I got this forward from someone and thought that maybe some people would be interested to read it. Not meant to offend anyone, just there for those who might want to know . . .

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,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.
and 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 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 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 a drunken, fleeing Ted Kennedy
to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at
Chappaquiddick, drowning Mary Jo Kopechni.

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.

amen!

Very Well Put, Elizabeth!

hmm, some of these facts are interesting, but they are comparing completely inrelated incidents with completely unrelated situations involved. with the wars compared, look at military logistics, severity of wars, size of opposing force, etc and all of these situations differ tremendously and a simple body count is not a good way to compare them. at all.
and with the last part, alot of that seems kind of ridiculous, comparing the length of war to vote counting and creating bills is just as purportless as comparing it to how long it took me to cook my breakfast this morning.

A few of the facts were compelling, but most were arbitrary.

I have one statement to reply to "Clinton...
went to war in Bosnia without UN or French
consent,
Bosnia never attacked us."

Iraq never attacked us OSAMA BIN LADEN DID! Iraq had and still doesnt have any connections with osama bin laden.

you are right, iraq has nothing to do with osama bin laden, so why do people continue to make this comparison?

Iraq does...the US Investigation Committee's report effectively said there are many ties between Al Queda and Iraq...however none of them can be substantiated as legitimate evidence that Iraq had anything to do with terrorism (ie there is no proof that they were talking about terrorist activities...however they likely weren't talking about who would win in football either) No substantial proof either way...this is the reason that comparison continues to be made.

About darkaliryn's post: Germany and Japan had agreed in 1936 to form the axis powers mainly to keep America seperated from involving itself fully in Europe when it decided to join the war. When the US decided to join the war in 1941, Germany and Japan were allies therefore declaring war on one is equal to declaring war on the other, that's why they went to war against Germany. (not to mention they were sinking US boats again as well as still having resentment for starting WWI.

The Bosnian Conflict was little more than a peacekeeping mission roughly equal to the Haitian conflict in the recent past under Bush...it's wasn't that big a deal and is not equivalent in any way to a war like WWII, Vietnam, or the Gulf Wars.

Also about the current Gulf War conflict, the end of authoritarian Iraqi rule may have ended but that does not mean the job there is anywhere near complete according to the goals that the president has made. Since the job is not done it is not good to make comparisons based off time until completion when the job is not truly done.

I do however agree Bush has done a relatively good job and better than I feel Gore (and now Kerry) could have done.

Just keeping it real. :)

I'm not sure if Gore would have held up in such pressing times, althought he does seem much more aggressive now than he used to be.

Good points, good to see someone with indepth knowledge and more importantly, memory, of history.

I'm opinionated and I am going to express my (conservative) views below. I don't mean to give anyone a coronary or insult their views or intelligence but I do not intend to speak a neutral standpoint by any means. If strongly-worded conservative ideas will make you drop dead of a heart attack or take an axe to your computer I suggest you pass by my statements and not injure anything. I don't want to hurt anyone. I'm just trying to intelligently discuss the issues truthfully. I happen to view things a certain way. Prove me wrong and I'll happily concede; but I don't believe that will happen. In any case, don't start up a lynch mob. I'm close enough to that just muttering angry comments to myself when I pass liberal demonstrations on-campus.

Okay, first of all, I'm not prepared to defend every statement on this list. I do not have Brett's historical knowledge. I am very good at concepts but don't know very many actual facts about the real world (though I do know enough to make a sound judgment; I just can't contend all the little details). As I said, it was one of those notoriously not-originated-by-anyone-you-know email forwards; personally the numbers make me dizzy (haven't slept since I woke up 2:30 yest. afternoon and have eaten little but crackers, that's what happens when you're vainly trying to keep from being kicked out of your house even though you deserve it; no time to eat. work to prove you'll do better. ANYWAY . . . ) but it seemed like something I'd like to pass on and this was the best way I knew to reach the most people possible. I think the general stance of the message coincides with my own.

I know that the comparisons seem unrelated and arbitrary but I got the impression that the contrasts were meant to point out that what President Bush has done, he has done well; and while this is a very important fact, it somehow seems even more critical to point out that the contrast allows us to see how unfairly President Bush has been criticized.

"Clinton...
went to war in Bosnia without UN or French
consent,
Bosnia never attacked us."

