Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can bet those numbers, if they are correct, don't count the iraqi casualties, but as usual, no one seems to care about them. I wonder if those Iraqi's were happy to be "liberated"???
Ask the Al-Qaeda terrorists and insurgents why they targeted innocent civilians? We certainly don't do that.
Ask the Al-Qaeda terrorists and insurgents why they targeted innocent civilians? We certainly don't do that.
What does THAT have to do with anything. I am making a comment on the fact that Iraqi casualties do not get counted by the US. Nice try trying to twist it into something else.
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
If the figures are correct (and I don't pretend to know) why would it be satire?
Quote:
It may be funny to you, but it is true.
Oh, Lordy. Looks like I have to debunk this line of nonsense AGAIN.
Alright - let's pick this statement apart:
Quote:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.
According to the US military, 40 US troops died in Iraq in January 2008. That's correct. 35 murders would be about average for Detroit. That's also correct.
Now, though, what are the relevant populations involved? Well, as of January 2008, there were about 155,000 US troops stationed in Iraq. Detroit had about 900,000 residents. So, if we were adjusting for population, Detroit would have needed 232 murders to have kept pace with the death rate of US troops in Iraq.
But that also doesn't tell the whole story, since many of those 155,000 in Iraq are not, as we'd say, at the "tip of the spear." Many are stationed semipermanently in support positions on bases or in the Green Zone, and are not exposed in the same way as patrolling units. So the actual size of the population subject to most of the danger in Iraq is much smaller than 155,000 - perhaps half that. So now we're talking about a population of under 80,000 people being exposed to a level of death more than 12 times higher than one would encounter in Detroit, which is incidentally one of the most violent cities in the Americas - not just America.
But wait - the statement said there were 39 "combat-related killings" IN IRAQ - not just among US troops.
For that to be true, the homicide rate in Iraq - both from regular violence (domestic killings, robberies, etc.) and militant violence (bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, etc.) would need to have been ZERO for all of January.
Was that the case?
Well, no. The Iraqis themselves claim that 554 civilians and Iraqi security forces were killed from "militant violence" in January, though they have been accused of lowballing the figures, so, it's impossible to know for sure.
That still doesn't count the number of deaths from regular old murder, rather than militant violence. Iraqi police don't release counts of victims from regular, non-militant-related homicides.
So, in light of all that, I hope people can see why this statement:
Quote:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.
Is a gigantic crock, and that it in facts insults the bravery of US troops by denigrating the amount of danger they actually face.
Got this in a e-mail today: Not a History major do not know the accuracy of this but I am sure someone will.
John Glenn (DEMOCRAT) said this ----- It should make us all think a little:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in 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 .
When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, tell them the following:
FDR (DEMOCRAT) 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 (DEMOCRAT) 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.
John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us.
Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.
Clinton (DEMOCRAT) 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.
Don't forget his invasions of Somalia and Kosovo...
This one is a fact that makes me mad as hell.
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.
And the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.
But Wait, There's more.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno (DEMOCRAT) 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 (DEMOCRAT) 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, with Mary Jo Kopechne inside.
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.
JOHN GLENN (on the Senate floor - January 26, 2004)
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 mycheckbook, 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 DAD'S 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 have the gall to tell ME that those people didn't have a job?
What about Metzenbaum? 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.
Well done miborn, off course reasonable and rational people have realized this all along but you certainly wont get this from the mainstream media!
Oh, Lordy. Looks like I have to debunk this line of nonsense AGAIN.
Alright - let's pick this statement apart:
According to the US military, 40 US troops died in Iraq in January 2008. That's correct. 35 murders would be about average for Detroit. That's also correct.
Now, though, what are the relevant populations involved? Well, as of January 2008, there were about 155,000 US troops stationed in Iraq. Detroit had about 900,000 residents. So, if we were adjusting for population, Detroit would have needed 232 murders to have kept pace with the death rate of US troops in Iraq.
But that also doesn't tell the whole story, since many of those 155,000 in Iraq are not, as we'd say, at the "tip of the spear." Many are stationed semipermanently in support positions on bases or in the Green Zone, and are not exposed in the same way as patrolling units. So the actual size of the population subject to most of the danger in Iraq is much smaller than 155,000 - perhaps half that. So now we're talking about a population of under 80,000 people being exposed to a level of death more than 12 times higher than one would encounter in Detroit, which is incidentally one of the most violent cities in the Americas - not just America.
But wait - the statement said there were 39 "combat-related killings" IN IRAQ - not just among US troops.
For that to be true, the homicide rate in Iraq - both from regular violence (domestic killings, robberies, etc.) and militant violence (bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, etc.) would need to have been ZERO for all of January.
Was that the case?
Well, no. The Iraqis themselves claim that 554 civilians and Iraqi security forces were killed from "militant violence" in January, though they have been accused of lowballing the figures, so, it's impossible to know for sure.
That still doesn't count the number of deaths from regular old murder, rather than militant violence. Iraqi police don't release counts of victims from regular, non-militant-related homicides.
So, in light of all that, I hope people can see why this statement:
Is a gigantic crock, and that it in facts insults the bravery of US troops by denigrating the amount of danger they actually face.
Not only are you conveniently making numbers up but I like how you reduced the number of Americans in the 'danger zone' but didn't make the same adjustment for Detroit. Either way it's just sort of made up.....
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in 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.
And what would it be per population?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn
FDR (DEMOCRAT) 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.
Germany declared war on us right after we declared war on Japan for bombing us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn
Truman (DEMOCRAT) 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.
Due to the perception that communist forces were hell bent on taking over the world by force, and given the amount of land and people they controlled at the time, I can see the reasoning behind it. Plus it was a UN approved action in which we are a part of.
Not saying I agree with it of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn
John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam
never attacked us.
No, North Vietnam never did attack us and I still do not see why we ever cared to go over there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn
Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year. .
It was doomed to be a quagmire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn
Clinton (DEMOCRAT) 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.
Don't forget his invasions of Somalia and Kosovo...
Yes, the bombing of Serbia. Serbia got the short end of the stick due to wayward and off based US policies. Bombing people that are protecting their teritory is not right and we are still promoting it today with the recognition of Kosovo. I am biased of course because I do beleive in the Vatican theory a bit.
Bush sr. did the Somalia thing.
Clinton failed to take action on the growing terror threat, but it was not Clinton who created it, that is thanks to the former persidents and their narrow view of world politics without regard to future events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn
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.
And the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. .
Why do you call it liberated? We liberated France, see how they treated us? Now look how they treat us in Iraq and Afganistan, hardly would call it a liberation, were they occupied by someone?
Slaughtered 300k poeple? You meaning sadaam when he gassed the Kurds with the blessing of the west because the Kurds were conspiring with Iran during the war to take an offensive against Iraq? Sorry, any government in the world would have done that when faced with being defeated. The Kurds entering the conflict would have swayed the war to Iran's side, something the US defintly did not want.
Oh yes, the same Kurds who today sponsor a terror group who has killed many people.
Actually it is the UN who has put inspectors in those countries, not the US, and what result has it brought? We don't beleive them no matter what they say anyway.
You leave out some other things to. Who had us involved in operations all over the world during the 80's? In countries that had zero to do with us?
What about Kuwait? Why did we feel the need to go rescue some monarchy, its not like they were the beacon of liberty.
This article is so slanted and full of mistruths it would take hours to respond to in detail.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
