# Things that make you think a little........



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Got this in an email today.

Thought of MT right away too....

1. 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.

2. 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. 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.

3. 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 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 killing a woman.

Wait, there's more.......................

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 our military.

JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

Senator Howard Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn: "How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn: "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by antiaircraft 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 Nation al 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? I'l l tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men - SOME MEN - who held REAL jobs. And they required a dedication to a purpose - and a love of country and a dedication to duty that was more important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible.

I HAVE held a job, Howard! 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.

If you can read this, thank a teacher.... If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran. Please keep this circulating.


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

Good one.
Some people choose to ignore history and never learn from past mistakes.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

While it is good, before anyone else gets to it...

Here's the urban legend version....
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b ... enbaum.htm

The actual discussion was in the Ohio Primaries in *1974*.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Is Glenns speech posted on any official site or any site that you know of. I'd like to send it to a lot of people I know, if it is.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

the best I can say is the link I provided above. At the very bottom it gives sources for the speech and the ability to say that it is true as far as his speech is concerned.

This is a similar site
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/glenn.asp


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Glad to finally get some more material, hats off to farmer and thanks for keeping me in mind.



> 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.


Nope, we just went in to stop the sniping of innocent Muslim women and children by Christians without causing a big ruckass, that was a terrible choice.

As to Osama, Bush did the same exact same thing. There is just one difference, when Clinton wanted to go after Osama the republicans protested saying that he was just trying to take the spotlight off his sex scandal.

I like how you name a few wars with high casualties, every single one of them which had to be fought. They weren't popular becuase people like killing, they were popular because people know it had to be done. You then go into Vietnam, one of the most hated wars in our history. A good comparison to this Iraqi war, though.



> 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.


He has successfully gotten some 18,000 innocent Iraqis and over 1500 of our own troops killed in a war that which the basis for was proved false a half year ago. He has overlooked some of the biggest supporters of terrorism and housers of terrorist training camps such as Saudi Arabia because it would have ruined a good oil deal.



> 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.


Are you counting from when Bush called it mission accomplished or what? The entire area is still in constant turmoil and people are killed daily. I would certainly not call that a mission accomplished.



> 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.


The only difference being that she found them.



> Some people choose to ignore history and never learn from past mistakes.


You should practice what you preach.

Not all wars are the same. Not all wars are justified. America is a nation that has been in many wars that had to be fought, and some that didn't. I am looked upon as a coward or one who hates America because I believe that war should always be the last resort and that soldiers and civlians shouldn't have to die for a needless cause. I speak to a veteran of this Iraqi conflict several times a week, often about his experience. I thank him for what he has done. I know it is not the soldiers choice as to where to fight, and they are doing what they believe is best for our country. I will never tell a soldier he is wrong for where he fought, but I will do everything I can to make sure he isin't sent there.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Sort of, kind of, maybe,...Yes, but it ain't over until it is over. Before you pump George W up too high, time will be the judge. All the other events were over at least 20 years ago and all of those accomplishments by George W you mentioned are in the prelimary stages. I believe you are a little premature in your assumptions. However, I hope you are correct in your final outcome.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

They were doing really good right up to the end, but lost me with that quote by Senator Glenn, the democrat.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT wrote:



> I am looked upon as a coward or one who hates America because I believe that war should always be the last resort and that soldiers and civlians shouldn't have to die for a needless cause.


I think I know where our disagreement is at. It is in the opinion of where the last resort occurs. You, I think, though we should keep up with the diplomacy. I on the other handd thought we had tried everything and diplomacy had failed. All the UN resolutions and the UN did nothing. France, Germany, other countries didn't want to do anything. This caused both of us to perhaps wonder and second guess ourselves. Were these other countries correct. Then we find they were trading for oil on the sly. These are supposed to be our allies?

I know I thought it was time to crush Sadam. Where would your loss of patience have been? I don't know and at this time I would imagine it is impossible for you to put your finger on it also. I think in the end many Americans would have decided that it was time to take out Sadam. The question is. What would have happened if we waited? We will never know now. It is easy to condemn now, but do you remember the American opinion directly after 9/11. Sadam was counting on Americans having no resolve. Give them a little time they will forget. He was right about many Americans, but not about Bush.

Sadam is lucky he had Bush to deal with. I would have hung him in the street for the birds to pick his bones then bronzed his skeleton to hang another thousand years as a reminder to the next jerk that wants to screw with us. After a trial of course. Pointless violence? If you were a terrorist would you question a second time what I would do? I would do it so that I didn't have to go to war again. Not until another idiot came along anyway.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman why do you take the oil scandal for fact? It has never been proven, this would be like taking the national guard papers as fact (they have never been proven one way or the other either).



> I know I thought it was time to crush Sadam. Where would your loss of patience have been.


Why had you exhausted your patience? He had been complying with demands and sanctions for years.