I may just be very dense, but it doesn't seem to me that Clinton's actions were very different from President Bush's. Clinton went after Bosnia to protect innocent people; but didn't President Bush go after Iraq in order to save the innocent people who were being tortured and brutally killed by Saddam Hussein? Yes, there WERE civilian casualties; but they were not planned; every measure possible was taken to protect them during the operation; and President Bush is not sitting back casually over those lives or the lives of Americans overseas (or anyone else caught in there like that English person). I am convinced that those deaths tore him up. However, he KNEW that if he just stood by Iraq would continue to assist or at least condone Al-Queda and Osama bin-Laden AND that Saddam Hussein would continue to torture and murder innocent people. US forces in Iraq are CONTINUALLY finding new mass graves full of people victimized by Saddam. I'm sorry, but if trying to stop that isn't something that is not only worthwhile but that also absolutely needs to be done, then the universe makes no sense at all.

And yes, I am taking the time to type out 'President Bush' every time because I respect him and his decisions and I believe that people have forgotten how to show respect. He deserves respect just by getting us through 9/11 in the first place. Can you see Al Gore (or John Kerry, for that matter) giving the nation such heartfelt encouragement in his speeches or taking such decisive action against the terrorists?

Once again, please don't get too angry. Unless you like being angry. I do, except when I'm too tired. Like now.

One last thought:
Think of the horrendous slander against President Bush in the news and on tv and in that movie 'Farenheit 9/11' and in all those music videos they make a point of showing so often on mtv and vh1. If you live in Colorado, think of those unconscionable tv ads against Marilyn Musgrave. (I don't have the energy to get angry so I refuse to describe them; ask someone else from here, or I'll post later when I've had sleep (or caffeine) and protein.)

Back to considering the slashing of conservatives.
Now, consider:

If someone tried to say such things against John Kerry or any kind of liberal candidate for any office, what would the reaction be?

The masses would be yelling 'slander!' at the top of their lungs.

Yet when the liberals decide to sling a little--or a lot--of mud, it's:
'Freedom of Expression!'
'Freedom of the Press!'


I may be mistaken, but isn't there something wrong here . . . ?

i'm surprised you've been holding back your views because you really havent said anything offensive at all. especially compared to whats been said in other discussions.

I think you are too influenced by what you see in the media.
"Can you see Al Gore (or John Kerry, for that matter) giving the nation such heartfelt encouragement in his speeches or taking such decisive action against the terrorists?"
Yes that is their job, even if they didnt care they would make you think they did.

"I may just be very dense, but it doesn't seem to me that Clinton's actions were very different from President Bush's"
I dont think the mission in Bosnia can be at all in any way compared to all out open war where the loss of a great many thousand lives were at stake, and continually such..?

I think you should stay away from terms such as "liberal" and "conservative". Dont classify yourself or your ideas, everyone is a unique individual. You may classify me as a liberal because I have dissagreed with you here, or because I am voting for Kerry; but I was raised in the south and have alot of traditional "conservative" values. Its not always black and white and the world isnt a struggle between liberals and conservatives anymore.

You're very right; we're all different. I mainly use the terms so that I don't have to go on for hours upon hours about my particular views or the particular views of someone I'm referring to. And, personally, I think that Gore or Kerry would certainly try to act like they cared; but I just can't see them actually seeming sincere. It may be a bias but Kerry gives me the creeps. He has hard eyes. THERE'S a hard fact to convince people . . . but I don't expect it to. All I'm saying is that whenever I get really, really creeped out by someone, without any previous knowledge of their actions or character, like that, I find out later that there really is something serously wrong with them. Okay so use me as target practice. Go ahead. Just a comment . . . and, by the way, have you heard about certain things about Kerry? He claims to have had such a hard experience in Vietnam, but he was only there four months while others suffered far worse things for years over there. The Vietnam Vets, as a whole, consider him a traitor to the United States. That is NOT an accusation to take lightly. He came back and lied about what happened there. None of his claims have been substantiated at all. The things he was claiming aren't anything you could hide like that. Anyway. You probably have an answer for that, too *not bitterly spoken. rather, sadly* I don't know enough details to tell you how many people died in Bosnia--but as I said, all measures are being taken to protect Iraqi and Americal lives. and most of all--ARE THE BOSNIANS WORTH SAVING, BUT NOT THE IRAQIS? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand sitting by while innocent people are being murdered, no matter who they are or how many lives are lost in the process of taking a stand. Because, unless we take a stand, we will be guilty of something far worse than 'minding our own business': we will be guilty of condoning those deaths. EITHER SOMETHING IS RIGHT OR IT ISN'T. MASS MURDER ISN'T A CASE-BY-CASE TRIAL. Do you think people should be pacifists? All well and good--but just how many pacifist Iraqi citizens do you think you'd find when it's let the US come in and stop the horror at cost OR let the living nightmare go on? Pacifism is fine, once you're free--but when your family and friends are tortured and murdered you are not going to break out the sandwich boards and stage a protest when someone tries to remove the powers that are doing the torturing and murdering.

