Spread The Word!

[Shady]

Here's a great piece that's been circulating. Spread the word and combat the liars and hypocrites. They need to be confronted and denounced!

Things that make you think a

little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in 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 that President Bush shouldn't

have started this war, state the following:

a. FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.

>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...

an average of 112,500 per year.

c. 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.

d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.

Vietnam never attacked us.

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.

>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..

an average of 5,800 per year.

f. 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.

g. In the 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 for chemical weapons

in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find

the 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.

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 morale is high!

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant

to realize the facts

But Wait .

There's more!

JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)

Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

Some people still don't understand why military personnel

do what they do for a living. This exchange between

Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum

is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive

impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one

man's explanation of why men and women in the armed

services do what they do for a living.

This IS a typical, though sad, example of what

some who have never served think of the military.

Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):

"How can you run for Senate

when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):

"I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps.

I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions.

My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different

occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my

checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was

not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the

daily cash receipts to the bank."

"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day...

to a veteran's hospital and look those men ...

with their mangled bodies . in the eye, and tell THEM

they didn't hold a job!

You go with me to the Space Program at NASA

and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans

of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...

and you look those kids in the eye and tell them

that their DADS didn't hold a job.

You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in

Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends

buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch

those waving flags.

You stand there, and you think about this nation,

and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?

What about you?"

For those who don't remember ..

During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney

representing the Communist Party in the USA.

Now he's a Senator!

[PocketRocket]

Spread the word and combat the liars and hypocrites.

But none of what you have suggested "combats" those in the White House

BTW, the comments made to John Glenn were out of line, and his retort was brilliant.

I agree that Metzenbaum should be ashamed of himself for his remarks to Mr Glenn.

[Black Dog]

Comedy. Gold.

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in 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.

Of course, let's not mention the hundreds of Iraqis who died that same month...

a. FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.

>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...

an average of 112,500 per year.

c. 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.

d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.

Vietnam never attacked us.

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.

>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..

an average of 5,800 per year.

f. 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.

Don't forget Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Lebanon and many other countries the U.S. has attacked without provocation in the past 60 years. Oh wait: I see, these past imperial ventures are supposed to justify the latest one? Uh...why?

g. In the 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.

Actually, no he hasn't. North Korea is as much of a nuclear threat as ever, as is Iran. Libya was looking at giving up its nuclear ambitions and get back in the west's good books for some time. And according to Iraqi PM, human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein.

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 for chemical weapons

in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find

the 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.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took

to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Um...it's been 3 years.

[Leafless]

Shady

Good post and what would we do with out having the good old U.S.A. as a neighbour, friend and ally even though there are some Canadians who will never see the light or understand the reality of maintaining world order for the benefit of all mankind.

Things could be worse ---A LOT WORSE!!!

[August1991]

Shady

Good post and what would we do with out having the good old U.S.A. as a neighbour, friend and ally even though there are some Canadians who will never see the light or understand the reality of maintaining world order for the benefit of all mankind.

I agree.

And I 'd like to add that we should be reminding Americans constantly that they should be grateful to have a country such as Canada to their north.

----

Now the serious bit:

Of course, let's not mention the hundreds of Iraqis who died that same month...

I suppose you're going to blame the Americans for those deaths...

Don't forget Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Lebanon and many other countries the U.S. has attacked without provocation in the past 60 years. Oh wait: I see, these past imperial ventures are supposed to justify the latest one? Uh...why?

Imperial? Are the Americans still in those places? They've colonized Somalia? Lebanon?

North Korea is as much of a nuclear threat as ever, as is Iran. Libya was looking at giving up its nuclear ambitions and get back in the west's good books for some time. And according to Iraqi PM, human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein.

Sorry, BD. On this one, as elsewhere, you miss the forest for the trees. These countries are less of a threat now than they were before. They are on the defensive.

We can quibble about tactics but there is no other way to deal with these pyschopathic dictators except brute force.

The Left would have us believe that using force and violence to lock up people like Clifford Olsen merely perpetuates the "cycle of violence" and "violence never solves anything". Sorry, I don't agree.

----

Once again. That post was good fun, Shady.

[Riverwind]

On this one, as elsewhere, you miss the forest for the trees.  These countries are less of a threat now than they were before.  They are on the defensive.

They are on the defensive and are probably hell bent to get nuclear weapons because that is the way they can protect themselves from the US. Before the Iraq invasion, there was a chance that Iran could have been convinced to forego nuclear weapons because of the PR benefits outweighed the risk of international censure - now the fear of a US invasion is a bigger concern. What is worse, Iran can now take the moral high on nuclear weapons because they have a legitimate need to have these weapons for self defense.

