Iraq War: donkey vs. elephant

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, state the following:

a. FDR led us into World War II.
Because we were attacked by Japan and we launched an attack on them (well deserved, because they were killing massive Chinese and other Asian too), before FDR, republican presidents had led this country into an isolationist retrieve and so we emerged , thanks to WWII and FDR, as the respected leader in the WORLD that we are today. That was a conscientious decision from a very good foreign policy maker president. (the only one so far)

b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.
First imagine the world today with a Germanized Europe, then let's talk

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.

Yes Truman did start a war (that had an end) as ANY other president would have (especially a Republican one);at the time, we were making foreign policy decisions that were compatible with the democratic ideals of this country, the war was a tool to stop the spread of communism, something the RIGHT has always been scared of.

d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

You are wrong, the decision to liberate South Vietman was already in the table thanks to Eisenhower (the Republican President), Kennedy had no choice especially when it was being pressured by the right to stop COMMUNISM (you know the thing that the RIGHT is most afraid of).

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ..
an average of 5,800 per year.

Vietnam was a mess since the start, whether a republican or democrat as president. It was an open-ended military and ideological war, just like Iraq is today.

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.

Have you looked at Bosnia today? or Serbia and Croatia? I believe they are democratic or at least close to that. Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia today are European Union candidates. Besides we went in not to "force the establishment of a democracy" but to STOP the beginning of genocide (ethnic cleansing), like the one going one in Darfur today. Democracy came as a by product of having NATO and the UN presence. The problem with the Iraq war is that it never should have been fought as part of the global fight against terror. There were very little terrorists in Iraq; today is a lair of terrorists thanks to the US invansion.

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 most problable and intelligent reason to assume there has not been another terrorist attack is not because we are safer today, is probably due to the fact that the enemy is in recharge (has no funds at this time), that means that they can take as long as they need to inflict pain again, that is what they do best, it has nothing to do with our intelligence and leadership abilities and everybody knows that. In regards to those other "accomplishments" that Bush has realized they are very ill founded. Liberating a country does not mean winning the war on terror, his actions have ignited the war on terror to the point that terrorism will now be part of the US foregin policy agenda for many years to come.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.

Democrats and republicans alike are complaining about the bad administration and the mishandling of the war, not how many years is taking. It will take as much as it is needed, because we cannot afford to lose it, yet we desperately need new policies.

But it took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.

A very bad choice of analogy that deserves no comment.

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.

Another bad one too. It has nothing to do with national security. Republicans made this war a national security issue and look where we are today.

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.

Seriously these are not in any way comparable choices. But I will comment that the brilliance of Rumsfeld was to disband the Republican Guard and leave them their arms and now we are fighting them as insurgents. That was a TERRIBLE mistake, that one is costing lives.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

So you mean we have Iraq in our hands now?

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

Sure he is doing the best he can do. I mean we are talking about a guy that quits everything when it goes bad (his oil company, his baseball team, his national guard service). But some will say he is sticking to his guns, not changing course is what is hurting our military and our pockets.


The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts

We have already realized what this administration is made of. thank you.

But Wait . Bring it on

There's more!
--