i dont think u understand me
i support the war
but i dont believe those 2 incidents should be compared

oooooh boy, stepping out on a limb here...
First I agree with both of you on most points, (how's that for waffling?) lol
I can see how Elizibeth got a little upset after you post noobguy, not your fault, I even jumped in and counter responded but then retreated by editing out my posting.
I felt that striking while the iron was hot was bad policy, and could lead to trouble therfore the edit, that said When President Bush acted he didn't have the availability of (edit). Too late, we went in and now it has to be finished. It's called backbone, or following through on a corse of action. I believe his biggest mistake was "WMD's" as the main reason for going in. Yes there were many other justifiable humane reasons. But everyone including the media only wants to hear WMD. I wonder if any one else was the president at that time, and was given the same intelligence would have acted diffrently?
I personally don't believe so. And if they didn't act with that intell. I certainly wouldn't want them as my president!
Unfortunately History will record the WMD fiasco, and crimes against humanity will be a small footnote at best.
What was it? 18 UN resolutions? And Saddam didn't comply with the last one too?
That alone was "legitimate reason" to go in. Should we have on that alone? Better minds than mine are needed to make that decision. But put the crimes against humanity, 18 resolutions, games with the inspectors, and sadly bad intell together I can't say I would not have made the same choice as well.
Is the president responsable for the bad intell?
If anyone were given the intell by the "experts" then who could question it? After all the are the experts.
Yes I'm for the war as well, and both my son's are in the military.
Because Freedom Isn't Free!
And in todays post 9-11 world we can't afford to wait for them to come to us "again".
Please don't take any offence to this, it's my ramblings and not directed to any posting as a response.
And I believe in voting for the person not a party.

"That alone was "legitimate reason" to go in."
you believe that Saddams conflict with the UN justifies the US waging immediate open war on Iraq practically by itself?

I 'unno what you all are jabbering about, but that eMail, I think, puts the time factor of the war into perspective. Granted, they are not related points, but still points of time that we can relate to. the Florida Vote count... may that not happen again this year. I may have been in sixth grade last time, but I still remember it and the major, long-winded fuss over it

honestly, if Sadam would have let the weapons inspectors actually inspect the country we wouldn't be at war...the fact that he didn't showed he had something to hide. He may have sold them during that time, hid them very well(we have just recently found arms stores in Japan and Germany from WWII underneath the soil).

The UN itself is a great organization for making it look like you're trying to do something, because (like in Star Wars(how's that for a reference :P)) a whole lot of bureaucracy is worthless without some kind of backing (this is the reason the Articles of Confederation were thrown out and also the reason the League of Nations was killed) The only thing the UN actually does is economic sanctions which is a way of controlling the economic progress of a country(a bad way of doing things anyway) and having a public stage where things are said (see Adlai Stevenson(sp?) with the Cuban crisis).

Agree with most of the message of what Stevenet and Aliryn are saying. However, I don't think that this nation ever needs to get involved with helping humanity in other countries. They should A) learn to help themselves or B) private or religious organizations need to be trying to do this...government is just too inefficient for such things...not to mention the real reason for doing something humitarian is ever because it's humanitarian with the gov't. (IE "ARE THE BOSNIANS WORTH SAVING, BUT NOT THE IRAQIS"...they both are but our gov't shouldn't be involved in doing either). The problems with the West Bank and the 'Holy Land' and the Balkans all originally came from governments thinking they know best for another country(treaties after WWI).

I believe at the time of the ending of the conflict with Iraq (the first time) was if Iraq cooperated with the UN resolution. Techincally in the political realm of affairs the conflict never ended but was put on hold, till Iraq gave full cooperation. After 17 or 18 resolutions being ignored, played games with etc. The reasons for the stopping of hostilities ended in Iraq thumming their noses at the UN as well as the US.
Leagally I believe they had, or we had, the right to continue the first war with Iraq at that point. However, what I believe and what scum sucking Lawyers believe are 2 different things. I don't think breaking another resolution was enough for me to renew the conflict.
But putting that together with the crimes against humanity, and the intell of WMD's was enough of a case for it. Although there is no difinitive proof yet as to any cooperation with Terrorist Bin Laden and the attacks of 9-11. I wouldn't doubt it.

But imagine what everyone's attitude would be like if they did find the massive stockpiles of WMD's ? We wouldn't be having these conversations right now, I don't believe.

Given the Intell of the WMD situation (however sadly mistaken it was)
I can't imagine "any" president ignoring it after a post 9-11 world.
Unfortunately, we went in (again) stating it was mainly because of the wmd's instead of going in because of the many resolutions broken, and war crimes against humanity.

