents. Why don't you just go to Iraq and wipe them out yourself.

JM-****-O

Rekd wrote:
sbheg wrote:No offence, but Iraqis were not the guys flying into the WTC or the Pentagon on 9/11, they were Saudis.
Mayhaps you haven't read the 9/11 report.. Here's a little hint at the contents: (I know reading and comprehension is a pita, but this should make it nice and easy for you.)

IRAQ WAS AIDING TERRORISTS

If you still have questions, let me know, I'll explain it again. It's simple though, really.

No offence, but why is it okay for us to attack a sovereign nation and create a situation in which 15,000 Iraqis have been killed,...
Not sure where you got the logic for that statement, (CNN comes to mind).. but here, let me help you understand again:

IRAQ WAS AIDING TERRORISTS

If you still have questions, let me know, I'll explain it again. It's simple though, really.

Rekd · Post by **Rekd** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:36 pm

sbheg wrote:So you read one line, one more than your fearless leader did. You should be president your reading quotient is greater then the presidents. Why don't you just go to Iraq and wipe them out yourself.

JM-****-O

Don't be hatin! The truth will set you free!

Seriously, you can't tell me with a straight face that Iraq was not aiding terrorists, can you? You also can't tell me you know how much I read. Typical lieberal attitude. No wonder you boy wonder lost. With attitudes like yours we don't need to be at war with terrorists, we can just be at war with each other.

BTW, thanks for calling me an ****.. proving yourself a real winner. Shouldn't you be posting over at DemocraticUnderground with your kool-aid buddys?

Mr Big Wrench · Post by **Mr Big Wrench** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:55 pm

Yes Pakistan,
Only because thats where a bunch of the people escaped to when We went into Afganistan. Do you really think they did everything they could to stop this or even go after the ones who are hiding out there??
Maybe I'm going a little overboard by including them with the others, but IMHO they DID NOT do enough.

sbheg · Post by **sbheg** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:52 pm

Rekd wrote:
sbheg wrote:So you read one line, one more than your fearless leader did. You should be president your reading quotient is greater then the presidents. Why don't you just go to Iraq and wipe them out yourself.

JM-****-O
Don't be hatin! The truth will set you free!

Seriously, you can't tell me with a straight face that Iraq was not aiding terrorists, can you? You also can't tell me you know how much I read. Typical lieberal attitude. No wonder you boy wonder lost. With attitudes like yours we don't need to be at war with terrorists, we can just be at war with each other.

BTW, thanks for calling me an ****.. proving yourself a real winner. Shouldn't you be posting over at DemocraticUnderground with your kool-aid buddys?

You can tell me what I read or didn't, but I can't, basically you are a hypocrite aren't you. Same old, if your not with me your against me crap the republicans keep saying.
I called my self an **** and not you, because I know you think I am.

I believe that there are numerous nations that have participated in some type of Terrorism and I even believe that Iraq probably has. But it was not their terrorism that we should have been after. Thatâ€™s what this my good buddy thinks. But you know calling me a democrat is like me calling you an **** continue calling me a democrat and I will be more then glad to call you one if you really want.
sbheg

Poiks · Post by **Poiks** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:21 pm

sbheg,
It is not possible to have a rational conversation with Rek'd. Save your energy for those who are willing to forsake the Jerry Springer mentality. Flame wars on here are his sport.

American Sand Association

You never hear this stuff. Wonder why.

You never hear this stuff. Wonder why.

Re: You never hear this stuff. Wonder why.

Re: You never hear this stuff. Wonder why.

Re: You never hear this stuff. Wonder why.

Re: You never hear this stuff. Wonder why.

Re: You never hear this stuff. Wonder why.

Re: You never hear this stuff. Wonder why.

Re: You never hear this stuff. Wonder why.

Re: You never hear this stuff. Wonder why.