Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 19, 2005 03:15AM
Senator John Glenn (Democrat - Ohio)


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

1. There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during 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:

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...

1. It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51-day operation.

2. 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.

3. 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 Chapaquiddick.

4. 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) Date: 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?

I'll 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.   Now he's a Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.
Posted by: Republifucks [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 19, 2005 05:07AM
Sorry, Not buying about 80% of it, because it's "Cliff Notes" history, and I'm not wasting the time to counter all of it.

Any time we started a conflict we were INVITED or BEGGED. (England, South Korea or there where German Subs off our COAST, dumbass.)

Some people try to play down the fascist similarities between 2000+ United States and 1933 Germany. But the truth is we started off on this pathetic Wolfowitz authored agenda (Google: Project for the New American Century)that within it's own self-analysis knew that radical change wasn't supportable even by the Republicans in Congress to allow for the exagerated inflation of US foreign policy arrogance, Military spending and curbing of Civil Liberties short of (This is a quote) "Some catalyzing catastrophe such as Pearl Harbor".

It's not a conspiracy because they're so arrogant they don't feel a need to hide it. They've learned what P.T. Barnum knew.

Communism isn't any more "evil" (fatally flawed, maybe) than the facile appropriation of Jesus for the purposes of political propagandizing.

If you can read this, Thank Thomas Jefferson and the moderate/enlightenment Federalists, you misguided jackass.

It might be gone by next week.
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 19, 2005 10:57AM
I preffered America when it was Laissez Faire. I didn't help the rest of the world but at least it didn't shove its big butt into other countries affairs. PS ". 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." THEY ALREADY GAVE UP! Bush admitted they'd never find any. That's the main argument for war torn to shreds by the same person who started the war. Such a load of bullshit. Oh and you say 39 combat related deaths in iraq in January. I presume you mean American soldiers? Since over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the war started. Thats a little over 39 a day. The Americans are invading another country to get a secure supply of oil. It's that simple. They dont trust Iran and the other arab states and they know that Iraq was weak so they took it over to keep oil prices low.
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 19, 2005 04:27PM
Just think if the allies had made a strike at hitler & Japan before things got out of hand how many lives would have been saved on all sides? today we have the technology to have stopped WWII or to at least eased the many uncalled for horrors that went on during that period in time,It would be wonderfull if we would(could) be able to view what would have happened if we had not taken action,this would have a big impact on the could-a,would-a,should-a crowd.
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 19, 2005 07:43PM
wow rebulifucks all the information right there in your face and u cant accept it. i really would LOVE to hear you be able to counter attack everything that was just said there and have it make sense and be true.
Posted by: Black_Trans_Am [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 19, 2005 08:45PM
Yes, Howard Metzenbaum is a fool and John Glenn is a great American. I agree with that.

The rest is either false, semi-false and/or selectively true at best. Kennedy did not start the Veitnam war. There were nuclear inspectors in Iran, Iraq and North Korea since before W. was elected. There were weapons inspectors in Iraq for years before Bush came to office. If anything Bush has flip-flopped (to use a popular phrase) his positions on both Iran and N. Korea. The U.S. is negotiating, through 2nd and third parties talks with both countries. Hardly his pre-election hard-line stance.
FDR lead us into WWII after we were attacked by Japan, Germany then declared war on the U.S. too. Can't quite follow your logic there.

Truman did not start a war in Korea, he defended Korea from the Communists who invaded from the North, especially China. You remember China, that nation that W. & friends have sold our country out to and completely capitulates to at every turn.

Yes, the Taliban was defeated, but despite the rather toothless elections last year, the warlords still rule that country and their main source of income is growing and exporting herion. Nice. But overall a plus, too bad we ignored them pre-September 11.

The Branch Davidian situation was a prolonged hostage negotionation that the FBI royally screwed up. Reno (although I am not a fan) did not have much to do with it, she was just the Attorney General at the time. Was Ashcroft liable for the FBI failing so misserably at finding the hijackers before Sep. 11? Didn't think so.

As for counting the votes in Florida, they never did finish. The activist judges on the Supreme Court decided it for the people. I live in Florida, over 39,000 votes in my county were thrown out after the election alone by the Republican Supervisor of Elections. The list of those thrown out was never verified and the matter was closed by the State Supervisor who works for Jeb Bush. Nice and cozy.

So spare us this "W. is wonderful and the Democrats are awfull" garbage. Look if some of you folks need to cut and paste articles from right-wing websites that use selective facts and shaky "logic" to make you feel better about your boy's crummy record then so be it. I prefer holding our elected and appointed leaders accountable and being honest as opposed to passing the buck or ignoring their lies. I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. I generally despise both parties, but I know damn well that Bush and his style of arrogant, ignorant and dishonest policies can not be trusted. What he says simply does not match up with the truth. When someone says things that are consistantly proven to be untrue, then that person is either a liar or an incompetant fool. Bush is an odd mixture of both.

