Something interesting

Forum Options:	my.neoforum register members prefs search faq

Topic: Something interesting Options: Print subscribe remove NeoPM
Threads List « Next Newest Next Oldest »
Morning Dreamer Resident Neo total posts: 2591 since: Sep 2001	Apr 07, 04 at 9:16pm ^ Something interesting
	Log in to remove this sponsored message Someone emailed this to me. Seams pretty accurate for the most part, except the American death toll of WW II, which in reality was somewhere in the ball park of A million and some of the death % and of course, the "without firing a shot" part. They also failed to note that Bush cought hundreds of Al Queda opperatives. The following , appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in Perspective: Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims. 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 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? Come on! 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 of 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 Teddy 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!!!! .................. May I also note that the civilion casualties in the Iraquie war were by far the lowest % in history, with millions apon millions invested in to precision weapons to avoid harming innicent. In WW II, Korea and Viet Nam, we were carpet bombing. This message was edited by Morning Dreamer on Apr 07 2004.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
zipty_109 Seeketh Maximus total posts: 5663 since: Jun 2002	Apr 07, 04 at 11:44pm ^ re: Something interesting
	quote the email quote We didn't start the war on terror. As if terrorists would just hate America for no reason. We had to have done something. Not saying it is our fault, but I'm saying that America is not he innocent child. quote 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. BS. Japan was allied with Germany. If we wouldn't have attacked Germany, they would have hit us when we went to war with Japan. That's common since. Osama and Saddam, however, are not friends by any means. quote 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. N. Korea was already at war. This was a humanitrian mission. It wasn't fabricated because of WMD lies. quote 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. Thousands of people protested Vietnam, and millions protested Operation Iraqi Oil-ahem-....Freedom. quote 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. As if anyone supporting Bush would also be a Clinton supporter. America had evidence about 9/11 before it happened. The Bush administration had a lot of info. But you can't blame them or Clinton. It was not reasonable. [quote]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 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? Come on! The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... Liberated, yeah right, more like switched dictators. If a government is modeled by America, funded by America, and led by America, it's obviously for America. The Iraqi's are an after thought. Anyway, it is absolute BULLSHIT to give Bush credit for this. "He" didn't liberate countries, kill dictators, do any of that. He hid in his chambers for 4 days after 9/11 like the coward he is. The soilers did this, not the president. The rest is mindless propoganda pointing about stupid things democrates (no republicans, mind you) have done over the years.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
DarksideCommander I think, therefore I am dangerous no-stoppin-me-now total posts: 268 since: Jan 2003	Apr 08, 04 at 1:16am ^ re: Something interesting
	quote Morning Dreamer 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. Would anyone NOT lead us into the war after Pearl Harbor? Germany actually declared war on us too, but they really couldn't do much about it until after they took over England. quote Morning Dreamer 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. No he didn't start that war, the UN did. We had a policy in our own country that said we would not stand by while the dirty commies took over the world, so we had to get involved in any war that the communists took part in too. quote Morning Dreamer 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. Well, they did attack us, but not with the intention of invading America. So we tried to clean up after the French when they failed (again), and got ourselves into a nasty war when nobody really wanted to be there except the government. quote Morning Dreamer 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. Clinton is a worthless turd, and always will be. I can't stand to even hear about the stuff he did in office (or should I say didn't do in office). I'm glad he is out. Enough said. quote Morning Dreamer In WW II, Korea and Viet Nam, we were carpet bombing. A good policy. You know after reading all that, I think Bush kind of reminds me of President Reagan. Thats why I don't mind him so much, since he doesn't crap from most people. Hopefully whoever sits in the oval office next year will act responsibly with the war on terrorism and not weasel their way out of a fight or make cuts into our military or our Bill of Rights like Clinton did. ------------------- "I find your lack of faith disturbing."
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
trendyskaman Permanently Plugged In neopoints: 110 since: Aug 2002	Apr 08, 04 at 3:48am ^ re: Something interesting
	It's plain ignorant to compare military decisions of Presidents throughout time. Several factors play in to a U.S. declaration of war, including economic status, existing government policies, and the list goes on. When we entered World War II, it was necessary because we had been first attacked by Japan. It was also necessary to aid Britain, or Europe would have fallen to the Nazis. I don't think anyone could argue that the world would be a better place under Nazi rule. Korea was merely an extension of the U.S. policy of containment in Asia. Truman acted as any other president would have in that situation-he declared a military action against the country, and was sure to use diplomacy to gain the support of other nations in the war. Hmm...probably a good first step, no? Vietnam was a pointless war, I'll give you that. But the Iraq War has been compared to the Iraq one on so many occasions, and with good reason. Not only did we seemingly have false reasons for leading a military coup (remember, following World War II we supported the end of imperialism, and French Indochina was a French colony-why didn't we aid Ho Chi Minh? Because he was a Communist) against the government, but there was also a large protest from the United States. And the civilians harmed in Iraq is a moot point. Did you see the images of the contractors killed and tortured? Obviously the Iraqis want no help from the United States.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Gizmo Pup Banana Banana Banana Terracotta Pie! seek-o-holic total posts: 863 since: May 2003	Apr 09, 04 at 12:35am ^ re: Something interesting
	quote zipty_109 quote the email quote We didn't start the war on terror. As if terrorists would just hate America for no reason. We had to have done something. Not saying it is our fault, but I'm saying that America is not he innocent child. quote 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. BS. Japan was allied with Germany. If we wouldn't have attacked Germany, they would have hit us when we went to war with Japan. That's common since. Osama and Saddam, however, are not friends by any means. quote 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. Gizmo Pup- Um Hello? It was called the Truman Doctrine which was terrible because it was basically a bribe to other countries not to become communists. N. Korea was already at war. This was a humanitrian mission. It wasn't fabricated because of WMD lies. quote 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. Once again. "TRUMAN DOCTRINE" Thousands of people protested Vietnam, and millions protested Operation Iraqi Oil-ahem-....Freedom. quote 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. As if anyone supporting Bush would also be a Clinton supporter. America had evidence about 9/11 before it happened. The Bush administration had a lot of info. But you can't blame them or Clinton. It was not reasonable. [quote]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 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? Come on! The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but... Liberated, yeah right, more like switched dictators. If a government is modeled by America, funded by America, and led by America, it's obviously for America. The Iraqi's are an after thought. Anyway, it is absolute BULLSHIT to give Bush credit for this. "He" didn't liberate countries, kill dictators, do any of that. He hid in his chambers for 4 days after 9/11 like the coward he is. The soilers did this, not the president. The rest is mindless propoganda pointing about stupid things democrates (no republicans, mind you) have done over the years. ------------------- MOW DOWN THE SEXY PEOPLE!
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
GNLK Eh? threadnought total posts: 592 since: Mar 2003	Apr 09, 04 at 1:11am ^ re: Something interesting
	quote zipty_109 Anyway, it is absolute BULLSHIT to give Bush credit for this. "He" didn't liberate countries, kill dictators, do any of that. He hid in his chambers for 4 days after 9/11 like the coward he is. The soilers did this, not the president. Ohhhhh, suuuuuure. When G.W.B. sucseeds in a war, his soldiers did it. BUT, when you say he does someting "wrong" about the war, he did it, and the Iraqis and his soldiers are his victims. OMFG SHUT THE @!#$ UP ALREADY!
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
zipty_109 Seeketh Maximus total posts: 5663 since: Jun 2002	Apr 09, 04 at 7:37am ^ re: Something interesting
	No no no. I'm not personally blaming Bush for each attack. For instance, if a soilder killed four people for no apparent reason, I wouldn't go "DAMN U BUSH LOL". But as a whole, it is Bush's fault that we are in Iraq. Anyway, it's not as if we "liberated" these countries, per se. While the soilders fought there asses off to save these people, a puppet government is being established. So bottom line (in extreme layman's terms) Overall deaths were Bush's fault, because it's his war Liberation credit goes partially to Bush for making the decision, but it was only a side effect of what he wanted. It wasn't the first thing he mentioned. The real credit goes to the soilders.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
trigger_man GET F.I.L.T.H.E.E. !!! forum fever total posts: 353 since: Mar 2003	May 03, 04 at 3:30am ^ re: Something interesting
	the president can hardly be blamed or applauded for any action this country takes... there is this little thing called congress that has to approve of nearly everything the president decides* to do... so in that case wouldnt they be as much to blame as the prez himself? G.W.Bush is not solely responsible for any debaucle attributed to his administration. he is just a face. IMHO how could any man that bleep*ed possibly run the USA unless he was told what to do and say at every moment? ------------------- we not toppin the chart/but we keep it poppin with art/form thats live & uncut/impregnate minds like nut/ with words worth while/serious super shine style/check the magnificence/of the FILTHEE Immigrants
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
jambos no1 02/04/06 Seeketh Maximus since: Apr 2004	May 13, 04 at 8:43pm ^ re: Something interesting