Furthermore, the Iraq invasion has also undermined the credibility of US military power. Iran and North Korea know that the US does not have the economic or military capability to attack them now since they are over extended in Iraq. It will take at least 10-15 years before the US could possibly launch another invasion - enough time to build a nuclear deterrent.

[newbie]

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't

have started this war, state the following:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem is Shady, the bi-partisan 911 commission reported no link to Iraq, essentially stating that Bush went to war by lying. And if you call the "yellow cake" memorandum credible evidence, then the entire world intelligence was duped by a memo signed by officials who were no longer in Niger's government, and likely forged. Regardless, there was no immenent threat, and it was a ridiculous reason for breaking international law and creating the mess the U.S. now faces.

[sharkman]

Excellent post Shady. It's typical of the American media to totally miss simple logic and rabidly attack Bush and the war effort when it's actually going so well. It's pathetic that they could have had Osama and of course Clinton gets a free pass from the media, but Bush is a liar! Just wait, the American public will come back to Bush in spite of the media.

[Biblio Bibuli]

These countries are less of a threat now than they were before.  They are on the defensive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know what they say, animals are most dangerous when cornered.

[Black Dog]

I suppose you're going to blame the Americans for those deaths...

Only inasmuch as all deaths are a direct result of the U.S. invasion. But mostly I was highlighting the stupidity in claiming that Iraq is safer than Detroit. There's no car bombs going off on a daily basis in Detroit.

Imperial? Are the Americans still in those places? They've colonized Somalia? Lebanon?

Once again, your oft-repeated denouncement of the left';s alleged inability to differntiate between form and content comes back to bite you in the ass. See, America needn't fit the old mold of imperial domination. But you have to be blind to not see the echoes of the white man's burden in the stated desire to democratize the Middle East (and thus bring civilization to the heathens), to see that America's domination owes just as much to its military might as it does its democratic values.

Sorry, BD. On this one, as elsewhere, you miss the forest for the trees. These countries are less of a threat now than they were before. They are on the defensive.

First of all, your formulation is incorrect. Neither country was much of threat before (at least to America). And today Iran and North Korea are pretty much where they were before 9-11. In fact Iran is probably the big winner of the U.S.' intervention, as it's long time enemy in Sunni Iraq has been replaced by a potentially friendly Shiite-dominated regime.

We can quibble about tactics but there is no other way to deal with these pyschopathic dictators except brute force.

Really? 'sfunny, becasue the norm for dealing with psychopathic dictators is to support them (so long as they renmain "our" psychopathic dictators).

The Left would have us believe that using force and violence to lock up people like Clifford Olsen merely perpetuates the "cycle of violence" and "violence never solves anything". Sorry, I don't agree.

Clifford Olsen has what to do with this discussion? WTF?

[tml12]

Excellent post Shady.  It's typical of the American media to totally miss simple logic and rabidly attack Bush and the war effort when it's actually going so well.  It's pathetic that they could have had Osama and of course Clinton gets a free pass from the media, but Bush is a liar!  Just wait, the American public will come back to Bush in spite of the media.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am sure FNC is not dissing Bush.

[August1991]

Only inasmuch as all deaths are a direct result of the U.S. invasion. But mostly I was highlighting the stupidity in claiming that Iraq is safer than Detroit. There's no car bombs going off on a daily basis in Detroit.

Risks are different. A friend who lived in Boston once said to me: "You just don't go to those places (South Boston)". In Beirut, people told me: "Well, it's kind of like a snowstorm in Montreal. You just don't go out. But car bombs are the worse because they drive everyone crazy."

I think the Lebanese Civil War is the best comparison with what is happening in Iraq now. It may well come to be known as the Iraqi Civil War and could last for a few more years.

All deaths are a direct result of the U.S. invasion? I disagree. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon didn't help matters but the Arab world has some serious, serious issues to resolve. (Will five Saudi males ever be able to tie the knot?) In the grand scheme of things, a US invasion is minor.

Once again, your oft-repeated denouncement of the left';s alleged inability to differntiate between form and content comes back to bite you in the ass.

Cute, but I get your point. See below.

See, America needn't fit the old mold of imperial domination. But you have to be blind to not see the echoes of the white man's burden in the stated desire to democratize the Middle East (and thus bring civilization to the heathens), to see that America's domination owes just as much to its military might as it does its democratic values.

Look, I think Bush Jnr took on Saddam because he thought there was a sufficient risk that Saddam had WMD, and could pass them on to terrorists. Bush Jnr also thought Saddam is easy to take out, and doing so will send a strong message to the Arab world that the US is a stern father.