Which makes us and our "Intell" look like a bunch of war mongering fools, when they found no WMD's.

Btw Kool lunar eclipse right now...

Nite all

gaaaaaah. I'm not even going to try to read all this until I get some sleep. Which means tomorrow. Shame on me--I started it after all . . .

Here’s some more facts for the debate.....

The US and UK governments have dragged their people into a war that cannot be won in the same vein as Vietnam and Northern Ireland.

They have done this with (in the UK at least) a minority public support and under international law, no actual legal entitlement to do so.

They have consistently lied to their people about the 'intelligence' used as justification for invading a country with the sole intention of regime change and securing oil production.

This has all been done at the expense of foreign policy or perception of how the two countries behave.

Far more important issues have been swept aside in order to satisfy two men’s egos. Bush says he will not sign the Kyoto agreement which would be of benefit to the whole world as it would cost US industry too much however he is spending what would be the equivalent of a years subsidy to American business if they signed upto Kyoto every 2.5 weeks in Iraq funding the 'war'. to date that amounts to almost 28 years worth of subsidies that could have been reinvested into the US economy to make it a cleaner more productive unit. a policy that would have been a vote winner and made you all less reliant on fossil fuels so you wouldn’t have to invade foreign sovereign states or dig up your own national parks.

Between Bush & Blair, they have managed to create a state of fear and terror for their own people, which is largely overplayed and used as a tool to justify policy changes, which are for the most part immoral and illegal. You can’t complain if you supply the school bully with a free loaded gun if he then turns around and shoots you in the ass with it a few years later.

(Here’s some more facts for the debate}

Where are the facts your opening statement eludes to?
I only see your opinions but no facts.
Indeed you are entitled to your opinion.

they are a matter of record - it's not rocket science and for once not a secret either.

If all that you say is a matter of record, I guess you wouldn't mind stating them here as FACTS that you said in your opening statement you would do.

All I see is your opinions listed.

So you made the accusations, and if (it's not rocket science and for once not a secret either.) Then you shouldn't have a problem listing the facts you said you would do.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ie:
(The US and UK governments have dragged their people into a war that cannot be won in the same vein as Vietnam and Northern Ireland.)

How by any stretch of the imagination can you compare Iraq to Vietnam
Or Ireland? First the USA did not start the war in Vietnam, second the war in Vietnam was never won, the North and south stayed divided.
Last Iv'e seen there is no military army left in Iraq.
The problem now is winning the peace by having Iraq have their own government in place. Or do you think Saddam is going to return somehow? As far as Ireland goes it's still divided as well, and who's fault is that? Iraq will have it's own govennment eventually, unless you have some Facts to prove otherwise.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(They have done this with (in the UK at least) a minority public support and under international law, no actual legal entitlement to do so.)

I can't speak for the UK and suppose to do so.
But if you read "Any" of the UN resolutions especially the last one.
And Understood that "legaly" the First war in Iraq was not over but put on hold till the UN resolutions were fullfilled by Sadam, The US had the legal right to finish the war to it's conclusion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(They have consistently lied to their people about the 'intelligence' used as justification for invading a country with the sole intention of regime change and securing oil production.)

Sorry but unless you have some "Facts" to back this up with, it's pure speculation on your part.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Far more important issues have been swept aside in order to satisfy two men’s egos.)

Do you have any "Facts" concluding that the reason the Kyoto agreement was swept aside was because of two mens ego's?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Between Bush & Blair, they have managed to create a state of fear and terror for their own people.)

Again I can't speak for the UK, but as far as Bush creating a state of fear in the USA your sadly mistaken.

And I would like to see some "facts" showing were living in a state of "Fear" in the US. Because of Iraq!

True there was some fears after 9-11 but those fears have been met and they were not caused by Bush.
Mistakes were made I'm sure in respect to Iraq, as far as WMD's were concerned. Although just because none have been found does not mean there were never any there.
I had said before in a previous post the largest mistake by Bush was to say the main reason to renew the conflict was because of the WMD's.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(which is largely overplayed and used as a tool to justify policy changes, which are for the most part immoral and illegal. You can’t complain if you supply the school bully with a free loaded gun if he then turns around and shoots you in the ass with it a few years later.)

This dosen't look like facts to me but 'Opinions" instead.