	quote Morning Dreamer Someone emailed this to me. Seams pretty accurate for the most part, except the American death toll of WW II, which in reality was somewhere in the ball park of A million and some of the death % and of course, the "without firing a shot" part. They also failed to note that Bush cought hundreds of Al Queda opperatives. The following , appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor. Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in Perspective: Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims. 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. germany did actually attack the US and had done for years without any retalitory strikes from the US most being on american shipping in the atlantic and caribean. also germany was in the process of signing an alliance with mexico to invade the US with german and japaneese support a move which if took place would have seen america defeated. america had to fight in Korea because the north invaded while the south as under an american and UK mandate. and are you honestly sayin you shouldnt have went into bosnia? even though you did you werent the first nation in most of europe were already there trying to defuse the situation.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
LinkMaster03 NeoXtreme total posts: 8756 since: Jul 2003	May 16, 04 at 3:08pm ^ re: Something interesting
	what? ------------------- Go to my SPECIAL Avatar NeoHome!
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Morning Dreamer Resident Neo total posts: 2591 since: Sep 2001	May 19, 04 at 1:34am ^ re: Something interesting
	I am 100% against our decisions to go to Bosnia and Somalia. Humanitary or not, they were none of our business. Iraq is something that needs to be further seen, although I am getting the same picture that Zipty seams to have about the situation. Hitler was making all kinds of threats and pulled a few stinkers, but he never did anything that would elivate going to war with him any greater justified then Iraq. Had Hitler invaded the US, that would have been the begining of the Socialests bad luck. Armed citizens have alwayse been by far a nations finest defense, which is the very reason why socialest/liberal orginisations and partys seek to disarm citizens today. When they invaded Stalingrad, they were practicley eniolated by a small nomber of citizens with scoped military issue rifles. Had the socialest invaded the US at that time, they would have been facing millions of equilly skilled people, who would probibly completley eniolate them in a matter of weeks with minimul losses.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
jambos no1 02/04/06 Seeketh Maximus since: Apr 2004	May 19, 04 at 9:48pm ^ re: Something interesting
	hitler was fascist not a socialist how can you be against going into bosnia? the only difference between bosnia and iraq is that in bosnia genocide still WAS taking place and that bosnia doesnt posses anything like oil or gas or uranium
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Morning Dreamer Resident Neo total posts: 2591 since: Sep 2001	May 19, 04 at 10:45pm ^ re: Something interesting
	quote hitler was fascist not a socialist Oh, really?! ". . . THERE are two things which can unite men: common ideals and common criminality ( Sound familiar ). We have inscribed upon our banner the great Germanic ideal and for that ideal we will fight to the last drop of our blood. We National Socialists have realized that from the international cesspool of infamy, from the Berlin of today, nothing can come to save the Fatherland." ( ADOLPH HITLER, MUNICH SPEECH OF AUGUST 1, 1923 ) http://www.hitler.org/speeches/08-01-23.html Reality sucks doesn't it. Basnia was none of our business. We had no right to step in their. They wern't bothering us at all. It was their war, not ours. Saddam Hussein alike Hitler, was causing trouble with us and had to be stopped. This gulf war is a continuation of the last one. To understand why this one started, you have to understand how the last one ended. Saddam never origionally attacted the US directley ( nor did Hitler ) but he caused military problems with us on forign soil that needed to be delt with. If Bush was after Oil, he'd simply push a few tree huggers aside and drill in Alaska, which would be less hastle then invading Iraq and far more rewarding. This message was edited by Morning Dreamer on May 19 2004.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Tragic Hero .\|\| One-Eyed Wolf \|\|. seek-o-holic since: Mar 2003	May 20, 04 at 2:22am ^ re: Something interesting
	Hmmm... This E-mail you received seems far from objective, the author seems overly biased. To be blunt, this was obviously written by a Neo-Con, therefore it shouldn't be presented as objective material. Before I pick this apart, here is a link to an accurate and credible time-line of U.S. military incursions and interventions: Memory. quote Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. The author seems ignorant of the term "Blowback" which was dubbed by the CIA. quote Chalmers Johnson Blowback: Since the overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953, the CIA has engaged in disguised assaults on the governments of Guatemala (1954); the Congo (1960); Cuba (1961); Brazil (1964); Afghanistan (1979 to the present); El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua (1980s); and Iraq (1991 to the present) - to name only the most obvious cases. These operations have generated numerous terrorist attacks and other forms of retaliation - what the CIA calls "blowback" - against the United States by peoples on the receiving end. Because covert operations are secret from the people of the United States, when retaliation hits, as it did spectacularly on Sept. 11, 2001, Americans do not have the information to put it into context or understand it. quote Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims. 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. By the time the U.S. entered WWII, Europe was in shambles. Lives my have been lost during the war, but Europe as a whole was facing certain defeat. Perhaps the author would have preferred that we remain neutral during WWII? Wouldn't you love to live in a Europe overrun by the Nazis. I become ecstatic at the thought of my ancestors joining the German War Machine. As though it hasn't already been said, Japan and Germany were allies. quote 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. Perhaps, but the use of force was sanctioned by the UN. According to you, that means a lot.This was also a defensive battle, the US was fending off South Vietnam from invaders. quote Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. Heaping pile of horse shit. The US participated in NATO led air strikes. quote 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. Hooray! More Hogwash! The premise behind "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was that U.S. Troops would be liberating an enslaved people and removing weapons of mass destruction. Weapons that have yet to turn up, and people are still living under the same conditions. As of right now Iraq is in the middle of an occupation, but Bush assured the Iraqi people that they would have full sovereignty over a rebuilt nation by June 30 (A deadline fast approaching). Bush has failed to liberate anyone, the world is still looking at a live and kicking Taliban, and an unchecked Al Qaeda. Kim Jong-Il has not allowed US weapon inspectors into North Korea, and has refused to cease his nuclear programs. Bush Jr may have captured Saddam, sadly he has only done what his father failed to do during his time in office. Any questions? [ Tragic ] ------------------- .Aeria Gloris.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
Morning Dreamer Resident Neo total posts: 2591 since: Sep 2001	May 20, 04 at 12:45pm ^ re: Something interesting
	quote This E-mail you received seems far from objective, the author seems overly biased. To be blunt, this was obviously written by a Neo-Con, therefore it shouldn't be presented as objective material. This is one of only 2 lines you made that I can fully agree with. I further checked through that later on and did find some further errors. However, the nature is right on, dispite the origionator being no more then a conservative version of yourself. quote Heaping pile of horse s**t. The US participated in NATO led air strikes. You just contradicted your own self. Your reasoning has proven un-credible buddy. You are also are emotionally out of control, as your diolect has deminstrated. quote The premise behind "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was that U.S. Troops would be liberating an enslaved people and removing weapons of mass destruction. Statment that we went in on a guarintee to the nation that Saddam had WMD is a liberal designed concept to discredit bush. We DID NOT go in their because we were sure that Saddam had them. We whent in because Saddam REFUSED to prove that he didn't have them. quote Weapons that have yet to turn up, and people are still living under the same conditions. People in Iraq seam to highley disagree with you. The local media is run by filterd and constructed statments and footage doctord up to support a one sided, predeturmined view. Try CNN or Fox News who give you live and raw information and study both sides. I have herd Iraqis saying on both stations that they are unhappy but the vast majority are very happy with the US occupation. Most of the negetivity comes from people who have lost family and/or belongings in the war and people who just don't trust the US. quote by June 30 (A deadline fast approaching). Yeah, and who's fault is that. He has proven to make all the effort to do so, and has done a good job, and the lefties have done everything they possibly can to stand in the way, and then blame him for failior. Give me a break. quote Bush has failed to liberate anyone, the world is still looking at a live and kicking Taliban, and an unchecked Al Qaeda. SAY WHAT!?!? Have you payed no attention at all. The Taliban has been gone for a LONG time and the Al Queda is a fraction of what they once were. quote Kim Jong-Il has not allowed US weapon inspectors into North Korea, and has refused to cease his nuclear programs. Actually, this is true last I checked. The only thing I think that has changed with him is that his wife is probibly washing his underwear with more soap. quote Bush Jr may have captured Saddam, sadly he has only done what his father failed to do during his time in office His father didn't fail to capture him. He told him he could stay if he disarm WMD. Weather or not he did, he failed to prove it, which is why we are their. Capturing Saddam is Clitons failior. Cliton fialed to uphold the treaty. Cliton did allot of dishonoring of US treaty and waged war against the constitution that protects the people. He also became the first preasident in US history to down talk another US preasident, an honor system that US preasidents have lived up to threoughout all time. Cliton, Davis and Gore also introduced Smiering campeigns on large scale, bringing US politicle campeigns to it's all time lowest. Oh, and let me guess, you want to bring up my spelling now. You are not worth further debate. You clearley are the type who would rather die then admit to be wrong. No point in trying to reason with unreasonable people. Oh, and I looked through that link. Very good resource. I am confused as to how you would find it useful to your objective though? This message was edited by Morning Dreamer on May 20 2004.
	quote quick quote edit quick edit del posts in thread report
[All dates in (PST) time]	Threads List « Next Newest Next Oldest »

Thread title	From	Last replied
Now searching...

Hobbies

Sports

Skills

Chat and Lounges

Game Platforms

Mobile Platforms

Top Core Games

Top Portable Games

Top Communities