"Facts" about the war in Iraq... thoughts?

Rheanna · 11-30-2006, 11:57 AM

I just got this in an email forward. There are lots of you who are waaaay smarter/educated than I am on matters of politics. Thoughts?

Quote:

CAN’T DENY THE FACTS…

WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID :

Things that make you think a little:

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January 2006.
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

When some claim that 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 ..
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 for 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

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)
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 my tie 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 Veterans' 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?

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.

It might not be a bad idea to keep this circulating.

I'm just not so sure how I feel about this. I really do think the media only tells us about the bad. There are some positive things going on over there, or at least I've been told by people that have served in Iraq. I tend to believe them over what the news says most times. . .

Now, I'm really not so sure about this part at all though

:

Quote:

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB!
The Military morale is high!

But thoughts from others on the entire thing?

iris427 · 11-30-2006, 02:57 PM

To me this just reads like typical propaganda.

For example, yeah Vietnam never attacked us. That doesn't make the Iraq war right or smart from a foreign policy point of view. Just because something has been done before doesn't make it right. In fact, that old adage comes to mind here--those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Yes, Vietnam became a quagmire. Kind of like what Iraq is becoming. Oh but it's ok because Vietnam happened under a Democratic president. Notice how the only presidents criticized in this email are Dems.

And the whole "it took less time to take Iraq than..." business is pretty stupid. Yeah we "took" Iraq in 51 days. That's why we're still there three years later and our soldiers are still getting blown up. We sure showed them.

This is really an oversimplification of history relying on the fact that the reader probably doesn't remember much from high school history class.

battinlash · 11-30-2006, 08:41 PM

I can't believe this garbage is still circulating. This is an old email. It's been debated on the Internet since it appeared, and just about every sentence in there has been debunked as either fiction or a gross misrepresentation. The few parts that aren't fictional or misrepresented are completely irrelevant to the Iraq war- Janet Reno? Ted Kennedy? Like iris said, it's propaganda. It's not even good propaganda, though. I could rebut most of it, but that's a lot of typing. I can address a few of the sentences if you want me to.

So anyway...that's my thoughts on that, for the moment...but to comment on the rest of what you said: There is very little positive action taking place in Iraq right now, and the news reports are bad because the news itself is so bad. Unfortunately, if you want to hear the most accurate news, you'll have to look outside the US. CNN and Fox aren't the most reliable sources. You know, before I went to Iraq I didn't know what to believe in the news, either. A lot of what should be reported is left out.

Rheanna · 11-30-2006, 09:14 PM

I read it a couple more times, and I pretty much agree with both of you as well. To be fair, I do think there's propaganda from both sides. It is hard to know what to believe. One side gives one set of "facts," as does the other. I agree that most of that nonsense about Vietnam, etc. is pretty much useless. Like iris said, it doesn't make it okay because it has happened before. I did somewhat take the point of that part to be addressing the fact that people talk about Bush as though he is the only one who has ever been in a similiar situation, instead of simply saying 'it is okay because it's happened before."

Tantrum, how long were you in Iraq? When? I'm not trying to be nosy, just curious. Every. single. soldier that I have talked to that's came home has had mostly positive things to say. Really. They all have pictures upon pictures of Iraqi children hugging them, etc. I do think the media should talk about some of the positive; I just can't believe that there isn't any. Of course there is a lot of negative, and I do think we should hear about it all. It is just really hard to know who to believe.

iris427 · 12-01-2006, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rheanna83

I read it a couple more times, and I pretty much agree with both of you as well. To be fair, I do think there's propaganda from both sides. It is hard to know what to believe. One side gives one set of "facts," as does the other. I agree that most of that nonsense about Vietnam, etc. is pretty much useless. Like iris said, it doesn't make it okay because it has happened before. I did somewhat take the point of that part to be addressing the fact that people talk about Bush as though he is the only one who has ever been in a similiar situation, instead of simply saying 'it is okay because it's happened before."

Tantrum, how long were you in Iraq? When? I'm not trying to be nosy, just curious. Every. single. soldier that I have talked to that's came home has had mostly positive things to say. Really. They all have pictures upon pictures of Iraqi children hugging them, etc. I do think the media should talk about some of the positive; I just can't believe that there isn't any. Of course there is a lot of negative, and I do think we should hear about it all. It is just really hard to know who to believe.

Rheanna, you're right, there is propaganda on both sides. It's important to learn to recognize it because apparently a lot of people don't.

I haven't been to Iraq so I can't speak from experience, but--it's great that the Iraqi children are hugging soldiers but to me that is not the issue.

The issue is why are we in Iraq in the first place? What have been the consequences of our invasion? How will this affect the United States in the long run? There was a lot of international goodwill toward the US after 9/11 but that was pretty much squandered by our invasion of Iraq--how is that going to affect us?

I mean, if our actions make life better for Iraqis, good. Whether it has is a pretty complicated issue. But should we go around overthrowing governments that don't pose a threat to us? We can't overthrow every cruel, inhumane government in the world, so how do we choose? Do we only do it when it benefits us? If so, our motives aren't so pure after all.

Rheanna · 12-01-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iris427

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rheanna83

I read it a couple more times, and I pretty much agree with both of you as well. To be fair, I do think there's propaganda from both sides. It is hard to know what to believe. One side gives one set of "facts," as does the other. I agree that most of that nonsense about Vietnam, etc. is pretty much useless. Like iris said, it doesn't make it okay because it has happened before. I did somewhat take the point of that part to be addressing the fact that people talk about Bush as though he is the only one who has ever been in a similiar situation, instead of simply saying 'it is okay because it's happened before."

Tantrum, how long were you in Iraq? When? I'm not trying to be nosy, just curious. Every. single. soldier that I have talked to that's came home has had mostly positive things to say. Really. They all have pictures upon pictures of Iraqi children hugging them, etc. I do think the media should talk about some of the positive; I just can't believe that there isn't any. Of course there is a lot of negative, and I do think we should hear about it all. It is just really hard to know who to believe.

Rheanna, you're right, there is propaganda on both sides. It's important to learn to recognize it because apparently a lot of people don't.

I haven't been to Iraq so I can't speak from experience, but--it's great that the Iraqi children are hugging soldiers but to me that is not the issue.

The issue is why are we in Iraq in the first place? What have been the consequences of our invasion? How will this affect the United States in the long run? There was a lot of international goodwill toward the US after 9/11 but that was pretty much squandered by our invasion of Iraq--how is that going to affect us?

I mean, if our actions make life better for Iraqis, good. Whether it has is a pretty complicated issue. But should we go around overthrowing governments that don't pose a threat to us? We can't overthrow every cruel, inhumane government in the world, so how do we choose? Do we only do it when it benefits us? If so, our motives aren't so pure after all.

Exactly. Obviously, there were no WMDs. Obviously there was no direct link to 9/11. So why are we there. . .?
I agree 100% with you that it is great if this war helps Iraqis/Iraq in the long run, but the question still remains - why them? Why not the dozens upon dozens of other countries who are struggling, those who have oppressive governments? We can't save them all, so how do we choose? I do think this is one area where the U.S. is somewhat 'damned if you do, damned if you don't.' If we live in isolation and ignore the bad things going on elsewhere, we are hated for it. If we go around invading countries, starting wars, and overthrowing inhuman governments, we're hated for it. Even if our intentions were always pure and just, it is still a rough situation. I would not want to be the person to decide.

Edited for clarity.

iris427 · 12-01-2006, 02:04 PM

Rheanna, very true. Bill Clinton has gotten a lot of criticism over how he handled the situation in Rwanda, and I imagine Bush will get similar criticism over the situation in Darfur.

It is difficult, which is why I never want to be a politician! (Among other reasons)

By the way, did you post this topic in the Politics board so it wouldn't turn into a train wreck like the Iraq threads on the Non-Hair Board? Smart move

Rheanna · 12-01-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iris427

Rheanna, very true. Bill Clinton has gotten a lot of criticism over how he handled the situation in Rwanda, and I imagine Bush will get similar criticism over the situation in Darfur.

It is difficult, which is why I never want to be a politician! (Among other reasons)

By the way, did you post this topic in the Politics board so it wouldn't turn into a train wreck like the Iraq threads on the Non-Hair Board? Smart move

Maybe so

. If I had posted that there, I do believe we would be typing away on at least page 10 at this point.

(And I agree with you again, I surely would not want to be a politician!)

battinlash · 12-05-2006, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rheanna83

Tantrum, how long were you in Iraq? When? I'm not trying to be nosy, just curious. Every. single. soldier that I have talked to that's came home has had mostly positive things to say. Really. They all have pictures upon pictures of Iraqi children hugging them, etc. I do think the media should talk about some of the positive; I just can't believe that there isn't any. Of course there is a lot of negative, and I do think we should hear about it all. It is just really hard to know who to believe.

I was there in 2004, for the much-hyped "handover" of our power back to their government. I can only speak for my own experiences, and not for those of others, but I didn't witness anything positive in Iraq. I understand that you don't know who to believe, but what are these positive things you think are happening? What are people telling you?

Rheanna · 12-05-2006, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tantrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rheanna83

Tantrum, how long were you in Iraq? When? I'm not trying to be nosy, just curious. Every. single. soldier that I have talked to that's came home has had mostly positive things to say. Really. They all have pictures upon pictures of Iraqi children hugging them, etc. I do think the media should talk about some of the positive; I just can't believe that there isn't any. Of course there is a lot of negative, and I do think we should hear about it all. It is just really hard to know who to believe.

I was there in 2004, for the much-hyped "handover" of our power back to their government. I can only speak for my own experiences, and not for those of others, but I didn't witness anything positive in Iraq. I understand that you don't know who to believe, but what are these positive things you think are happening? What are people telling you?

Schools opening, more freedoms for Iraqis, etc. Really now that I think about it, there haven't been any specific things mentioned. Just the same things mentioned about schools, freedom, elections, etc. And lots of people with all the pictures of the Iraqis hugging them, etc. I guess that is certainly not anything concrete in the least.

sew and sew · 03-09-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rheanna83

Quote:

Originally Posted by tantrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rheanna83

Tantrum, how long were you in Iraq? When? I'm not trying to be nosy, just curious. Every. single. soldier that I have talked to that's came home has had mostly positive things to say. Really. They all have pictures upon pictures of Iraqi children hugging them, etc. I do think the media should talk about some of the positive; I just can't believe that there isn't any. Of course there is a lot of negative, and I do think we should hear about it all. It is just really hard to know who to believe.

I was there in 2004, for the much-hyped "handover" of our power back to their government. I can only speak for my own experiences, and not for those of others, but I didn't witness anything positive in Iraq. I understand that you don't know who to believe, but what are these positive things you think are happening? What are people telling you?

Schools opening, more freedoms for Iraqis, etc. Really now that I think about it, there haven't been any specific things mentioned. Just the same things mentioned about schools, freedom, elections, etc. And lots of people with all the pictures of the Iraqis hugging them, etc. I guess that is certainly not anything concrete in the least.

My friend who was over there in 2005/6 was talking about the election turn out. I think he mentioned that it was proportionally higher than our own turnout.

Ever since March 2006, according to a former prof. of mine who went over there to help train doctors, Iraq has been in a state of civil war. It seems hard to dispute the fact there's a huge amount of sectarian violence. My friend agrees with the idea it's like everyone against everyone (something that prof. said) but the oppression before he doesn't consider as a better scenerio. His gripe is not going in there in the first place but how it was done. What's he's seen has apparently given him hope for the ultimate goal that Iraq will be in a better state. He's part of a PsyOps unit that was dispatched around Baghdad, a lot of going into the community and talking to the people is involved. Personally, with only the media as an eye into things (and not REALLY trying to read a lot and get the best idea) it seems doubtful that will happen to me. Certainly hope so and realise having a good idea of things is hard to come by unless you really look into it. Talk to people who have been in different positions over there, read a lot, etc. It's pretty hard to make a call on it.

sarasara · 03-29-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

I agree 100% with you that it is great if this war helps Iraqis/Iraq in the long run, but the question still remains - why them? Why not the dozens upon dozens of other countries who are struggling, those who have oppressive governments? We can't save them all, so how do we choose?

Ummm...These other countries probably don't have oil.