hey c+p republoturds, here's one back at ya:
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.
Detroit has 2 million people. We have 130,000 troops in Iraq. In order to make these 'murder rates' equivalent, we would have to have 2 million troops in Iraq. As it is, our combat KIA for January is equivalent to 538 murders in Detroit in January.
Of course, you chose the most quiescent month of the year in Iraq. If I chose April, when at least 136 Americans were killed in Iraq, the Detroit Death Toll Equivalent equals at least 2092. Considering that Chicago, my native town, led the country in murders in 2003 with about 650, this is serious. And as long as we're all about comparing apples to apples, this does not take into account the actual violent crime rate in Baghdad for Iraqis, rape, murder and the like, which was far more horrendous.
That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.
See above. There really IS no comparison... only the comparison is horrendously against your case.
When some claim President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, consider the following ...
FDR...
led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
Ah, but Hitler DID declare war on us, and started sinking our freighters within sight of American beaches almost immediately. Seems to me this argumentative point falls off the table for you, Hemi.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year.
In a just and undebated cause.
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.
On behalf of the United Nations. If you'll remember (you won't), our forces in Korea were known as 'the United Nations forces,' an apellation that cannot be applied to the Iraq 'coalition of the willing,' which included Tonga, Afghanistan (!!!!), and a host of other nations without armed forces.
John F. Kennedy...
started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Lie. Eisenhower had our forces in Vietnam starting in 1954. Go over to the wall in D.C. You'll see that many years of Vietnam dead accounted for on that wall fell under the Eisenhower presidency. Eisenhower dropped that conflict in an aghast Kennedy's lap along with the plan to hit the Bay of Pigs during the transition of 1960-61.
Vietnam never attacked us.
Hmmm... I guess you are against the Vietnam War, huh? I would put the 'lakes of WMD' offered to us by the neo-cons up against the Tonkin Gulf Incident, when we were supposedly 'attacked' by North Vietnam, any old day. If you're against the Tonkin Gulf Incident, seems to me you have to be against the massive deception that led us to 'disarm' Saddam last year.
Johnson...
turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.
CLEARING THROAT... Ummmm... seems like you skipped a president, Hemi. Blaming the 58,000 on Johnson, huh? What about the dude who replaced him? The Republican who campaigned on 'a secret plan to end the war?' Nixon? 20,000 of those 58,000 Americans died needlessly under Nixon before he did what he said he was going to do and pulled us out in 1973. Not such a hot comparison, dude.
Clinton...
went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent,
Bosnia never attacked us. (we are STILL there)
Uh, Hemi? Where's your 'number of Americans killed per year' stat HERE? Huh? Oh, I guess it wouldn't serve your purpose to have to put up a BIG FAT ZERO, would it? ZERO combat deaths in Kosovo. Not ONE. We accomplished our mission, we had international support, and we also accomplished our broader strategic goal of ending the Milosevic regime and bringing him to trial, WITH ZERO AMERICAN COMBAT DEATHS. I know a president that would love to be able to say he had a similar scorecard for his little war... and he's president RIGHT NOW.
He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter
three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Horsehockeypucks... this is a long-debunked myth. Some of the details...
URL=http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm/URL
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
And Clinton hit back at him, despite the continued attacks of Republican Congresspeople... see the above link.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us
President Bush has ...
liberated two countries,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3139455.stm
This report is from a year ago; things have gotten WORSE in Afghanistan since. The Afghanistan victory, cheered by all segments of the American political spectrum, is now in danger of slipping away... why? Because of Iraq and the massive drawdown of forces in Afghanistan.
crushed the Taliban,
Don't look now, Hemi... the Taliban is staging a comeback...
URL=http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0508/p01s02-wosc.html
crippled al-Qaida,
Whoops...
URL=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113970,00.html
Thought you'd want a 'fair and balanced' source to rely on here to tell you that al Qaeda is FAR from 'crippled'...
put nuclear inspectors in Libya,
Iran
IRAN? Excuse me? The Iranians are moving full speed ahead, dude...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=14&u=/nm/20040721/ts_nm/iran_usa_strategy_dc_1
and North Korea
WHAT? North Korea? Thanks for the laugh, man...why is the Bush administration impotently asking the North Koreans to end their nuke program IF WE PUT U.N. INSPECTORS IN THERE? ANSWER: BECAUSE THIS IS A LIE. THEY HAVE NOT ACCEPTED U.N. INSPECTORS. YOU'RE LYING.
http://www.adn.com/24hour/world/story/1508320p-9000177c.html
without firing a shot,
and captured a terrorist who slaughtered
300,000 of his own people.
At a cost of, as of today, 900 American lives, $200 billion plus (it'll probably end up being $400 billion), and the hatred of 99% of the world's 1 billion mainstream Muslims.
The Democrats (and media) 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.
Hate to quibble... but it's been a fucking year and three months. We haven't 'taken' Iraq yet.
That was a 51 day operation (against American men, women and children).
Are you really, truly trying to say that when Bush stood on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, and that 'Mission Accomplished' sign flapped behind him, that he was not blowing smoke up the ass of the American people? COME ON.
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.
Horseshit. If there were chemical weapons in Iraq, the swarms of American forces looking for them could have found them EASILY. Do you have any idea how easy it is for those detectors to find even trace remnants of chemical weapons?
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.
A day? A DAY? Are you shitting me? Because that's how long it took Ted to own up. You must have access to some serious chemicals to post this bullshit. The Republican Guards are still shooting at my Marine cousin, man! What a bunch of crap.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida!!!!
Thanks to the mobs of taxpayer-funded Republican Congressional staffer that were sent down to Florida to harass, and in one case to assault, vote-counters. This is NOT a winning argument for your side, man.
Our Commander-In-Chief is doing the best job he knows how!
WHICH IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM!!!
The Military is doing a superb job, given the circumstances!
The circumstances being... that they're working for an idiot who thinks occupying an ancient Arab land will cause Islamists everywhere to become Kiwanis Club members and Republicans!!!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.
EXACTLY! Fox News is counting on it!