It's easy to be an armchair quarterback, sitting in front of a TV.
We are all entitled to our opinions, (at least in a free society like ours)

ookaaaaaaaaaaaaay. you know what? i can't process any of this and i'm not sure i care anymore. i never get enough sleep. i am two months behind on reading for all five of my classes. my family is in the middle of a horrid crisis. my emotional/mental health has been on the edge of i-can't-take-this-any-more for years. yes literally. i gave you some interesting information i thought people might like to know and my own thoughts. i didn't look it up. i'm not prepared to defend it. it was a in-case-you-care-here-it-is-but-don't-ask-me-where-it-came-from. if you want more of your freaking facts go find them yourself. i did the best i could do in my current situation. i can't get my head around all this right now and i barely could earlier. i can barely manage everyday life. and i'm supposed to have a job interview tomorrow. i have bigger problems than someone with a bad attitude who (likely) got their opinion from the ever-present pop-culture which only has the purpose of making damned lemmings out of everyone and is just spouting the same arguments as they all do and it doesn't even occur to them to actually think about it. so shove off and go yell at someone who can take it. sure i act like i can but my stomack just now literally feels like it is somersaulting in my gut and i'm nauseous from who knows what i'm always nauseous and headachy and dizzy now. and if you even think about yelling at me about feeling sorry for myself or being a whiner then you better come out and live my life and show my how very easy and tolerable it is. damn. you probably think you're so moral and care about the common people. i'm a common person and i'm drowning and you don't give a flying rip so shut up already. all of the rest of you who isn't at least polite too. you think i shouldn't be like this? more nice and understanding that you don't know my situation? maybe i should be kind? go ahead. shoot me. drive over here and creeping shoot me for all i care. i've got almost nothing left. do your worst. if it hurts hard enough i just might forget my old, old pains.

As far as my comparison to Ireland and Vietnam goes I was referring to getting embroiled in guerrilla style warfare that cannot be won as you are faced with a seemingly unending supply of fanatics who will step up to take the place of those who have fallen. I used them as an example as in both instances the UK and US were unable to resolve the conflict in any form of finality.

The US did not seek to finish the first war as that resolution dealt only with freeing an occupied state i.e. Kuwait and in no way dealt with the invasion of Iraq. The second war was supposedly under the UN mandate of securing weapons of mass destruction that represented a clear and present danger to Iraq’s neighbours. All this was secured after presentations of intelligence supplied mostly by the UK government that subsequently transpired to be sourced from a ten year old university thesis dating back to desert storm. In the UK at least at the time of commencement of the second war 72% of the polled public were against it and 64% of parliament, which by any calculation represents a majority against it.

At the time of the invasion, the paper thin dossier of evidence was held up as proof positive that Iraq represented such a threat when it was obvious to all involved in the creation of this dossier that at best it was outdated and at worst mostly fabricated. since then various enquiries on both sides of the Atlantic have proven this to be the case and yet these findings seam to be overlooked because 'at least we got him'.

As I said all of these findings and reports are public record and so hardly count as speculation as far as my opinion goes - i believe the only opinion I originally expressed was perhaps the money would have been better spent elsewhere improving domestic and foreign relations rather than aggravating an already tense area of the world.

I realise that - especially now at election time - things like this often get the rose tinted treatment but if you want to read more try reading the 3 main reports published so far which are freely available and expand more on what I have said without actually pointing the finger at anyone. Naturally.

(The second war was supposedly under the UN mandate of securing weapons of mass destruction that represented a clear and present danger to Iraq’s neighbours.)

If this is so, no matter how incorrect the information was leading the UN mandate, how can you say the 2nd war in Iraq was ilegal?

It may have been wrong because of wrong intelligence to create the mandate but once it was done then it would have not been ilegal.

thats the whole crux of the matter over here really. the fact that the intell was wrong isnt really the issue - its more to do with the UK government presenting it to the US and the UN knowing it was wrong beforehand and doctoring it accordingley to suit their needs.

Elizabeth...

Hmmmm I don't see any one's posting here attacking you.
In fact I don't see it attacking anyone, except for the issues being under attack.
Which is something we cherish in a free society.
I truely hope you feel better soon.

Phil...

I couldn't agree more, with the whole WMD fiasco of intelligence being the main problem.
In fact I remember when it first came out many of us here in the US came out and said, if you do this you had better find the WMD's over there.

I agree It's a mess, handled wrong from the getgo.
But looking past the mistakes I for one feel the world is a better place without Sadam and his "government" certainly the comon people in Iraq are glad he's gone, except for the zelots hell bent on control.

Iraq will eventually have it's own government.
Hopefully a free society.

I'm also glad you didn't take my commenting personally, we all have the right to express our views, and respect each other at the same time!

