My Photo

Quote of the Day

Today in History

People to See

Yankee Magic

Endorse, Endorse, Endorse

« Speciation & Set Trippin' | Main | In Memorium »

Monday, July 25, 2005



The post says "There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January". If thats
january of 2005 that is more than likely false. Why? Well the total # of American service
members that died in iraq for january of 2005 was 107 according to the following link In that link is says "Those deaths pushed
the U.S. military death toll for October to more than 90, the highest monthly total since
January when 107 American service members died, more than 30 of them in a helicopter crash that
was ruled an accident." so unless you can prove that the vast majority of those were non-combat
related (which I doubt) it looks like that statement was wrong if it was referring to january of
2005. Furthermore the comparison to detroit is absurd. Assuming those facts are correct
about Detroit (and why was that particular month picked over others? Why not a whole year or two
comparison? ) in order to do a correct comparison you have to compare then in terms of rates
since the population of Detroit is much larger than the population of american soldiers
surveying in iraq at any one time. So in the case of Detroit, Detroit has a population of
951270 so assuming 35 detroit citizens were murdered that would mean .003679 % of the population
was murdered in january of 2005. So if we assume 39 americans were killed as a result of
combat that would mean about .026 % of americans soldiers were killed that month (I am assuming
that about 150K US soldiers were in iraq for that month. Its probably less which would increase
the %). But as I all ready stated, if it was for january of 2005 there was probably WAY more
americans killed as a result of combat than 39 so the % would be much much higher. So the
bottom line is no matter what you assume the rate of those US soldiers killed in Iraq from
combat FAR FAR exceeds those americans murdered in detroit. Whoever thinks Iraq is not that
dangerous why do you think reporters are reluctant to go outside of the green zone? Why has
there all ready been more journalist killed in iraq than in vietnam? You thinks its relatively
safe in iraq? How much money would it take for any of you to to Iraq on your own without military
escort? Hell even with military escort?

But all of this is in minor compared to the following complete lack of basic world history

Did FDR lead american into war? More like FDR responded (as any rational president would)
AFTER JAPAN ATTACKED AMERICA. Only then did the US respond. When the US did respond against
Japan Guess what Germany did? Surprise surprise Germany DECLARED WAR AGAINST THE US and ONLY
THEN did the US declare war against Germany. Did Iraq attack the US? NO. Did Iraq delcare war
against the US? NO!! Did the US declare war against Iraq? NO. So the comparison is absurd and
totally out of context.

And as far as Korea goes Truman did not start that war. North Korean(armed by the soviets)
armies poured over the internationally-recognized border into South Korea which was not
prepared. The war was fought by and authorized by the United Nations.

I also love how this obviously partisian hack (whoever originally wrote this article.
Like I said I have seen countless variations of this on the net) says in both the korean and
vietnam war that the democrats started it. Gee thats funny. You mean congress does not have a
role in war? You mean republicans in congress were advocates against both of those wars?
You mean if Nixon would have been elected in 1960 instead of JFK and Barry GOoldwater elected in
1964 instead of LBJ that neither of them would have put troops in vietnam? Are you kidding? Also
there is some evidence, granted there some controversey on this one, that JFK had plans to pull
the advisers out of vietnam. I also just love how this partisian says "Johnson turned Vietnam
into a quagmire. From 1965-1975" without even mentioning congress or nixon's role (hell LBJ
was not even president after 1968). Now having said all of that its clear that vietnam was a
war we should not have been involved in and I can't think of any democrat that would say
otherwise right now. Can the same thing be said of todays republicans? It should also
be noted that the left was the driving force to end the vietnam war and not the right.

I also notice that it goes straight from Vietnam to Bosnia. You mean there were no wars
or conflcits that the US was involved in between Vietnam and Bosnia? What about the Persian Gulf
war? Did the right complain against Bush Sr for not "finishing the job" in Iraq? Why do you
think Bush SR, along with his national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, were against invading
iraq? were they radical left-wing socialist commie pinkos too? they were against taking that
war all the way to Baghdad because they correctly saw that an invasion into Iraq would create
unprecedented instability and blowback just like we are seeing right now in Iraq. More on that

So what about Bosnia? Well people can make a case that there was no logical reason to
wage war in Bosnia since our security was not at stake and that would be a difficult argument
to rebut since I basically agree with that arguement. But there is a huge difference
between Bosnia and Iraq. How many Americans were killed in Bosnia? how many Americans killed
in iraq so far? How many new terrorist recruits were created as a result of the war in Bosnia?
How many new terrorist recruits were created as a result of the Iraq war? Enough said. Also
for those that make the 'liberation' argument in justifying invading Iraq, what was your position
on Bosnia? Were you consistent or a hypocrite like the American Legion and that GOP hack
Sean Hannity was? Was it patriotic to criticize the clinton administration on Bosnia but
unpatriotic to criticize the Bush administration on Iraq? Also Bosnia may not have been fought
with UN approval but it was fought under NATO.

And lets finally put to rest this debunked GOP talking point promulgated by republican
shills like sean hannity that Clinton was offered Osama Bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan (almost verbally verbatim from hannity even. must be a ROVEbot) and did nothing.
According to The bipartisan 9-11 Commission there was no reliable evidence to support the claim
that Sudan offered Bin Laden to the United States. Read here on page 3,
should be more PDF files that basically say the same thing.

By the way when Clinton did act against Al Qaida in 1998 by bombing sites in afghanistan,
what was the republican response? They said wag dog. So when Clinton did do something the
hypocritical republicans bitched and complained. When clinton tried to pass terrorism
legistlation in 1996, once again the hypocritical republicans accused him of using terrorism as
a phoney issue. Think I am making that up? Here take a look (oh but its from CNN. The communist
news network so I guess that means it has not credibility eh?)

and as far as Bush liberating Iraq and Afghanistan. We never invaded iraq and
afghanistan to liberate those two countries. Afghanistan was rightly invaded to expel and kill
Al Qaida and remove the taliban regime that was protecting AQ. In other words afghanistan was
invaded for legitimate security reasons. Iraq was NOT originally invaded for the sake of
liberating its population from Saddam. The liberation reason was only used as an convenient
excuse when the original reasons (WMDS and supposed links to 911 and/or operational ties to Bin
Laden) turned out to be false. If the liberation argument was a valid reason to invade Iraq then
why was Iraq chosen over North Korea, Iran, Sudan or countless other countries with comparable
or even worse human right violations? In the case of iran, you at least had more direct
operational ties to AQ and they are probably farther along in WMD development than Iraq (but of
course we are in no position to invade any other country and occupy them along with iraq because
we are way over extended). There have been far more killed in North Korea than those killed by
Saddam and they are supposedly much farther along in WMD development than Iraq was. So if the
reasons Bush supporters cite for invading Iraq were the real reasons, then why was iraq chosen
over Iran and North korea? I am not trying to justify an invasion of Iran or North Korea
(especially now since that would not even be possible) I am just showing how the 'liberation'
argument is an invalid reason to cite for justifying the invasion of Iraq. Also do you really
think that the american people would have approved of ANY invasion of any country if it was just
sold on liberating people? I don't think so and who are the republicans to lecture anyone
on human rights given that republicans have had a history of supporting (and still do. Look at
the current regime in uzbekistan for example) military dictatorship with poor human rights
record (Chile and Iran under the shah for example)? Republicans generally (at least at the
leadership level) are far too hypocritical on this issue to lecture anyone.

and as far as AQ and/or all of it offshoots being crippled? That is absoloutely wrong.
Because of the the invasion of Iraq, terrorist recrutiment has gone through the roof.
Michael Scheuer who is a former senior CIA terrorism analyst with 20+ years of experience and
who headed the bin laden unit until about 1999 said the invasion of iraq was a gift to Bin Laden
because it played directly into Bin Laden's propaganda which in turn made terrorist recruitment
much easier. Numerous other former CIA officials like Larry Johnson (who is a registered
republican) have said the same thing. Gary Schroen a former senior CIA agent who lead the
effort to establish contact with the Northern Alliance in the days following 9/11 said
to Tim Russert on May 8, 2005 "I think, unfortunately, the attack on Iraq has caused, really, a
sort of insurgent rebirth. I mean, there are a lot of more terrorists out there now. People
are-- they don't have to take their orders from bin Laden. They see this as an international
jihad. And I think it is difficult to measure. I think we probably at this point are barely
holding our own." Gary Schroen absolutley disagrees with Bush and general franks with the notion
that Bin Laden was not at tora bora and that the troops used for Iraq could have been used to
capture Bin Laden. I doubt he is a partisian either since he was hard on clinton on at least
one point which you can read in Tim Russert's interview with him right here

Also U.S. terrorism experts Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simone both agree the US is losing the
war on terrorism which you can read right here

and according to this article from the washington post
"The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than TRIPLED last year, according
to U.S. government figures"

There is also the defense science board
which has said this about the Iraq war "What was a marginal terrorist network has now been
expanded to a broad movement of fighting groups which have been elevated to a point
where they have broad public support among the entire Muslim community." The defense science
board is hardly a liberal think tank. In fact its part of the department of defense. There has
also been numerous articles like in the washington post (in which I am sure many will
CONVENIENTLY label as part of the so called 'liberal media" so that it will give them a reason
to willfully ignore counter information they don't want to hear) that have said Iraq has become
a new terrorist training ground kind of like the way Afghanistan was previously to the
invasion of 2001 where they take their training back to their old countries so they can export
their 'islamic revolution'. Here is the washington post article

Also real Hardcore REAL conservatives like Pat Buchanan understood that the initial war
in Iraq was wrong. Which brings to this myth that its only the democrats and liberals that were
against the war in Afghanistan. There have been countless REAL CONSERVATIVES (Not the phoney ones in
the white house and congress) and non-liberal like former marine general anthony zinny that were
against the invasion in Iraq. Of course the ironic thing is that many on the left hate the
democratic leadership (with the exception of people like Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich whose
views on the Iraq war were more consistent with most dems) because to a large extent (and still
do) they really failed to take on the bush administration in regards to the Iraq war. It should
also be noted that almost NO ONE thought the initial war and overthrow of saddam would take long.
But many thought the following occupation would take long and most insurgencies do take
long (short ones take up to about 9 years according to counter-insurgency expert Thomas X.
Hammes) . Since iraq is in the middle of the moslem world you can bet it will take quite a bit
longer than 9 years.

The point is that is that it really is beyond dispute that invading iraq was a bad idea and that
there was plenty of history in the region to predict exactly what is currently going on in that
region. Israel has been battling suicide bombers for years. In 1983 marines were sent into
Lebanon just for stricty a peace keeping mission but were blown sky high by a suicide car
bombing that killed 243 marines. It turned out that the lebanese terrorist groups Hizzbollah
was behind the bombing. Hizzbolla of course was (and probably still is to some extent) funded
by the iranians back then and of course the republican reagan administraton SOLD ARMS to the
terrorist Iranian regime in the so called Iran-contra affair. The reagan administration was
also helping Saddam at the same time. In fact here is the infamous picture of Donald Rumsfield
shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983.

There is also the massacres in Algeria in the 1990's from the Armed Islamic Group. The point
is that this region was and is littered with this kind of fanaticsm. There was absolutely NO
excuse for politicans (democrat as well as republican) and administration officials to not
anticipate what we are seeing right now in Iraq let alone people who thought we would be greeted
as liberators or in the case of Bush ,according to Pat Robertson, of not even anticipating
american casualties. I supposes that in some parts in iraq we were greeted as liberators,
like in the kurdish areas for example, but I don't see how that could possibly be true about
Iraq in general especially in the sunni triangle.

Now I am not advocating immediate withdraw of the troops in Iraq. The question of when
we should withdraw is way more complex and tough than the question of whether it was
right to invade Iraq in the first place. Just want to make that clear.

As far as North Korea goes there were all ready UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
inspectors in North Korea until they were kicked out by Kim Jong Il after bush apparently
called him a pygmy and they have not been back since.

The rest of the post is just too absurd and partisian to respond to (especially the part about
the media) so its time to wrap things up.

So let me now remind everyone that polls now consistently show that the american people now
think the iraq war was a bad decision and according to this article

"by a 3 to 1 ratio, 46 percent to 15 percent, Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in
the government has declined rather than risen under Bush." which means MOST americans believe
the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION was MORE honest than the BUSH administration.

Yes I know. I am sure none of this matters to those that agree with the original post or those
married to George Bush and the republican party. I realize for those people that there is no
amount of facts and/or logic I could present to these fanatical partisian hacks that could
change their mind. So if you are one of these people continue to bury your head in the sand.
Continue in your denial. Continue to listen to one-sided right-wing media sources like Rush,
hannity, fox news, weiner nation (aka the savage nation),,, ann
coulter and all the usual right-wing demogogues. Continue with the strawman argument that if
someone disagrees with the policies of the bush administration or even the republican party on
Iraq that it follows that they must hate the troops and are unpatirotic. Continue to demonize,
sterotype and marginazlie liberals. True there are liberals that do the same thing to those on
the right but I am specifically talking about this post that I am responding to and those that
share those beliefs. Continue to ignore the incredible corruption and cronyism not only coming
from the Bush administration but the republican party in general. When you do hear news that
exposes these republicans for what they are, don't forget to use that good old 'liberal media'
carnard that will give you a reason to discredit information you don't want to deal with.

George Bush and his administration will go down as one of the worst of all time.

UGG Suede

I like to the town.I live in a crowded town.This park is (the safest) park in our town.Born in this beautiful town, he hates to leave it.

red bottom shoes

For this statement, Jochen Zeitz argued that a considerable part of the product had being through wind and rain to counter the trend of fail for decades


I think you're wrong. I'm sure. I can prove it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Help A Brother Out

  • Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

Heavy Rotation

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003