P.S. My little brother just got back in November from doing a year over Iraq and according to him no the morale is not especially high and most of the troops will not re-enlist. Would your morale be high? Recuiting has been stagnant in all branches. Sorry, but the commander in chief does not seem to be doing a "GREAT JOB".
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 19, 2005 09:36PM
Black_Trans_Am: are you by any chance "the bandit"??
Posted by: Black_Trans_Am [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 20, 2005 02:07AM
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 20, 2005 05:04AM
I knew it! winking smiley
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 21, 2005 05:08AM
Well said, BTA. What 116135 doesn't seem to grasp at this point is the fact that American political parties are not the point. It's not "Bill" vs. "George" in a "who is better" contest. Both the Dems and the Reps take money and gifts from the corporations to get re-elected, and they they scratch the corp's backs once they are elected. The only reason they remain two "seperate" parties is to continue to keep us citizens divided with stupid arguments, and the semblance of democracy. If they finally joined up into the one big pro-corporate party that they are, the citizenry of the US would (hopefully) rise against them. -- Here's the funny thing BOTH the "right" wing people and the "left" wing people think the media is biased! It's true. Read all their websites. And funnier still? They are both right! But the bias is not 'left' or 'right', it's 'money'. The big media supports the govt which supports the corporations. It's a happy little arrangement. And you 116135, lose out because of it.
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 21, 2005 05:10AM
"1. There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during 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." OK....
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 21, 2005 05:19AM
1. Just because approximately the same amount of people died in Iraq as in Detroit in one particular month makes it ok? I fail to see how you got there. 2. 39 combat related AMERICAN deaths. You fail to count the hundreds of Iraqi deaths in that month, combat related or otherwise. Oh, right, they're brown, they don't count. 3. The American combat deaths are soldiers, the Iraqi deaths are a mix of fighters and innocent civilians. tallies over 18,000 civilian deaths since the invasion began. Even this does not count the number of deaths from TWELVE YEARS of weekly bombings between Gulf Wars I and II and the illness from bombed water treatement plans, and poor rations ... which runs to well over 80,000 people, mostly civilians again. Feel better? Was it worth it? Oh right, they're brown, they don't count. (PS, Detroit ain't so "fair". They have bulletproof glass in the Subway sandwich shops.)
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 21, 2005 09:14AM
well said anon 1485.
Posted by: stussy_demon [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 21, 2005 09:23AM
Here is an extract from an argument I had last year....

Apologies Katsuraki for my rash comments on my previous post but if your going to start spouting off about how America is our saviour and how you supposedly 'bailed' us out of both World Wars, you’re going to piss me off. I believe MI5_UK_FUCK_U's comments about the British Intelligence winning the war to be more credible, and I especially like his/her point about 'The Last Hour'.
In the time taken for America to intervene exactly how many people died? More than 5000? There’s a thought. I believe Russia suffered more losses than all the other countries combined. Millions, or 26.6 Million to be more accurate. Pearl Harbour was President Roosevelt's only reason for helping.
An interesting point for you to ponder on is that on May 9th 1941 the British Destroyer HMS Aubretia captured a German sub U-110 (Yes Britain, and not 'U-571' -- do I smell another American movie taking credit from British achievements? --). Through the decoding of this machine by intelligence experts at Bletchley Park, and subsequently revealing important German targets, it is estimated that the war was reduced by 2 years. With another 24 months of fighting the total loss may have been as high as 70 million instead of 50 million. Now THAT'S saving lives.

Anyway I'm going off on a tangent, back to your rational debate for which I normally lack the time or patience to write a detailed reply brimming with fact or reasonable/plausible content but on this occasion I will make an exception seeing as you assume I am an idiot that lacks any education or intellect...

I have spent time in America twice (New York & Boston) and the first thing to be said is that life here in England is far less stressed and hectic than it is in New York, so the post-imperial setting is a welcome environment for me, especially since the US is always in the middle of war fever that is absolutely repellent as well as overwhelming. If you sit in Washington and have some connection to the country's power elites, the rest of the world is spread out before you like a map, inviting intervention anywhere and at any time. The tone in Europe is not only more moderate and thoughtful: it is also less abstract, more human, more complex and subtle.

Certainly Europe generally and Britain in particular have a much larger and more demographically significant Muslim population, whose views are part of the debate about war in the Middle East and against terrorism. So discussion of the upcoming war against Iraq tends to reflect their opinions and their reservations a great deal more than in America, where Muslims and Arabs are already considered to be on the "other side", whatever that may mean. And being on the other side means no less than supporting Saddam Hussein and being "un-American". Both of these ideas are abhorrent to Arab and Muslim-Americans, but the idea that to be an Arab or Muslim means blind support of Saddam and Al-Qa'eda persists nonetheless. (Incidentally, I know no other country where the adjective "un" is used with the nationality as a way of designating the common enemy. No one says unSpanish or unChinese: these are uniquely American confections that claim to prove that you all "love" your country. How can one actually "love" something so abstract and imponderable as a country anyway?).

The second major difference I have noticed between America and Europe is that religion and ideology play a far greater role in the former than in the latter. A recent poll taken in the United States reveals that 86 per cent of the American population believes that God loves them. There's been a lot of ranting and complaining about fanatical Islam and violent jihadists, who are thought to be a universal scourge. Of course they are, as are any fanatics who claim to do God's will and to fight his battles in his name. But what is most odd is the vast number of Christian fanatics in the US, who form the core of George Bush's support and at 60 million strong represent the single most powerful voting block in US history. Whereas church attendance is down dramatically in England it has never been higher in the United States whose strange fundamentalist Christian sects are, in my opinion, a menace to the world and furnish Bush's government with its rationale for punishing evil while righteously condemning whole populations to submission and poverty.

It is the coincidence between the Christian Right and the so-called neo-conservatives in America that fuel the drive towards unilateralism, bullying, and a sense of divine mission. The neo-conservative movement began in the 70s as an anti-communist formation whose ideology was undying enmity to communism and American supremacy. "American values", now so casually trotted out as a phrase to hector the world, was invented then by people like Irving Kristoll, Norman Podhoretz, Midge Decter, and others who had once been Marxists and had converted completely (and religiously) to the other side. For all of them the unquestioning defence of Israel as a bulwark of Western democracy and civilisation against Islam and communism was a central article of faith. Many though not all the major neo-cons (as they are called) are Jewish, but under the Bush presidency they have welcomed the extra support of the Christian Right which, while it is rabidly pro-Israel, is also deeply anti-Semitic (i.e. these Christians -- many of them Southern Baptists -- believe that all the Jews of the world must gather in Israel so that the Messiah can come again; those Jews who convert to Christianity will be saved, the rest will be doomed to eternal perdition).

It is the next generation of neo-conservatives such as Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld who are behind the push to war against Iraq, a cause from which I very much doubt that Bush can ever be deterred. Colin Powell is too cautious a figure, too interested in saving his career, too little a man of principle to represent much of a threat to this group which is supported by the editorial pages of The Washington Post and dozens of columnists, media pundits on CNN, CBS, and NBC, as well as the national weeklies that repeat the same clichés about the need to spread American democracy and fight the good fight, no matter how many wars have to be fought all over the world.

There is no trace of this sort of thing in Europe that I can detect. Nor is there that lethal combination of money and power on a vast scale that can control elections and national policy at will. Remember that George Bush spent over $200 million to get himself elected two years ago, and even Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York spent 60 million dollars for his election: this scarcely seems like the democracy to which other nations might aspire, much less emulate. But this is accepted uncritically by what seems to be an enormous majority of Americans who equate all this with freedom and democracy, despite its obvious drawbacks. More than any other country today, the United States is controlled at a distance from most citizens; the great corporations and lobbying groups do their will with "the people's" sovereignty leaving little opportunity for real dissent or political change. Democrats and Republicans, for example, voted to give Bush a blank check for war with such enthusiasm and unquestioning loyalty as to make one doubt that there was any thought in the decision. The ideological position common to nearly everyone in the system is that America is best, its ideals perfect, its history spotless, its actions and society at the highest levels of human achievement and greatness. To argue with that -- if that is at all possible -- is to be "un-American" and guilty of the cardinal sin of anti- Americanism, which derives not from honest criticism but for hatred of the good and the pure.

No wonder then that America has never had an organised Left or real opposition party as has been the case in every European country. The substance of American discourse is that it is divided into black and white, evil and good, ours and theirs. It is the task of a lifetime to make a change in that Manichean duality that seems to be set forever in an unchanging ideological dimension. And so it is for most Europeans who see America as having been their saviour and is now their protector, yet whose embrace is both encumbering and annoying at the same time.

Tony Blair's wholeheartedly pro-American position therefore seems even more puzzling me. I am comforted that even to British people, he seems like a humourless aberration, a Leader who has decided in effect to obliterate his own identity in favour of this other one, represented by the lamentable Mr Bush. I still have time to learn when it will be that Europe will come to its senses and assume the countervailing role to America that its size and history entitle it to play. Until then, the next war will approach inexorably.
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 21, 2005 11:29AM
Well said! Maybe reason will prevail in the end. I can't say that I'm surprised by Blair's stance, though: he is incredibly vain and obsessed with his own image, and sucking up to Bush puts him in front of the cameras. His interest in the Catholic church is probably only because he hopes to be canonised...and he's conceited enough to think that's a reasonable ambition.
Posted by: Stiffler [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 25, 2005 05:41PM
Blairs political career is doomed. He might as well be American the way he sheepishly followed Bush into Iraq. And for what? To get Saddam? I give Bush that at least. To find WMD's? Nope. How 'bout oil. You bet your ass and what has Britain gottten out if it? Nada.

