[Mb-civic] Good Answers

[Michael Butler]

One of our group responds to a recent posting from the Dark Side;

Michael,

I have never responded to one of these things but I had to with this one:

>> Subject: Facts to make liberals start thinking for a change
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> Learn these facts to properly debate
>>>> our poor misguided friends &
>>>> family before election time !!!
>>>> 
>>>> 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.

Does that make it OK?  Then again, isn't Detroit a predominately black city?
I suppose that makes it OK that there were 35 murders in Detroit back in
January.  How many military deaths occurred in Iraq during April and May of
2004?  Were there as many in Detroit, or better yet, Atlanta?  This is an
argument that makes me question the writer's position on race.
>>>> 
>>>> 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 yr .
We had been in an undeclared war with Germany from early 1941 onward (the
Japanese attacked in December, 1941).  Two American destroyers had been
attacked and sunk by German U-boats in the North Atlantic.  Before Japan
attacked, the U.S. Navy had a "shoot on sight" order to American ships
operating in the North Atlantic insofar as German naval vessels were
concerned.  Japan and Germany were allies, having signed the Tripartite Pact
in 1941.  Germany was bound to Japan via this pact, and it was Germany, on
December 11, 1941, that declared war on the United States.  We responded in
kind.  The genius that came up with this "fact" as a way of making the Iraq
war "ok" needs to study history closer, or perhaps even pay attention to
what he's reading rather than just skimming the facts that fit his argument.
>>>> 
>>>> 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.

The intervention in Korea was mandated by the U.N. Security Council.  Once
again, whoever came up with this nonsense needs to read his history, rather
than take broad strokes and try to make it "fit" to his case.
>>>> 
>>>> John F. Kennedy...
>>>> started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
>>>> Vietnam never attacked us.

Kennedy actually committed U.S. military advisors in 1961, not 1962, at the
invitation of the Diem government which at that time governed South Vietnam.
>>>> 
>>>> Johnson...
>>>> turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>>>>>> From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
>>>> an average of 5,800 per year.

The Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution, which was the American pretext for placing
ground troops in Vietnam, was highly supported by Republicans and Democrats
alike.  I see what the author of these facts is trying to do here;
Republicans are good, Democrats are bad, therefore Vietnam was JOHNSON'S
war, and Johnson was a Democrat.   I don't know where the writer is going
with this one, except to perhaps say "Johnson was a Democrat and Democrats
are just plain bad".
>>>> 
>>>> Clinton...
>>>> went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,

We never went to war with Bosnia.  Yes, we had AIR INTERVENTION in Bosnia in
1995.  NATO ground troops went into KOSOVO in 1999.  Those are two different
regions.  U.N. troops went into BOSNIA in 1995.  The U.S., being a member of
the U.N., also committed troops later that year.  True, Clinton was the
President of the United States when this happened, but the war in Bosnia,
perpetuated by the Serbians, had been going on since 1991 and was disgusting
to most Europeans. 

>>>> Bosnia never attacked us.

Once again, we didn't go to war with BOSNIA.

>>>> He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter
>>>> three times by Sudan and did nothing.

Really?  Sudan is a lawless nation ruled by warlords.  When did this happen?
Where did this information come from?

>>>> Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

And President Bush did nothing when he came in office.  Just check with
Richard Clarke.  Also, Osama's stay in the Sudan was before he actually had
attacked the two embassies in East Africa, which is when most of us realized
that this guy was a threat.  At the time of the East African bombings, he
was in Afghanistan.  Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban, who did not offer
his head on a platter WHEN WE WANTED IT.
>>>> 
>>>> In the two years since terrorists attacked us
>>>> President Bush has ..
>>>> liberated two countries,

Afghanistan is still in the throes of civil war.  I would hardly say Iraq
was liberated, because they are also on the verge of civil war.  True,
Saddam was a nasty, horrible, revolting dictator, but don't think we went
over there to "liberate" those people.  If I recall, we were told that
Saddama had "weapons of mass destruction" that were earmarked for use by
terrorists, who would use those weapons on the United States.
>>>> crushed the Taliban,

The Taliban is still very much alive.  Where is that Mullah Omar guy?  Was
the SS active in Germany after May, 1945, when Germany surrendered, or was
the dreaded Japanese Kempentai active in Japan after the surrender of Japan
in September, 1945?  Something tells me the Taliban, which is still active,
is not active and simply regrouping.  I don't recall the SS or any elements
of the Japanese Imperial army doing that.

>>>> crippled al-Qaida,

Really?  Tell that to someone who was riding those trains in Madrid back on
March 11, 2004.  Crippled?  I say enhanced.

>>>> put nuclear inspectors in Libya,
>>>> Iran and North Korea

North Korea?  What a load of crap.  Sure, they went to Libya after they were
invited.  They didn't seem to make much of a difference to the Iranians, who
are still actively researching atomic weapons research and who would proudly
use them on us, or more likely, Israel, someday soon.

>>>> without firing a shot,
>>>> and captured a terrorist who slaughtered
>>>> 300,000 of his own people.

I suspect he's referring to Saddam Hussein.

>>>> The Democrats are complaining
>>>> about how long the war is taking, but...
>>>> It took less time to take Iraq

Big deal.  The Iraqis had a pathetic army and no air force to speak of.
Boasting about us destroying the Iraqi army in two weeks is silly when you
have to remember that the Germans invaded France in May, 1940, routed the
British and French armies, sent the British scurrying across the English
Channel and obliterated the French Army in the same amount of time.  If I
recall, the French and the British had airplanes and also outnumbered the
Germans.  
>>>> than it took Janet Reno to take the
>>>> Branch Davidian compound.
>>>> That was a 51 day operation.

That was a law enforcement operation that you really can't compare to
invading a foreign country.  Where does this guy come up with this stuff?
>>>> 
>>>> We've been looking for evidence of
>>>> chemical weapons in Iraq for less
>>>> time than it took Hillary Clinton to
>>>> find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

Here we go with the "I hate Clinton" nonsense again.  Let's look at Tom
DeLay's shady finances, and for that matter, let's examine Enron's
relationship with Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.  Come on!  The Clintons
are continually lambasted for being inept businessmen, and White Water
scandal, which turned out to be NOTHING, is a joke.  Let's look at the sale
of Mr. Bush's Harken Energy stock back in 1990.  Martha Stewart, a Democrat,
is going to jail for something far less offensive than Mr. Bush's insider
trading.
>>>> 
>>>> 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.

Our Marines are the best soldiers in the world.  The best of the best, make
no mistake about it.  But where is the honor in wiping out an enemy (the
Medina Republican Guard) who was equipped with ancient T-72 tanks, most of
which were falling apart from lack of spares and were firing defective
shells?  The Republican Guard was a joke and if you ask any Marine, they'll
agree.  For "our" Republicans to go on and on about this "victory" against
the Iraqi army is just as silly as someone saying "The New England Patriots
just slammed this Junior Varsity 3 A football team from Alabama yesterday!
The score was 100 to 7!  Wow!"
>>>> 
>>>> It took less time to take Iraq than it took
>>>> to count the votes in Florida!!!!

And this is something to be proud of?  I guess democracy is great for this
clown so long as it's the best democracy money can buy.  Florida, bought and
paid for.  
>>>> 
>>>> Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!

Crap.  Rubbish.  Nonsense.

>>>> The Military moral is high!

Again.  Talk to a guy who has done his tour in Baghdad, who wants to go
home, was promised he would get to go home, and he's still there fighting
"Bush's War".  

>>>> The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the
>>> facts. 

And the writer of this bunch of distortions and poorly thought out arguments
is also biased and pathetic.  If most Americans think like this, if most
Americans choose NOT TO THINK (like this clown), well then we get whatever
government we deserve.

>> 
>> <http://msgtag.com/?source=ffooter>  has notified the sender that this
>> message has been received.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>