"If all that you say is a matter of record, I guess you wouldn't mind stating them here as FACTS that you said in your opening statement you would do. All I see is your opinions listed. So you made the accusations, and if (it's not rocket science and for once not a secret either.) Then you shouldn't have a problem listing the facts you said you would do."
THAT'S what made me mad, okay?!
"Hmmmm I don't see any one's posting here attacking you. In fact I don't see it attacking anyone, except for the issues being under attack. Which is something we cherish in a free society." okay i'm getting really sick of these supposedly true american ideals. face it people. they all went down the toilet. it's freedom of religion not freedom from religion. the founding fathers advocated tolerance but not universal acceptance (means do what you want but i don't think it's true) and intended america to be founded on and to maintain Christian principles. now it's now freedom of expression. that didn't mean nasty obscene content or disrespectful slashing. it meant you can say what you think. you could at lest be civil. even if you are most aren't. the decline of morality is what did in Greece and Rome too you know. and their real empires only lasted appx two hundred years which is right about where we're at. so think already. i'm inclined to move to another country and lemme tell you i'm not the only one. i'd even consider renouncing my citizenship. other countries aren't as free but who wants free that means the President can't order defense and i have to flash by offensive stuff on tv to get to the good stuff. and don't say you don't have to watch tv because i have the right too. and don't say then just watch what you think is good because i do but the freaking commercials make my want to . . . i don't know. but it's really bad. so it's all screwed up and you're not helping.

you hope i feel better. wooohooooo. at least that's nicer than my mother's government-funded doctor. you care more than the disability people. they think my mom can live on five hundred a month. no one can live on five hundred a month. thanks for the sentiment, but unfortunately it doesn't do us any more good than what the magnanimous social security system does.

and just for future reference to let you know, i have a mental illness called depression. it's not just 'everyone has hard stuff to deal with' or 'everyone gets down sometimes'. it's called a genuine medical diagnosis that i am taking almost the maximum dosage of two different medicines for--the max dose for anyone and i have a very low body weight and shouldn't need that much but i do. and i can't just 'feel better'. doesn't work that way. i'm screwed inside and out and 'feeling better' somehow just doesn't fit.

agree with steve, no one is attacking anyone here Elizebeth, just expressing the issues, very intellectually and informed I might add.

Agree with steve also that we are probably better off without Sadaam in power.

But agree with phil in that it was gone about wrong, and also how the gorrilla warfare, and small scale constant attacks that are going on now are very reminiscent of Vietnam. I believe there are many more deaths since after the few days of open war than during. Also feel that no matter what the facts were, the US should not have waged this war practically alone.

True noobguy, Phil and I ave PM'd and there are no personal conflicts going on here.
In fact, because of the discussion it's supprising how much we do agree on what was seemingly a disagreement.
Once we had a chance to discuss it.

I consider the matter closed.

Snap

"If all that you say is a matter of record, I guess you wouldn't mind stating them here as FACTS that you said in your opening statement you would do. All I see is your opinions listed. So you made the accusations, and if (it's not rocket science and for once not a secret either.) Then you shouldn't have a problem listing the facts you said you would do."

that was directed towards phil, not you, and even he didnt take it personally

Elizabeth...

"If all that you say is a matter of record, I guess you wouldn't mind stating them here as FACTS that you said in your opening statement you would do. All I see is your opinions listed. So you made the accusations, and if (it's not rocket science and for once not a secret either.) Then you shouldn't have a problem listing the facts you said you would do."
THAT'S what made me mad, okay?!

This posting by me was not directed towards you!
I'm sorry if you took it that way, it was in response to another posting by someone else.

Again I consider the matter dropped.

You beat me to it Noobguy!

I type slower lol

hehe ^^

ah whatever. how the hell can you be so freaking carefree about everything. feh. i'm not answering anymore. you could at least listen and not all JUMP on me when i protest. gaaaaaah. i'm going home (so to speak).

1. A few corrections Elizabeth Germany did declare war against us during world war two. They started sinking our merchant ships.


2. Kennedy did not get us involved in the Vietnam police action. Eisenhower did. We entered the action in 1957 as advisers and then became fully involved in 1959 one year before Kennedy was elected. And the target wasn’t really Nam it was Cambodia. That’s where all the real bombs where dropped. And Nixon got us out to get reelected.


3. FDR did not get us into the World War 2 by choice. The Japanese attacked us. Which by the way they where already in conflict with the Chinese. The where out to concur the world. Just as the Germans had it out for the Europeans.


4. We where already standing by as advisors for the Bosnian conflict and entered the conflict’ do to the fact that no one would try to do anything about the mass murders there. The UN only then became involved. That’s why there were so many UN support trucks there.




5. Now if we really want to stop the conflicts in the Middle East we need to go after the real money trail, which I hate to say starts with our good buddies the Saudis. And as far as Korea. We where asked by the South Koreans do to the fact that they where getting there buts kicked.

6. And as far as most wars that we have been involved in the where implemented by mostly republicans and a democrat was elected in after words to get us out of it.


7. And as far as terrorism. Our own US marines slaughtered over 1500 people on the white house lawn during the early 20th century for protesting the starvation going on in our own country. We as a people have our own little ghost packed away in our closets. For instants little big horn. The US Army slaughtered hundreds of unarmed American Indians. And good old custard actually died of friendly fire. And how many tribes have been eradicated out of the American way.


8. And lets not forget the Alamo, which in reality was the total attempt to annex the Mexicans completely out of Texas.


9. My point is: Unfortunately this country as many others has a history of violence and concurring of those less well off our less able to protect them self’s. You must also realize that the united states and some of the European nations have and will always be the worlds police force regardless. If we agree with the reason of involvement or not. Good reason or bad it happens.

-Germany did not declare war on us until we declared war on them...they however were sinking our merchant ships just as they did in WWI...
-the conflict you are talking about is the Chivington Massacre, the Battle at Little Big Horn was where the Sioux tribe attacked and successful killed a troop of soldiers led by Custer in their territory.
-the Alamo was about Texas gaining it's independence from Mexico, it had nothing to do with America...
...the point of your message is true enough tho.
BTW...prism, I already disputed most of these facts in my first post. :S

America was supplying Britain during WWII & was trying to avoid being dragged into a war it felt it had no part in until Pearl Harbor, after Pearl America joined in the war. (Though some Americans did join the war earlier by coming through with Canadian troops & pilots.)

In doing so you do not get to choose who you fight, as in pick the country who attacked you, you fight the enemy, that being the whole army of who ever it is involved in a war & any of their aggressive allies.


As already mentioned, the numbers in the original post are very skewed for the reasons already mentioned & you have to take into account that the style of war has changed dramatically because of weapon technology & the whole style of this type of warfare.

As for showing facts, checking any worthy & reliable news site would easily turn up enough facts & figures. Then again as they have already been aired publically one would think it was pretty much a given most people would have/should have known that both Bush & Blair & some other political leaders did enter into this "war" by shady means & drummed it home to the populus that it was about one thing when doing it for the humanitarian element was more than enough, that is politicians for you though. They never miss a chance to grand stand an event when stating the simple facts that people are being massacred will suffice.

The debate about WMD, again, check news sites, it had already been proved Saddam had already been using nerve agents & other biological weapons against not only his own people but also people he was presecuting in much the same manner as Hitler, thus again it was worthy of us going in & removing him from power, a power he maintained through force & fear. I myself have stood 9km away from the Iraqi desert, trust me, if I wanted to hide something out there, you wouldn't find it for a long time, you have to take into account scale. Even with modern technology & a load of people working on it, it could take decades to find a hidden bunker. & let's face it, if you have something such as WMD, you do not want to have them stored in a high street with a big flashing neon sign saying "WMD HERE", you stash them where they cannot be located easily. Saddam was mad, but he was not foolish.

While I detest the fact both Bush & Blair chose the wrong reasons to make this seem lke a justifiable "war", it really did need doing. Both of them will eventually get hamstrung over the way they went about it. I do commend them on the fact they did what needed doing & while they pretty much ignored the UN, I also feel that the UN was being made a mockery of as Saddam had ignored how many UN sanctions & chances to comply. The UN lacked courage of it's convictions & basicaly showed no balls when faced with that kind of humiliation & defiance.

I disagree with the way that the US went about the start of this whole episode, as in from a military stand point with regards the tactics. You do not let mouthy idiots like Bush Rumsfeld stand in front of the world media bragging about how this will be an "invasion" the likes of which has never been seen before by the world & bang on about how fast you are going to knock down the doors of Baghdad etc. That was a PR nightmare & made all the coalition forces look bad, it was meant to intimidate Saddam, all it did was make our troops look like arses, & then seeing America troops stranded without food & supplies in the middle of a desert when a sandstorm hits for a few days is just plain embaressing.

How can a force look like peace keepers when the morons who are "in control" are shouting the odds about how they intend to blow their enemy away in quick smart fashion? Not possible at all.

For the type of war this is, the coalition bodycount is VERY low. While I myself was training for this exact style of warfare we were informed that for an "invading force" fighting an urban conflict (OBUA = Operations in built up areas/FIBUA = Fighting in built up areas) the losses for a taking control of a single street could easily end up in the region of hundreds of soldiers lost, that equates to several full platoons of men, & would probably be in fact a full company when all was said & done if not more. & That would be just for a moderately defended street with low trained troops.

" 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. "

Statements like this really annoy me, Bush didn't do that alone, nor should he ever be given credit for doing so, this kind of thing just perpetuates more issues because he & his staff & followers make statements like that which is just fuelling more arguements. It's a coalition & joint effort. Credit should be passed between all forces as much as blame should be when things go wrong.

Food for thought, in this day & age I find it odd that we rely on politicians to keep the peace/status quo...
If they were that bloody good at doing what they are supposed to, why do we have such vast armies to back up their big mouths?
(Ex soldier humour.)

"In the two years since terrorists attacked US President Bush has ... liberated two countries"

Which two countries are you referring to? If you mean Afghanistan, I'd hardly call replacing one group of fundamentalist dictators with a CIA puppet regime (who are already showing all the trademark signs of becoming the next fundamentalist leaders) as liberation. And you surely don't mean Iraq. At present allied forces only control about 50% of Iraq and the areas they do control are hardly liberated as they still come under intense attacks with a body count that continues to escalate but barely gets reported. As for the 'liberated' people of Iraq - they seam to live in a constant state of fear - many of them falling victim to either allied collateral damage or to extremists punishing them for cooperating with the west.

"In the two years since terrorists attacked US President Bush has ... crushed the Taliban"

Crushed seams an over optimistic appraisal of a fighting force that still regularly attacks US & UK posts in Afghanistan and has now started to take western hostages as well.

"In the two years since terrorists attacked US President Bush has ... Crippled Al-Qaida"

Again a very over optimistic view of things and I'm sure one that the people of Madrid, Bali & Nigeria would beg to differ on - all of whom have suffered terrible Al-Qaida attacks since 9/11.

"In the two years since terrorists attacked US President Bush has ... put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea"

Hmmm - where to start on this one - I know lets do Libya. Libya agreed to allow UN nuclear inspectors into there country as part of a deal they brokered with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw which also involved the voluntarily surrendering of their WMD program and paying compensation to Lockerbie victims. Iran & North Korea both briefly had UN inspectors in but both countries subsequently kicked them out. Bush is now talking about attacking Iran as he is pretty sure they don’t yet have nuclear weapon capability but will never do anything about North Korea because he knows they do and even Dubya isn’t stupid enough (hopefully) to provoke/initiate a nuclear attack.

"In the two years since terrorists attacked US President Bush has ... captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people."

Who would that be then?

"Who would that be then?" probably Saddam...

Saddam? Terrorist? Cruel and unusual dictator yes terrorist no. As memory serves - the main terrorist Bush was after still continues to elude the World Police....

whatever. ever heard of aiding & abbetting?

both the US & UK have since conceded that there never was any evidence linking Sadam to Al-Qaida or any other major terrosist network - so aiding and abbetting who exactly do you mean?

well even if we don't have anything exact i seem to recall something about having very strong evidence or likelihood or something to the effect. waddaya asking me for details for, i've said so much i don't know exact stuff. my negligence breeds ignorance in spades. but i know people who keep up with that stuff and that's what they said.

seams they were duped like the rest of us then :-)

huh? i'm dense . . . are you saying the people i know are wrong? maybe they are . . . like i said i wouldn't know. :P this stuff makes me so d~i~i~i~zy . . .

the best thing about forceful debates like this concerning governments is you just know that somewhere in a room with no windows sits a few men in dark suits monitoring any possibly unpatriotic traffic on the web. So a big hello to you all if your watching.

"your not paranoid if it's true"

"your not paranoid if it's true"
That's great! And you know the guys in dark suits probably think we're all morons anyway.

OMG YOU ARE ON TO US!

ha ha ha. you're really gonna scare someone someday.

after reading most of these comments i wonder.... what do the people of iraq stand to gain out this war? ... what do the americans english and other coalition partners stand to lose. i really do not believe that any political party of any persuasion would committ itself to this type of operation without being aware of the problems and outcomes.
as for sadam ... i believe that he is a murderer and should have been removed years ago .. i believe that the people of iraq must choose their own destiny and either show support for the coalition ... or the coalition goes home... this present serenio seems to be confused .. could you imagine the same going on in your city or country
bin laden is a barbaric monster who should be spoken about in the same context as hitler...anyone who has the mental attitude to organise and plan a terrosist attack like 9-11 and then hide behind the veil of religion (any religion) cannot be anything else but a monster .
Whilst I personally do not agree with the war in Iraq I believe that now we are there we have to make the most of it .. for the sake of the iraq people.
Russell

oh for crying out loud we all gave up already.

I quite agree - i think we've flogged this particular horse enough already.

*more flogging*
I dont think he was hiding behind a veil of religion. Pretty sure these are his *actual* beliefs.

ack!!!!!!!!!!!