Rethink Position Libs And Dems

OCA

VIP Member
Feb 1, 2004
7,014
223
83
Washington D.C.
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!
>
>
 
We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember. It was started by terrorists on 9/11.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No argument here.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

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.

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

This was a NATO request.
 
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.
 
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.

That could very well be, I followed very little of Clinton after his lewinsky testimony waiting to elect a different president.

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?

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.

But since FDR was pres. during that time he gets credit for those deaths.

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

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.

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 usually gets the blame but in all actuality he inherited a shitty situation.

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.

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

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

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.
 
Originally posted by jimnyc
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.

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.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
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.

Why can't most liberals have a level head like you?

:beer:
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth

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.

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.

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.

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?


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.

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.


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.

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!
 
I had a big huge post to respond to every point you were trying to make until I got to your last paragraph. I then realized you still have your head up your ass and can't see what you're thinking.

When you want to talk facts about the points that lead up to each incident, come back and speak coherently and with some degree of sanity. Otherwise your post just reeks of idiocy.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I had a big huge post to respond to every point you were trying to make until I got to your last paragraph. I then realized you still have your head up your ass and can't see what you're thinking.

When you want to talk facts about the points that lead up to each incident, come back and speak coherently and with some degree of sanity. Otherwise your post just reeks of idiocy.

I toned this down quite signficantly after I reread the whole thread, but still, your response is the first recognition of any post I've made in the last several months and I'm just going to bag this whole thing if this is what I can expect in the future.

Honestly I was out of line in attacking your position given your general outlook, and I should have posted my response to the original message (had I read it through then). But this is surely the most substantial reply I've seen in a long time.
 
I toned this down quite signficantly after I reread the whole thread, but still, your response is the first recognition of any post I've made in the last several months and I'm just going to bag this whole thing if this is what I can expect in the future.

If thats toned down then I'd like to see what it is when you go off the wall. I don't know what you expected but I can assure you that if you sound off with the same type of post as you did here you'll get exactly the same thing from me.

Honestly I was out of line in attacking your position given your general outlook, and I should have posted my response to the original message (had I read it through then). But this is surely the most substantial reply I've seen in a long time.

Thank you.
 
DKSuddeth,

Fair enough. Actually I doubt we really disagree on the core issues at all. Look at it from my perspective. I post 15 responses in a row and your the first person to react to anything I say.

I had a problem with this claim:

"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."

You know what happened so why not share the blame equally? We did what we could and sacrificed much in the process. That's really the one and only claim I disagree, but it just made it sound so fiendishly anti-American, as if WE ALONE were deserved of 9-11 due to our actions. You know how the left would say exactly this same thing and hope nobody challenges it, right?
 
You know what happened so why not share the blame equally? We did what we could and sacrificed much in the process. That's really the one and only claim I disagree, but it just made it sound so fiendishly anti-American, as if WE ALONE were deserved of 9-11 due to our actions. You know how the left would say exactly this same thing and hope nobody challenges it, right?

I do indeed. I hold neither side blameless in this respect. All too often though, its only the other sides actions that get blamed. It does not help any when we're fed excuses from our leaders like 'they hate our freedoms'. I fault the general populace for this by not maintaining awareness of what their government is doing though.

The bottom line in my belief is that the arabs didn't declare war on the US as of 9/11, it just happened to be the time they could attack. The war started much earlier and it was the result of both sides.
 
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I do indeed. I hold neither side blameless in this respect. All too often though, its only the other sides actions that get blamed. It does not help any when we're fed excuses from our leaders like 'they hate our freedoms'. I fault the general populace for this by not maintaining awareness of what their government is doing though.

The bottom line in my belief is that the arabs didn't declare war on the US as of 9/11, it just happened to be the time they could attack. The war started much earlier and it was the result of both sides.

That's when I started tracing back to the "original blame" theme in my first post, which wasn't really helpful. The point I wanted to make is that US opposition the USSR superpower is all that should be on the table when we speak of pre-1992 history.

The USSR propaganda was every bit as Anti-American as the Islamic factions now try to be. BUT... their captive audience was 100-fold more capable than Islamists, and they could nuke us all to hell at the drop of a hat.

So the Islamists as "blowback" from the cold war is the lesser of two evils. Arab states were mere pawns in the big game and even had we seen the future, our support of OBL, his usefullness in stopping expansion into the M.E., collapsing the Soviet empire without global nuclear exchange, at the price of a few thousand future American lives... makes damn good policy. Libs can't offer any other rational way to fight except to take an active role in direct conflict with USSR forces, or just let them romp around until every arab state is a USSR client. We did what we had to do, that's that.
 
so, if I read this right, you're saying that to win the cold war, it was perfectly acceptable for the US and the USSR to use the arab states (and thereby using their people) in mini wars that dictate their deaths and oppression, as pawns for the larger game (as you put it) with a cost of almost 3000 lives in NYC on 9/11?

Sounds an awful lot like you just said the US deserved the attacks because we used them as pawns in our foreign policy.

By all means, if I've misinterpreted what you are saying, correct me.
 
I don't think he's saying we deserved it. But it is true that we contributed to the conditions which permitted it to happen. That being said it was perfectly possible to create said conditions and afterwards diffuse them before 9/11 occured. That just didn't happen. We didn't deserve it, but becuase of our apathy with respect to quickly fixing the problem post-Cold War we by default allowed it to happen.
 
Originally posted by Zhukov
I don't think he's saying we deserved it. But it is true that we contributed to the conditions which permitted it to happen. That being said it was perfectly possible to create said conditions and afterwards diffuse them before 9/11 occured. That just didn't happen. We didn't deserve it, but becuase of our apathy with respect to quickly fixing the problem post-Cold War we by default allowed it to happen.

Maybe its just me, but I fail to see how using ANY lives and countries as pawns wouldn't be deserving of 'blowback' or retribution. Maybe we should get a bye because we're the USA :rolleyes:
 

Forum List

Back
Top