Rethink Position Libs And Dems

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by OCA, Mar 17, 2004.

  1. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    The following appeared in a local paper as a letter to the editor.

    >Some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One person recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history and would rather vote for Saddam than Bush.
    >
    >Let's clear up one point:
    >
    >- We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember. It was started by terrorists on 9/11.
    >
    >Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.
    >
    >- 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 18,333 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.
    >
    >- We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
    >
    >Worst president in history?
    >
    >Come on, Get Real and face the facts!
    >
    >
     
  2. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    :clap: :clap: :clap:
     
  3. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    It goes to way back before 9/11, people have chosen that date because it was the most devastating. It is also debatable on who started the war, but some people choose not to look at the last 50 years of shit we've done in the middle east.

    Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because of the US blockade in the south pacific preventing Japan from obtaining oil. Once war was declared it was only natural to continue in europe to assist our allies.

    No argument here.

    In the 1950's, the United States began to send troops to Vietnam, during the following 25-year period, the ensuing war would create some of the strongest tensions in US history. Almost 3 million US men and women were sent thousands of miles to fight for what was a questionable cause. In total, it is estimated that over 2,5 million people on both sides were killed.

    The large-scale involvement of the US came under the tenure of President Lyndon B. Johnson and his Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Johnson had replaced John F. Kennedy after he was assassinated in Dallas, Texas 1963. As president, he was torn between the differing strategies the US had for Vietnam.

    This was a NATO request.
     
  4. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    It was a NATO request after considerable pressure and arm twisting on the part of Clinton. He needed something other than the debacle in Somalia for his for his foriegn policy legacy.

    Are you saying that Japan was justified in attacking us because of an oil embargo which was brought on by their imperialistic ventures in China and the South Pacific? Yeah you are right, once we went to war with Japan it was natural to Jump in with Germany since they were both on same team. But since FDR was pres. during that time he gets credit for those deaths.

    We sent advisors to Vietnam in early 60's. The first large scale troop movements were in 64-65 under a Demo Johnson who exponentially increased the scale of the war without giving troops the tools they needed to win. Nixon usually gets the blame but in all actuality he inherited a shitty situation.

    I'm not going to address the implication that somehow we deserved 9/11 since that is simply reprehensible.
     
  5. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    That could very well be, I followed very little of Clinton after his lewinsky testimony waiting to elect a different president.

    They obviously felt that way or they wouldn't have attacked us. I'm not saying whether it was right or wrong but if you're going to pin our WW2 involvement and the deaths that occured because of it, at least provide a factual account of real history instead of GOP spin tactics.

    Be sure and add all those GOP congressmen and senators that voted to declare war also.

    You'd better study up on your history some more. We had american advisors in south vietnam in the late 50's. Yes, LBJ increased our presence in vietnam and he paid a high political price for it, lets not forget how much the GOP likes to tout that as stopping the spread of communism. Again, be factual about the events instead of throwing out GOP spin.

    Nixon does get a bum rap when it comes to the vietnam conflict, lets not forget though, that he lied to the american people about pulling out of Vietnam before he was elected and then increased the bombing presence after he was in office.

    Where did I ever say that the american people deserved 9/11? Whats reprehensible is the way some people ignore the last 50 years of US manipulation in the ME that resulted in diminished living conditions and opportunities as having any remote connection to arab anger and then try to claim that there was absolutely NO reason other than 'they hate our freedoms'. Whats also reprehensible is trying to twist the whole issue around by questioning the patriotism of anyone who dare shed light on the true issues surrounding muslim anger at the US.

    Be the typical ignorant american and not address it, it ensures the circle of violence around the world. Thanks for contributing.
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I agree with you, DK. I hope everyone can come to the same conclusion when it comes to the Democratic congressmen and their vote on the Iraq war.
     
  7. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    I wish they would also, thats why I have so little respect for kerry and dean as they have made their position against the iraq war while still voting for it.
     
  8. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Why can't most liberals have a level head like you?

    :beer:
     
  9. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    I'm dreading the wifes comments now :rotflmao:
     
  10. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    Yet where do you draw the line? The first WTC bombing? Bombing our two US embassies in africa? A naval vessel or military barracks? In the years prior to the 9-11 these are certainly acts of war by all standards of nation-state relations.

    However, OBL strength and support is a direct result from having been successfull over communist control of Afganistan, via US (and Paki, UK, French, etc...) support. Most Western leaning nations backed OBL and various other groups involved as a realistic yet proximal resistance against the nightmare of total USSR influence over vital oil M.E. resources. Oil importance being first developed by democracy & capitalism harnessing such. Communism of course only a threat due to a fascist regime failing to wipe it out, simply by having a stupid leader. All three forms of government arising from alternative responses to feudalism. Which was originally an arrangement to advance religious totalitarianism and secure power among local lands. Religion being a force to bind tribal rule into a unified force. And so on.... back to the original apple Eve plucked from the sacred tree.

    The "Shit" of the Middle East is based on the cards already dealt, sir. As the US only became active in the Middle East once former European powers had already established and abandoned colonial power over created boundaries, and was faced with a long and costly battle over communist supremacy. As long as that fact remains the actions of the US in the Middle East is territiary.

    The occupation of Manchuria by Japan was first. The contrived reasoning for Chinese Invasion by Japan followed. The outrage in the League of Nations followed, with the Japanese being the first nation to leave the organization given the universal world outrage over it's actions. The RAPE of Nanking. The continued occupation of Chinese cities and the mass murder of millions of unarmed civilians. ALL THIS happened BEFORE THE US embargo on oil, after EIGHT YEARS of negotiation.

    It's quite justified that we took exception to their aggression and stopped SELLING them OUR OWN oil supplies, since it was also a WORLDWIDE embargo. Based on their inhuman treatement against China. A cultural cruelty which was utterly crushed by American resolve, even nuked when possible, and all parties concerned are now just fine thank you!

    I think this equivocation of Japan's motive for war is very complex. But by all modern liberal standards, to have willingly provided them key resources to continue their war in China would be utterly immoral.trade.

    We stood ready to broker a peace with them and China, and they walked out on us and the rest of the league, which universally condemned Japan for it's methods, and as A GROUP cut Japanese trade. What's the problem here?


    See the numbers don't help this argument at all. Stack up the body count from establishing totalitarian rule in communism via murder and genocide and provide comparible statistics for comparison in the event the US did not attempt to stem communist uprisings.


    Is this about Causis-belli?

    All you had to do was to refer to US involvement in Grenada to prove that all it takes to get the steam up enough for US invasion is 50 Cuban's and mabye some kind of airbase. No real pretext of hostility from the N.V. military, and a much better example to prove our reactionn to communism.

    Communism and its very fundamental role in the last half-century never prevented the freedom we have to question America's past behavior in fighting it, and as long as we can freely question these events there is no better way to express our success as a freedom loving nation!
     

Share This Page