Reply
Wed 17 Mar, 2004 11:50 am
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 18,333 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.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle. Look who is here.
Husker, It's called police action, I'm afraid. The last war declared by Congress was WWII, and I think the U.S. should have participated on both fronts in that situation because of the threat of Hitler.
Good to see you back, Husker
husker said
Quote:FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
Where did the bombs fall, when the war ended husker?
Quote:In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries,
I hope you are not referring to Iraq and Afghanistan.
jackie wrote:husker said
Quote:FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
Where did the bombs fall, when the war ended husker?
Quote:In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries,
I hope you are not referring to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm getting at all corners being objective - party-line does not make a difference.
Re: What is an objective review of BUSH? Or can there be one
husker wrote: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 18,333 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.
In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
Husker, Where did you get that info from? I saw the exact same post somewhere else on A2K a while back and someone did an excellent job of responding to each point. Now where was that? One of the points as I recall was that Germany declared war on the US shortly after our declaration on Japan.
Edited for civility.
email - was it me ? LOL could be LOL
Re: What is an objective review of BUSH? Or can there be one
mesquite wrote:Husker, Where did you cut and paste that post from? I saw the exact same post somewhere else on A2K a while back and someone did an excellent job of responding to each point. Now where was that?
It was
right here.
Well, my goodness, Joe and mesquite. Many threads on A2K have been iterated and reiterated. Soooooo?
"John F Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. "
This is not true. Eisenhower, after the French defeat, was the one who committed us to Vietnam in a major way. We were peripheral from FDR on, but after Dienbienphu when the French walked into a valley surrounded by hills and were massacred as a result, Eisenhower picked up the gauntlet.
Kennedy was going to pull the troops out of Vietnam, and some say the CIA killed him for this because they wanted a laboratory for their counterinsurgency policies.
Husker has an infantile view of history to be claiming JFK is to blame for Vietnam. FDR and onwards had us involved. Eisenhower was the turning point, and he made the French effort into the American effort more than anyone else. Eisenhower is the one who commited a huge amount of troops to the region when beforehand only special forces were there helping the French and South Vietnamese.
I suspect Husker is trying to pin the blame on a Democrat, when it belongs to a Republican.
That isn't to say the Democrats didn't share in this problem later on, but to say JFK was responsible is downright infantile politically.
Yup, husker is a political hack trying to blame all the wars on the democrats. It isn't true, not by a long shot.
Iraq is a quagmire as much as Vietnam was. Bush is doing EXACTLY what Johnson did....tried to win through incrementalism of the conflict so as to avoid political fallout at home. Bombs and more bombs, and a filtering in of more troops instead of an all out bombing campaign and massive frontal attack. Johnson, like Bush, was/is afraid people will turn against the war if it escalates too rapidly, but the only wars that get won are the massive victories early on. Bush should have kept bombing, and then poured troops into Iraq. Too late now. Bush is going to suffer the same fate as Johnson for trying to politicize war.
Husker claims to be objective, but he is as slanted as they get, if his first post here is any indication of his character. Allowing people their delusions is not wise, in any venue.
Umby, Husker has been here far longer than you, and is always polite and reasonable, unlike you STOP SCORING POINTS FOR THE FAR RIGHT!
Report Card.
F-Miserable Failure.
Domestic Policy-F
Foreign Policy-F
As The Donald would say: "You're fired, Mr. Resident."
Letty wrote:Well, my goodness, Joe and mesquite. Many threads on A2K have been iterated and reiterated. Soooooo?
Sooooo obviously we need some new threads around here.
Wrong is wrong, and twisting history to achieve an agenda is evil, no matter how politely stated. If someone is trying to spread hate, you aren't allowed to call them a hater here?
I''m starting to wonder about this site. A moderator has an avatar of a kitty with a rifle perched on a windowsill to assassinate someone. Fishin' I believe is the name. A clear contradiction of "terms", and if someone objects, they are chastised for it?
hmmm...........
Truth takes a second place to popularity and politeness? Isn't that what got this country into such a mess in the first place?
Umby, one of the major advantages this place has over other fora is that we usually endeavor to disagree civilly. Granted, we al have out moments, but overall I think we accomplish this. You have yet to even make the effort. Despite the fact that I agree with you on most of your political points, I find myself wincing whenever I see a reply by you. Any valid points you make are often invalidated by your very obstreperousness.
And pointing out fiction passing for fact is not scoring points for the far right. NOT pointing out their fiction passing for fact is scoring points for the far right.
And interesting charge to manipulate people into ceasing and desisting, but one that doesn't hold much water when put to the test.
Being all nicey and polite when faced with pronouncements you are supposed to defer to because of the "seniority" of the speaker is so scoring points for the far rights that it isn't even funny...it's imbecilic, hobitbob, and somehow, I expected more out of you, since you seem to understand well enough what is real and what is fantasy, or so it seemed.
The truly adult and polite thing to have been done here would be to let Husker prove me wrong, if he can. You insulting me for insulting him doesn't make you any better, you do realize that don't you? The old phrase, physician heal thyself comes to mind. And I am sure Husker is perfectly capable of defending himself if he sees fit. He doesn't need any extra snot in this thread.
I'm being perfectly civil. No swears, no outrageous or inflammatory charges against someone. You are suggesting civility means not being able to call a kettle black, and that is dead wrong. A hack is a hack. To not be able to use proper descriptions tends to nullify any attempt at communication, don't you think? I mean, come on. We can't call the hacks in here for the hacks they are? I don't care if you like me or not. But I am debating as an adult here, and I call it as I see it. If that bothers you, well, you aren't going to like me much, I can guarantee you that. People who distort the truth for their own agenda ARE NOT CIVIL in the slightest bit. They are destroying reality, and that is civilly an extremely dangerous and villanous thing to be doing.
So do continue to be nice and civil to them. Play their game, and lose out in the end. It's what they want you to do....not contest their lies...or their ignorance, whichever the case may be here.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace