Bush-putting it in perspective

[swissmiss04]

Originally posted by ADPiAkron
Believe me....I totally understand that! I work in a job funded by a grant from the Federal Government....we were just cut 40% for the 2004 program year!! To be technical we were cut one full time secretary and a part time counselor...leaving us with two counselors and a program coordinator....the kids I work with have also been cut (we cannot sign up any new kids for our program this summer nor can the kids work full-time jobs through us this summer since we subsidize their pay with the grant....we can only afford to pay them for 10 hours per week)!! So I understand the cuts....but thanks for the info!!

Hearing things like this makes me wish we could adopt an Isolationist policy similar to that of the late19th century (pre-Spanish-American war). We could straighten up our own act and to hell w/ all the other countries that mostly hate us anyways. All the repealed foreign aid could go towards domestic concerns. And at least we're not taking verbal pot shots from other countries and then turning around and filling their coffers.
</end rant>

[sugar and spice]

We actually discussed this post on another message board I post at . . . as pointed out, it contains a lot of half-truths, blatant lies, ambiguous phrasing and misresearched facts. I'm trying to remember all of them but here are a few:

As AGDee pointed out -- the first statistic about Detroit can actually work against the writer's point. Why should we be spending all this money in Iraq when our own cities apparently have bigger problems to be cleaned up? Plus, what the author means by "combat-related killings" isn't exactly clear. There could be a lot of deaths tied to the US's precense in Iraq that might not fall under the category of "combat-related killings."

It was actually Eisenhower, not Kennedy, who got us involved in Vietnam.

Comparing the war in Iraq to WW2, Korea, Vietnam or any of the other above wars is comparing apples to oranges. I'm not sure what point they're trying to make . . . not to mention that these days, it's pretty widely considered a mistake that we were in Vietnam in the first place -- not something I think anyone who supports this war wants to compare it to.

People can blame Clinton for not catching Osama but the truth of that matter is that during Clinton's presidency we had much bigger stuff to deal with than Osama. Bin Laden was involved with the death of about 35 Americans during Clinton's time in office. Bin Laden was connected to the deaths of thousands during Bush's presidency . . . and he hasn't caught Osama yet either. Do I blame Bush for that? No . . . but you also can't blame Clinton for it. Hindsight is 20/20, but before 9/11, we had no clue that bin Laden was going to be as big as a threat as he was. There was more important stuff going on.

Bush has hardly "crippled" the al-Quaeda . . . the most recent reports say that they are stronger than ever and are planning more attacks on the U.S., possibly as early as this summer.

Again, comparing the "liberation" of Iraq to other situations is hardly an accurate measure. When you're looking at something like the Waco situation -- it took so long because they didn't want to injure anymore of the kids! If the American army had tried to free Iraq without harming any children, you can bet it would have taken a little bit longer. Plus I think that anyone educated can see that the "taking of Iraq" was purely symbolic and that what matters more is the fact that our troops will be involved there for years.

One of the people on the other board posted that military morale is actually lower than it has been in a long time, and from articles I've read I would tend to agree, but I don't have data to back this up so I don't know what the truth is on that.

[ADPiAkron]

Originally posted by sugar and spice
When you're looking at something like the Waco situation -- it took so long because they didn't want to injure anymore of the kids! If the American army had tried to free Iraq without harming any children, you can bet it would have taken a little bit longer.

I watched Oprah yesterday...she covered the story of a young boy named Ali...the story was so sad I almost cried...

During the opening days of the Iraqi war, a stray American missile obliterated a civilian home outside Baghdad. Ali Ismail Abbas's family was asleep, and the boy thought it was a dream until he realized that both of his arms were missing. His parents were killed in the bombing, and Ali was covered with third-degree burns.

Ali is now living in London, where he lives with his friend Ahmed (who also lost a leg and a hand in a bombing). Ali has been fitted with artificial limbs, and he is learning English as well as playing soccer. To the world, he offers a simple message (above) of pursuing peace.

[The1calledTKE]

Great post sugar and spice !

[justamom]

Half truths or half lies-Lot's of this floating around GC of late.
Why should Scary Kerry supporters have all the "Fun with Facts"? What is, is. Or is it? What it is, is SPIN. (HAD to get my Clinton dig in)

I think many are focusing on the wrong meaning behind the e-mail. I was MOST interested in the TIME ALLOTMENTS. Now THOSE are rather difficult to argue since they are historical records. My favorites are the Sillary comparison and Florida vote count.

Anyway-propaganda is flying around GC like flies around..well YOU know. Lot's of political BS lately...

The content holds two major points-IMHO
As discussed on other threads, "news formats" are increasingly
editorializing. The media, which IS mostly liberal, has crossed the line as they try to shape opinion rather than report events.
AND-"Rome wasn't built in a day." We are bombarded (by the media) with heartbreaking tales of death and destruction. We have "bad news" streaming 24-7. It makes every day loom larger and longer. This wasn't the case prior to the Gulf War.
In a way, our resolve as a nation is being tested much harder than it was in the past.

I honestly wonder if we will ever see a REAL, DEFINABLE end to this war. I am willing to give Bush the time he needs because I believe this is every bit as important and ANY war we have fought.

[justamom]

There was more important stuff going on??? OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH yeah...MONICA!

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by justamom
Why should Scary Kerry supporters have all the "Fun with Facts"? What is, is. Or is it? What it is, is SPIN. (HAD to get my Clinton dig in)

Sillary comparison and Florida vote count.

Anyway-propaganda is flying around GC like flies around..well YOU know. Lot's of political BS lately...

Coming from both sides of the aisle. I wouldn't exactly call this reasonable political discourse, JAM. I think W is an embarassment to America and I have lots of nasty names I could call him, his wife, etc, but I try to stay away from that. I've got real, valid, factual reasons I think he's a bad president.

[justamom]

I think in the initial post it was clear that it was an E-MAIL forwarded to me. I guess I wrongly figured the intro to the post would keep it on the lighter side.

Me-"This may have been posted-don't know, but if there can be a zillion anti Bush threads, this should be OK. It's an e-mail so if you want to argue with it, I'll forward responses to the guy that sent it to me! " No rolling eyes or red faced smilies. No serious intro...

Honestly, it wouldn't bother me one bit if you DID refer to Bush or Laura any way you desired.

On the "political discourse" point-
I think I recall a thread about how Laura MURDERED someone in a car accident??? Now that's real relevant.

I totally agree with you on your point of coming from BOTH sides of the Isle. Indeed it is.

I don't like this war either.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by justamom
I think in the initial post it was clear that it was an E-MAIL forwarded to me. I guess I wrongly figured the intro to the post would keep it on the lighter side.

Me-"This may have been posted-don't know, but if there can be a zillion anti Bush threads, this should be OK. It's an e-mail so if you want to argue with it, I'll forward responses to the guy that sent it to me! " No rolling eyes or red faced smilies. No serious intro...

Honestly, it wouldn't bother me one bit if you DID refer to Bush or Laura any way you desired.

On the "political discourse" point-
I think I recall a thread about how Laura MURDERED someone in a car accident??? Now that's real relevant.

I totally agree with you on your point of coming from BOTH sides of the Isle. Indeed it is.

I don't like this war either.

Laura Bush did kill someone in a car accident. I think that's relevant if we're going to attack Kerry for mundane things, like marrying a rich woman or looking "Scary."

[The1calledTKE]

LOL sorry justamom. I just made a comment because everyone seems to have a comment about liberal propaganda.

[Lil' Hannah]

Originally posted by justamom
There was more important stuff going on??? OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH yeah...MONICA!

Remind me again, how many lives were lost during Monicagate?

[justamom]

The1calledTKE, I bet YOU can see the subtle humor of this situation!


GP-
Point-Kerry is rather handsome, it's his political acrobats and policies that are scary to ME.

Since you really seem to want to make this into something bigger than it was-like a mountain out of a mole hill, I will offer my profound apology for being incredibly insensitive to you and ALL those I have offended. I will get down on my knees and ask nay, beg for forgiveness from the great GC mods. Now, since this was such an outrageous display on my part, can this horrific thread please be deleted before irreparable harm is done? I could not bear thinking I had inflicted damage upon unsuspecting readers.

AND, you know what GP, I promise I won't make one more post. So, like when I was a kid, you post next and that way, you can have the "last word".

This is the most ridiculous exchange I've ever had on GC.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by justamom
The1calledTKE, I bet YOU can see the subtle humor of this situation!


GP-
Point-Kerry is rather handsome, it's his political acrobats and policies that are scary to ME.

Since you really seem to want to make this into something bigger than it was-like a mountain out of a mole hill, I will offer my profound apology for being incredibly insensitive to you and ALL those I have offended. I will get down on my knees and ask nay, beg for forgiveness from the great GC mods. Now, since this was such an outrageous display on my part, can this horrific thread please be deleted before irreparable harm is done? I could not bear thinking I had inflicted damage upon unsuspecting readers.

AND, you know what GP, I promise I won't make one more post. So, like when I was a kid, you post next and that way, you can have the "last word".

This is the most ridiculous exchange I've ever had on GC.

I'm not a moderator of this forum, nor have I ever been, nor do I ever want to be. I personally think that DeltAlum and KillarneyRose should be the only moderators on GC's more heated forums. I co-moderate my little piece of land in the Gamma sectionand that's it.

I just want to get all the facts out there. If you want to criticize Kerry, go ahead. I just think there's criticisms for Bush that should be aired too. Do I have a lot to say about this? Of course. It's my field of study, what I plan to do with my life. If I didn't have opinions in this area I'd be better suited studying mathematics or finance. There's a reason I'm not.

[Kevin]

I'm just going to attack one thing that seems to encompass a lot of what is being discussed on this thread:

Troop morale -- how it really is vs. how it is reported in the media.

I did a google search for "Troop Morale". What I came up with was MANY hits that contained the same headline. "Troop Morale Hits Rock Bottom". Strange. So I decided to check it out.

The poll that the "Low Morale" story was based off of surveyed 2000 troops (a decent sample, however, no info was given as to where they were deployed, except the Iraq theater). The results of the survey said that the troops rated their morale in the following ways:

34% low OR very low
39% average
27% high or very high

The way I read it is that 66% of the troops that are actually deployed are average to high. I would HARDLY call that "Rock Bottom" as many of these headlines have.

(Just do the google search and you'll see what I mean)

***

I then plugged in "High Troop Morale" and came accross a very interesting survey.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/0...ion_iraqi.html

While the sample may be slightly less reliable (only taken of 389 troops, it may be more representative of our actual troops on the ground because it takes into account the actual location in the theater because they were stationed in either Iraq, Qatar or Kuwait (42% were in central Iraq/Baghdad). This survey made some interesting correlations. One thing that stood out was that their findings were not much different than what we found in WWII which was anything but a quagmire.

The results are also broken down into categories, and I don't feel like averaging the categories out, but let me just say that combining the category that responded the most negatively to the question: "How do you feel about the decision to deploy US forces in Iraq?" -- these were reservists mind you, combining the disagree/strongly disagree categories, you have only 21%.

Another interesting response was to the question "How do you think Iraq is compared to how it was before?" The group that responded the most in the negative (Active duty) had a whopping 13% say that it was worse off -- 62% said better off.

The rest of the survey goes in much the same way -- the troops overwhelmingly seem to believe in what they're doing. A few don't, but when the numbers are similar to what we found in WWII, I have to say that what some of them are feeling is just a natural reaction to being somewhere besides home -- it may have little/nothing to do with what they're actually seeing on a daily basis.

I don't know, who should I trust? The media? Or the troops that are actually on the ground? The folks that make up VERY misleading headlines? Or the people who are over there trying to stabilize the region?

I tend to side with the majority of the troops on this one. What we're doing over there is a good thing.

Originally posted by GeekyPenguin
I just want to get all the facts out there. If you want to criticize Kerry, go ahead. I just think there's criticisms for Bush that should be aired too.

If you take your statement, and switch the words Kerry and Bush, I think you'll get to what JAM is saying. There's 5 million and 3 threads out there criticizing Bush, mocking him, etc. Is it so wrong for there to be one doing the same about Kerry?