Any teacher knows that if someone throws a spitball, you pick the biggest, stupidest 14 year-old lout in the back, humiliate him - and then all the others fall into line. Who cares who the guilty party is? Sure, some smart ones may grumble, but everyone respects. This ain't a popularity contest.

Then what? Well, I can see Bush Jnr saying, "Let them sort it out themselves." The Japanese did after World War II.

So here, I agree with you about form and content. I have argued the North American left confuses symbol and reality, a green light and cars moving forward. Maybe Bush Jnr is doing the same. I dunno.

And today Iran and North Korea are pretty much where they were before 9-11.

I disagree. They're bullies and someone has stood up to them.

In fact Iran is probably the big winner of the U.S.' intervention, as it's long time enemy in Sunni Iraq has been replaced by a potentially friendly Shiite-dominated regime.

That's a good point. But saying Sunni Iraq is like saying White South Africa. IOW, this concerns less the Iran government than the Middle East in general.

Really? 'sfunny, becasue the norm for dealing with psychopathic dictators is to support them (so long as they renmain "our" psychopathic dictators).

Gimme a break. The Cold War is over. The Americans (thankfully) won. Proxy wars in the Third World no longer exist. If Hugo Chavez wants to be a simple socialist or a Maoist-Marxist-Leninist, there is no longer geo-political implications.

Clifford Olsen has what to do with this discussion? WTF?

This guy has clearly lost it - or rather, the people around him are terrified to tell him so. Imagine Clifford Olsen became PM of Canada. Then what?

You know what they say, animals are most dangerous when cornered.

These guys are not animals, they're two-bit punks. To face Clifford Olsen alone would take tremendous courage, and you'd probably lose. The only way to deal with such people is to stand up to them collectively.

[Black Dog]

Risks are different. A friend who lived in Boston once said to me: "You just don't go to those places (South Boston)". In Beirut, people told me: "Well, it's kind of like a snowstorm in Montreal. You just don't go out. But car bombs are the worse because they drive everyone crazy."

The point is the day to day risks to the lives and limb of Iraqis are completey disregarded in this comparison, which shows the comparison to be completely facile.

Look, I think Bush Jnr took on Saddam because he thought there was a sufficient risk that Saddam had WMD, and could pass them on to terrorists. Bush Jnr also thought Saddam is easy to take out, and doing so will send a strong message to the Arab world that the US is a stern father.

Well here you and I will just have to disagree.

I disagree. They're bullies and someone has stood up to them.

Who and how? Rhetoric aside, what has the U.S. actualy done to curb the "threat" posed by these nations?

Gimme a break. The Cold War is over. The Americans (thankfully) won. Proxy wars in the Third World no longer exist. If Hugo Chavez wants to be a simple socialist or a Maoist-Marxist-Leninist, there is no longer geo-political implications.

The Cold War was never about ideologies. To believe the mythology is like believing that the longstanding rivalry between England and Spain was motivated by Protestantism versus Catholicism. And if you think the friendly dictator is a thing of the past, you're wrong.

This guy has clearly lost it - or rather, the people around him are terrified to tell him so. Imagine Clifford Olsen became PM of Canada. Then what?

Ah yes, the old "rogue state" line. We'r enot talking psychopaths here. Meglomaniacal sociopaths, yes, but not irrational crazys. Regimes like North Korea are self-limiting: their primary interest is in self-preservation. To be a ruler, you have to have a country to rule. If you cross the line and invite retaliation upon yourself, you're dead, and your country is destroyed as a going political entity. Not even Kim Jong Il is that crazy.

[August1991]

Reading through this thread:

On this one, as elsewhere, you miss the forest for the trees.  These countries are less of a threat now than they were before.  They are on the defensive.

They are on the defensive and are probably hell bent to get nuclear weapons because that is the way they can protect themselves from the US.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sparhawk, that viewpoint is deplorable. You adopt a position of weakness.

"Let us not disturb these people because they will cause us great harm if we do."

That is the thinking of the hurt wife who speaks softly, and fears her violent husband.

----

The point is the day to day risks to the lives and limb of Iraqis are completey disregarded in this comparison, which shows the comparison to be completely facile.

I agree, BD. It has always bothered me that Americans consider a death of their own differently from a non-American death. (IMV, like the French, Americans have a distinct view of citizenship.)

Nevertheless, if there was no insurgency, there would be no deaths. It is simplistic to blame Americans for all deaths. And my comments about Boston and Beirut were attempts to portray life in a "war zone". Ordinary people in Iraq get up in the morning and then go to work. Dentists drill and teachers teach.

Look, I think Bush Jnr took on Saddam because he thought there was a sufficient risk that Saddam had WMD, and could pass them on to terrorists. Bush Jnr also thought Saddam is easy to take out, and doing so will send a strong message to the Arab world that the US is a stern father.

Well here you and I will just have to disagree.

In a paragraph, what's your view?

Who and how? Rhetoric aside, what has the U.S. actualy done to curb the "threat" posed by these nations?

Our own PM flew to Libya and met Qaddafi (but after Qaddafi had answered all the CIA's questions).

Kim Il Jung must have contact with the US because his sunglasses seem to come from a retro 1970s shop on the Lower East Side.

Iran is arguing with some UN outfit.

In short, all these whackos are doing what Lyndon Johnson (copying Winston Churchill) said is better: Jaw, jaw not war, war.

The Cold War was never about ideologies. To believe the mythology is like believing that the longstanding rivalry between England and Spain was motivated by Protestantism versus Catholicism. And if you think the friendly dictator is a thing of the past, you're wrong.

Where do I begin?

Cold war and ideology. IMV, Kissinger had it right. It was impossible to deal with the Soviets without taking into account their Marxist ideology. I tend to think the Soviet politburo was a group of thugs, who adopted a useful rationale.

Protestantism and Catholicism? Marxism and Capitalism? Is life so simple? I agree that the rivalry between Philip and Elizabeth was surely more than a question of Luther, but one would be foolish to ignore Luther too.

Friendly dictators. Right.

Look, if Mexico were about to turn into an Islamic Republic then I would not be surprised if the CIA got involved in covert activities involving football stadiums. Until then, Venezuela can have whatever whacko manages to get control of the oil spigots. The US government largely doesn't care. (Yes, the NDP can now form a federal government.)

Ah yes, the old "rogue state" line. We'r enot talking psychopaths here. Meglomaniacal sociopaths, yes, but not irrational crazys. Regimes like North Korea are self-limiting: their primary interest is in self-preservation. To be a ruler, you have to have a country to rule. If you cross the line and invite retaliation upon yourself, you're dead, and your country is destroyed as a going political entity. Not even Kim Jong Il is that crazy.

Psychopaths, sociopaths, megalomania.

BD, did you see that movie, The Corporation?

I was deceived when I saw it. The movie presented "corporations" as "pyschopaths". But that's impossible. A corporation, like a marriage, is a method for people to deal with one another. A marriage can't be psychopathic. But a husband, or a wife, can be.

I am inclined to think that CEOs are psychopathic. And political leaders.

Kim Jong Il, Paul Martin, Clifford Olsen. In a civilized society, how do we control such people so that they do good for us all?

----

And something else. Marriages, families, friendships, markets, cooperatives, unions, governments and corporations are ways people deal with one another.

The movie said nothing about the fascinating question of how corporations manage the relationships between people, employees, within a corporation.

The world still awaits Leo Tolstoi's Anna Karenina of corporate life.

[Riverwind]

They are on the defensive and are probably hell bent to get nuclear weapons because that is the way they can protect themselves from the US.

Sparhawk, that viewpoint is deplorable. You adopt a position of weakness.Let us not disturb these people because they will cause us great harm if we do."----

We may not like the regimes in North Korea or Iran, however, they are acting exactly like Americans would do if the sitiuation is reversed. If you doubt that look at how Bush refuses to adhere to the Geneva convension regarding prisoners of war or insists on the right to torture suspects. If you corner a rat it will lash out - by invading Iraq the US cornered Iran and North Korea and, as a result, it is much more likely that these countries will insist on the right to become nuclear powers. What is worse - these countries will get sympathy from rivals to the US like Russia and China who opposed the US invasion of Iraq.

The US severely damaged the international system by invading Iraq. It will be years before we understand the full consequences, however, I pretty sure they will be mostly bad - even if Iraq ends up being better off.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Friendly dictators. Right.

I believe the current vernacular is 'moderate regime'. They can be as brutal as they like at home, as long as they serve US interests. Saudi Arabia and China, for example, are countries with no interest in democracy or human rights, but are profitable to the US.

Look, if Mexico were about to turn into an Islamic Republic then I would not be surprised if the CIA got involved in covert activities involving football stadiums. Until then, Venezuela can have whatever whacko manages to get control of the oil spigots. The US government largely doesn't care. (Yes, the NDP can now form a federal government.)

Mexico may adopt any 'values' it likes, that is not the issue. Nationalizing industry or resources, or otherwise jeopardizing US investment would be the real killer. Need some examples? The United Fruit Corp and the Dulles brothers, or how about the Panama Canal Treaty. Both fomented massive US military intervention (and likely the assassinations of foriegn leaders) to ensure that the US maintained it's positions.