> What would have happened if we waited? We will never know now. It is easy to condemn now, but do you remember the American opinion directly after 9/11. Sadam was counting on Americans having no resolve. Give them a little time they will forget. He was right about many Americans, but not about Bush.


What in Gods name are you talking about? Bush remembered what? That Saddam and Iraq had absolutely no connection to 9/11? Have decided to ignore reality?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think much of the mid east supports terrorists MT. I know Afghanistan was the biggest culprit, and you are perhaps right about Saudi Arabia. Syria is a problem as is Iran and Libya was. The difference was none of the leaders were as loose a canon as Sadam. Also, none of them had so many sanctions for so many years. He had also booted out inspectors many times. Also MT he was not as cooperative as you suggest.

When it gets right down to it I nor you know exactly why Bush decided on going after Iraq. After Afghanistan I also would have gone after Sadam. My reason would have been to remove sanctuaries for those terrorists who had escaped, and to remove a leader that was paying suicide bomber in Israel. Not so much to protect Israel as to remove a dictator that endangered security in the mid east. The danger was he would do something radical with Israel, and like us Israel is just not going to allow attack.

The Iraqi war went very well for the first few weeks. Mistakes were made when we allowed captives to go home. Not all the decisions were brilliant, and you and I would perhaps made worse goof ups. The Iraqi reaction was not as good as I would have liked. Now we know much of that was fear, and each day it looks like they think better of us. Many still hate us but it is getting better. At least that is my take on the news. Iraq was less satisfactory than I expected, but the surrounding area is reacting much better than I expected. What do you think of it now MT. I am happy that more countries are now going to vote. The good thing about a democracy is the country will be run by the people. I have never had anything against the people. I guess most wars are that way. The reality is the French people are not that bad, but as of late their leaders are treacherous.

I think the oil scandal is pretty much a given isn't it MT? I think it is without question now that France, Germany, Russia, and the United Nations were all in on the oil for food violations. They even named some of the French and UN people involved. I would guess the UN will stall the investigation.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

People need to realize there are *3 PARTS* to the original post here.

Up to the start of Sen Glenn is the first.
The Sen Glenn part is the second

And the part about thank your teacher or a vet is the third part.

Now all of it rings some truth, but if one really wants you could debate any part of it.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Plainsman why do you take the oil scandal for fact? It has never been proven,


Ah, as a matter of fact it has been, and was reported as such in US News & World Report. 
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/ar ... 26edit.htm

But a small piece of the article:
"French oil traders got 165 million barrels of Iraqi crude at cut-rate prices. The CEO of one French company, SOCO International, got vouchers for 36 million barrels of Iraqi oil. Was it just a coincidence that the man is a close political and financial supporter of President Jacques Chirac? Or that a former minister of the interior, Charles Pasqua, allegedly received 12 million barrels from Baghdad? Or that a former French ambassador to the U.N., Jean-Bernard Merimee, received an allocation of 11 million barrels? Perhaps it was just happenstance, too, that a French bank with close ties to then French President François Mitterrand and one of the bank's big shareholders who is close to Saddam became the main conduit for the bulk of the $67 billion in proceeds from the oil-for-food program. All told, 42 French companies and individuals got a piece of this lucrative trade. No matter how cynical you may be, it's sometimes just plain hard to keep up with the French."



Militant_Tiger said:


> Why had you exhausted your patience? He had been complying with demands and sanctions for years.


Actually he had not, that has been proven. There has been testimony from captured Iraqi's outlining how and what Saddam did to defeat the UN inspectors.

I know nothing about these guys, but:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... ing_1.html

From the article:
"The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003."



Militant_Tiger said:


> What in Gods name are you talking about? Bush remembered what? That Saddam and Iraq had absolutely no connection to 9/11? Have decided to ignore reality?


Whose reality? These people dispute your claim.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/ ... click=true

From the article:
"The British Government's long-awaited dossier on Iraq is to reveal the first definitive evidence that Saddam Hussein trained some of Osama bin Laden's key lieutenants as terrorists.

A draft version contains detailed information about how two leading al Qaeda members, Abu Zubair and Rafid Fatah, underwent training in Iraq and are still linked to the Baghdad regime."

huntin1


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

THe part I don't understand....

Hw can the newspapers, movie stars, and MT who have no access to the various levels of inteligence agencies and a fraction of the education of the US leadership....

Can know so much and everything that said leadership does...

But being a democrat makes you right.....

And being a Republican makes you wrong....


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I think much of the mid east supports terrorists MT. I know Afghanistan was the biggest culprit, and you are perhaps right about Saudi Arabia. Syria is a problem as is Iran and Libya was. The difference was none of the leaders were as loose a canon as Sadam. Also, none of them had so many sanctions for so many years. He had also booted out inspectors many times. Also MT he was not as cooperative as you suggest.


So you suggest that because he did not act as we would have liked him to all of the time it gives us the right to invade? If we are going to follow that then I suppose we have the right to attack nearly all of the middle eastern countries without an inciting action.



> When it gets right down to it I nor you know exactly why Bush decided on going after Iraq. After Afghanistan I also would have gone after Sadam. My reason would have been to remove sanctuaries for those terrorists who had escaped, and to remove a leader that was paying suicide bomber in Israel. Not so much to protect Israel as to remove a dictator that endangered security in the mid east. The danger was he would do something radical with Israel, and like us Israel is just not going to allow attack.


How exactly is paying suicide bombers equal to harboring terrorists? Doesn't one think that they would have blown themselves up whether they were given a cash reward or not? Protecting oneself is above money in all societies. Instead of going after someone with loose ties with terror as worst, we go after the people who train the suicide bombers, how about we begin with the saudi arabian training camps? Don't tell me it's next, they are a far higher security risk and if it was going to be done it would have been done already. Frankly I don't know the reason why Bush wanted to go into Iraq for sure, I assume that he wanted to create another suitable place to pump the black gold out of in the mid east, considering the fact that his father would have been making quite a bit of cash out of his oil shipping buisness. I do know however that if the public cannot be told the reasoning, it isin't a good enough reason to go to war.



> Iraq was less satisfactory than I expected, but the surrounding area is reacting much better than I expected. What do you think of it now MT.


Why is it better than you expected? Is it because they have not declared war on us? They certainly hate us more now than before, and no other areas have latched on to democracy without force as we were told would happen. I think it is a quagmire of the magnitude of vietnam.



> I think the oil scandal is pretty much a given isn't it MT? I think it is without question now that France, Germany, Russia, and the United Nations were all in on the oil for food violations. They even named some of the French and UN people involved. I would guess the UN will stall the investigation.


No it really isin't a given, you are simply taking it as a given because it gives you credence to hate the UN, which was your original objective.



> Actually he had not, that has been proven. There has been testimony from captured Iraqi's outlining how and what Saddam did to defeat the UN inspectors


If this held any water Bush would have used it as justification, it does not.



> From the article:
> "The British Government's long-awaited dossier on Iraq is to reveal the first definitive evidence that Saddam Hussein trained some of Osama bin Laden's key lieutenants as terrorists.
> 
> A draft version contains detailed information about how two leading al Qaeda members, Abu Zubair and Rafid Fatah, underwent training in Iraq and are still linked to the Baghdad regime."


There are simply no facts to prove this, Iraq has yet to be tied to 9/11.



> Hw can the newspapers, movie stars, and MT who have no access to the various levels of inteligence agencies and a fraction of the education of the US leadership....
> 
> Can know so much and everything that said leadership does...
> 
> ...


Please, point out something that I shouldn't know that I have stated and I will show/tell you where I heard it from. I will be the last person to pull facts out of the air.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Actually he had not, that has been proven. There has been testimony from captured Iraqi's outlining how and what Saddam did to defeat the UN inspectors
> 
> 
> If this held any water Bush would have used it as justification, it does not.


http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribun ... ing_1.html

From the article:
"The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003."

*The UN determined it*, they knew it was happening, but wouldn't do anything about it. Why? Perhaps it was because of the *Billions of dollars* in kick backs that the *European UN members* were getting from Saddam.

The facts are there, you refuse to recognize them. I don't know why, perhaps it is because of your age and experience, perhaps it is because you are blinded by your liberal views and anything that does not agree with them is false. I don't know, but your one-sidedness and refusal to accept anything that does not agree with your views is becoming very tiresome.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> The facts are there, you refuse to recognize them. I don't know why, perhaps it is because of your age and experience, perhaps it is because you are blinded by your liberal views and anything that does not agree with them is false. I don't know, but your one-sidedness and refusal to accept anything that does not agree with your views is becoming very tiresome.


I don't refuse to accept it, I think it is a possibility. It simply hasn't been proven yet. If it is proven, I will accept it. Even if it was true, by your justification the corruption that gave us the right to attack Iraq would give us the right to attack France.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

> Please, point out something that I shouldn't know that I have stated and I will show/tell you where I heard it from. I will be the last person to pull facts out of the air.


The problem with this is called clearance.

With out proper security clearance you will not know all that a decision is based off of.

As such you cannot make an informed decision,as such neither can I. I do know from experience, that information is withheld from the general public on national securty reasons.

As such, You quote that WE HAD NO right to invade Iraq. Quess what. As one governing nation, we just did just that. So far, ther must be enough of a reason for all the world leaders for the rest of the governing nations to not be so far up in arms that they have not called for the immediate and complete reinstatement of the Hussein regime.

Based off that, I would say there must be just cause for what we did.

All hail MT, the Arm chair president.

That is the front and attitude you present yourself with.


----------