43152 I agree with your entire statement except your very last sentence "to keep oil prices low". In the last year I have seen gas prices go up by almost 50% and a good portion of that extra money goes right into the Bush family coffers. Do you really think Bush is president for the 400K a year he gets paid. Not a chance. I'm afraid his families association with he oil industry takes presidence over the American people and their needs.

I you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank the English.

Posted by: John_Bull [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 25, 2005 06:41PM
I do hope you're right, Stiffler, but the nauseating Teflon Tony has an irritating habit of surviving sleaze and his supporters' gullibility seems unlimited
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 28, 2005 04:44PM
stussy the Brit's have a past history of letting their mouths overloading their asses.If not for SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL you would be either speaking fluent German or dead and America did rescue Britans ass,I can't figure out why?,America should have sided with Germany.Hitler started out working with zionest to ship all the Jewish race back to palastine and not to exterminate them.One thing that has always amazed me is according to the red cross there weren't but about 5.3 million jews in all of europe prior to WWII so how could 6 million die? well I will tell you.The German gov't had to pay 2000 marks to the survivers for each family member killed during the war.To date not one human lamp shade or bar of jew soap has need to read the talmud in it you will find it is ok for a jew to lie,cheat and steal against a gentile.I had an aunt who married a jew,the jews held a funeral for him as far as they are concerned he is dead.the Germans with all the so called furnaces running 24 hours a day 7 days a week could not have exterminated any ways the numbers that were to have died.the jews are the great name changers,ever heard of roy rodgers a jew,michael landon a jew,lorn green a jew,tory spelling a jew,alica silverstone a jew,the anti deflamation league had the website removed hoozajew they want to remain anom,you Brit's are ruled by the jews (rothchilds ,illuminati),even the queen bows to them,now get mad & steam it's about all you brit'scan do now.
Posted by: Black_Trans_Am [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 28, 2005 04:57PM
So I take it you wont be coming over for Passover, 22911.

P.S. Thanks for the 411 on Alicia Silverstone and Tori Spelling, what a couple of sneaky, sneaky, Jews!
Posted by: Bob [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 29, 2005 10:24AM
hey 22911, maybe there wasn't 6 millions jews. that doesn't mean they didn't kill 6 million people. Did you never learn in history that the germans killed gypsies, communists, writers, artists, crippled people and twins in the concentration camps? If they'd have the chance they'd probably throw your non-ayrian ass in there as well for good luck. Oh and maybe Britain did need America's help but we also needed Russia's help as much as america needed Russia's help. While the germans wasted millions, thousands of tanks and planes on fighting in the snow (where the Russians fucked them) they could've used these troops to invade Britain then invade Russia when it was summer but they didn't and the Russians helped destroy half of their army while the americans and british destroyed the other half. That's why they were called allies because they helped each other. Don't forget that.
Posted by: John_Bull [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 29, 2005 04:12PM
We're not ruled by Jews, 22911. Our Prime Minister (the blessed St. Tony) is multi-faith: he's an Anglican who attends Catholic mass and he reads the Koran - but he's never shown any tendency towards Judaism. He's a 'straight kind of guy' who would never lie or mislead us: we know that's true because he told us so.
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:24PM on a complete tangent comes to mind...did you read my post??? Where did i mention Jews???? If you're American I rest my case, READ my post again! Sorry am I being 'un-american'.
Posted by: stussy_demon [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:24PM on a complete tangent comes to mind...did you read my post??? Where did i mention Jews???? If you're American I rest my case, READ my post again! Sorry am I being 'un-american'.
Posted by: stussy_demon [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: March 30, 2005 12:27PM
Sorry maybe i did but i still don't understand where your comments are coming from....try addressing the points I was trying to raise...
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: April 22, 2005 10:56AM
Oh no you didnt.
Posted by: Anonymous [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: April 22, 2005 03:18PM
Oh yes he did!
Posted by: Lame_Duck [x] - (205.188.116.---)
Date: June 05, 2005 02:47PM
Just found this place, VERY interesting topics, even though I see some research was done, and some not? Facts & reality will broaden ones mind ,Only,, If one allows it to.

I'm curious on the topic of jews, (I'm not ), some say this never happened, so I guess people I have encountered had numbers put on their arms to show people forty years later ?

Also, I'm curious as to the indiviuals that post information here had , or have any prior service in any branch of military?
Your Name: 
Your Email: