Thread: What Senator John Glenn Said

Good Read!

Originally Posted by dg806

WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID :

Things that make you 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.

Ridiculous analogy—it breaks down immediately—comparing the unnecessary deaths as a result of an illegal invasion w/ customary homicide rates of a large city might fly with those listening to the EIB but not in real life. See, those deaths in Iraq aren’t that bad, why it happens all the time in the US. Nauseating.

Originally Posted by dg806

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..

These statements present examples so dissimilar (not to mention factually inaccurate) from the Iraq invasion that the only commonality is the US armed forces. World War II and Iraq? Right. Germany declared war on the US after the Pearl Harbor attack. Germany had a nonaggression pact w/ its ally Japan.

Korea: The lives weren’t lost, they were taken brutally. Truman initiated the police action under UN authority. Bush’s invasion of Iraq flouted UN consent.

Viet Nam: Eisenhower started opposition to the Geneva Accords and Kennedy buttressed that position by sending more advisors and military/economic aid to Viet Nam.

Johnson really fucked up by continuing a horrible foreign war. Bush started the Iraq invasion.

Clinton’s bombing of Bosnia was a US led NATO mission and one I also did not agree with. Please stop w/ the Bin Laden Head on a Platter stories. It is pure propaganda and embarrassing.

As for entry g., I won’t quibble about pie-in-the sky spin.

Originally Posted by dg806

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.

The Branch Davidian attack was a brutal unconstitutional use of gov. force. There should have been many criminal indictments.

Clinton and Rose Law firm—irrelevant.

The rest of the list is more nonsense that plays to ideologues. Bush is not a competent president. If this tour-de-force posting of yours is the best you got, the media may be right. No offense.

Sounds like he's right on every point. The media is biased!

Your talking about a guy who flew 149 combat missions in both WW-ll and Korea. AND won 6 Distinguished Flying Crosses. AND after all that volunteered to ride rockets into space.

Think he's earned the right to have an opinion?........Uncle Rich

Originally Posted by Rich46yo

Sounds like he's right on every point. The media is biased!

Your talking about a guy who flew 149 combat missions in both WW-ll and Korea. AND won 6 Distinguished Flying Crosses. AND after all that volunteered to ride rockets into space.

Think he's earned the right to have an opinion?........Uncle Rich

No, if Glenn did draw these historical comparisons, he is dead wrong.
Please refute the points I make. He is inept with his use of historical comparisons and I am not.

I find it hard to believe he made those historical comments attributed to him. If so, then he has fallen far.

In this nation, you don't "earn" the right to an opinion by flying combat missions - if that was the case, nearly every member of the current Administration would have their mouths gagged and be forbidden from ever opening them.

This endless nonsense of flagwaving to coverup our bureaucratic fuckups is about the lowest display of all of the reasons this nations continues its downward spiral despite having the chickenhawk party in control. The military's first and foremost responsibility is to protect the citizens of the United States - yet they sat off the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of one of the worst natural disasters in our history twiddling their thumbs while waiting for a President to finish eating a piece of cake. When tiny nations like El Salvador can offer their own troops to help an American city before our own federal government can muster assistance, it is rather difficult to believe that we are going to quickly subdue an insurrection in an invaded country overseas.

For all the touting of the GOP support for our troops, their families are STILL buying extra equipment and body armor for our own soldiers and the Pentagon is still dragging its feet on reimbursing them. If you want to glorify the military, give them the best equipment.

Republicans are all about lip service to symbolism. . .and have shown little substance when the crap hits the fan. Their entire governing philosophy is to never take responsibility for anything that goes wrong, never admit making a mistake, and a shameless attitude of claiming anyone who offers a criticism is suddenly unpatriotic. Glorifying a system that involves dictation of orders is more symptomatic of the Right's love affair with forced order and discipline within society than a tribute to those who sacrifice for freedom. Why would anyone believe that the very political party that drives its agenda on the basis of restricting liberty at home would celebrate our own soldiers as defenders of that freedom?

Senator Glenn doesn't need any hero worship - his life was well taken care of by the taxpayers. Maybe we should be thanking the estimated one million gay veterans who sacrificed their own identities to defend the "freedom" the rest of us have lest they join the ranks of those who were given dishonorable discharges and no benefits for their outed service.

Originally Posted by Rich46yo

Sounds like he's right on every point. The media is biased!

Right wing translation of biased = not reproducing every Republican government press release as gospel.

Originally Posted by Decker

No, if Glenn did draw these historical comparisons, he is dead wrong.

You know what's funny, how the Angry Left feels it's OK to make comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, but not WW2.

Interesting...

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Right wing translation of biased = not reproducing every Republican government press release as gospel.

And what does the Angry Left consider unbaised? The New York Times?

hahahahahahaha...

If Decker is as smart as he portrays himself to be,,, then why is he wasting his time on IM when he obviously should have more constructive things to do?

Originally Posted by cfs3

And what does the Angry Left consider unbaised? The New York Times?

hahahahahahaha...

Originally Posted by cfs3

And what does the Angry Left consider unbaised? The New York Times?

hahahahahahaha...

CNN and MSNBC

Originally Posted by Rob_NC

If Decker is as smart as he portrays himself to be,,, then why is he wasting his time on IM when he obviously should have more constructive things to do?

Yes, he is that intelligent. He's one of the few people on IM that can carry on a good debate. I've even acquiesced on a topic or two with him.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Why don't you stop posting just dumb-ass emoticons and tell me what you think an unbiased new source is?

This should be good for a few laughs.

Originally Posted by dg806

WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID :

Things that make you 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.

All this tells me is we should be fixing ourselves before fixing other countries. Let the Arabs blow each other up.

[QUOTE=Dale Mabry][QUOTE=dg806]WHAT SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID :

Things that make you 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.

All this tells me is we should be fixing ourselves before fixing other countries. Let the Arabs blow each other up.

The Voice of Reason.

In WWII, the writing was on the wall as to Hitler's aspirations for world domination--conquering most of Europe. The US population was largely isolationist just years removed from WWI. FDR recognized that the US had to be a player in the war or risk overwhelming enemy forces down the road. So he goaded the Japanese into attacking the US by implementing an oil embargo of Japan. Hitler knew this and wasted no time in declaring war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. The whole world was up for grabs. I really don't see how the invasion of a defenseless Iraq is any way comparable to WWII.

The Viet Nam war was initiated on the premise of the Domino Theory for the spread of communism. That theory has few credible supporters anymore. But in comparing Viet Nam war w/ the Iraqi invasion, I'd say its a matter of misguided policy and inept execution that binds the two. Both military excursions were 'cold wars' fought for purposes other than defense of our country. Whatever speculations I might entertain, I think it's fair to say that the comparison btn Iraq and Viet nam is more apt than that of WWII.

Originally Posted by cfs3

The Voice of Reason.

You see, there are other intelligent people on this board. Decker hasn't offered an alternative to reality, just an explanation.

Originally Posted by cfs3

Yes, he is that intelligent. He's one of the few people on IM that can carry on a good debate. I've even acquiesced on a topic or two with him.

Thanks. I enjoy our debates immensely.

Originally Posted by Rob_NC

If Decker is as smart as he portrays himself to be,,, then why is he wasting his time on IM when he obviously should have more constructive things to do?

I find these boards to be a great diversion. I am a partner in a business, I have a wife, I play guitar, write/record/publish (try to at least) songs and I lift weights. I read about 2-3 books a week and 3-5 newspapers a day. That's alot on my plate.

And to answer your question pal, why do I do it?...I think that there are people out there intentionally misleading the public and exposing them is a worthwhile job. I love humanity, it's people that I just can't stand.

Decker, thank you for being intelligent and not making me type out long responses

That stuff Glenn said is the stupidest shit I have ever read, especially concerning WWII.

Originally Posted by cfs3

Why don't you stop posting just dumb-ass emoticons and tell me what you think an unbiased new source is?

This should be good for a few laughs.

Since you are obviously a self-appointed expert on the subject of agendasetting, gatekeeping and media ownership/influence, what could anyone possibly share about the complexities of these relationships that you already don't know?

Originally Posted by MWpro

Decker, thank you for being intelligent and not making me type out long responses

That stuff Glenn said is the stupidest shit I have ever read, especially concerning WWII.

Thank you. I still find it difficult to believe that John Glenn actually said that stuff. I mean a cursory search of the assertions he avers shows that he's pulling these 'facts' straight out of the Department of His Ass. (I don't know where I heard that joke).

Originally Posted by Decker

In WWII, the writing was on the wall as to Hitler's aspirations for world domination--conquering most of Europe. The US population was largely isolationist just years removed from WWI. FDR recognized that the US had to be a player in the war or risk overwhelming enemy forces down the road. So he goaded the Japanese into attacking the US by implementing an oil embargo of Japan. Hitler knew this and wasted no time in declaring war on the US after the US declared war on Japan. The whole world was up for grabs. I really don't see how the invasion of a defenseless Iraq is any way comparable to WWII.

The Viet Nam war was initiated on the premise of the Domino Theory for the spread of communism. That theory has few credible supporters anymore. But in comparing Viet Nam war w/ the Iraqi invasion, I'd say its a matter of misguided policy and inept execution that binds the two. Both military excursions were 'cold wars' fought for purposes other than defense of our country. Whatever speculations I might entertain, I think it's fair to say that the comparison btn Iraq and Viet nam is more apt than that of WWII.

Exactly. And when Republicans attempt to make this WWII comparison, they always seem to forget how strongly the Party campaigned on an isolationist platform.

In VietNam, we attempted to use our paranoia over containment of communism to fill the void left by the French defeat in IndoChina - something that could have been avoided when Ho Chi Minh appealed to the United States to support their independence movement from the French at the end of World War II. Unfortunately, we had already promised France the return of their colony. That drove Ho toward the Communist camp following the War.

Then we basically deserted the French during the independence war for Indochina, though we sent them supplies and some armaments. Eisenhower ruled out direct U.S. military intervention to save France and refused requests to use the atomic bomb to rescue them.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Since you are obviously a self-appointed expert on the subject of agendasetting, gatekeeping and media ownership/influence, what could anyone possibly share about the complexities of these relationships that you already don't know?

Nice dodge...wait, no it was pretty lame. Do you honest think that there is even one major new source that doesn't put the quest for the almighty buck first? Even at the cost of integrity? Not to mention political agendas.

Hell, Reuters had a piece on how the traffic of drugs into the US was on the rise despite an increased effort to stop it. The story broke to down to the fact that the US border patrol has stepped up searches and that the number of arrests had jumped nearly 50%, thus indicating that drug trafficking into the US had jumped 50% even though the border patrol had stepped up searches.

This is unbiased news? Who knows, maybe it is unbiased and they're just fucking idiots.

The media is biased when they don't agree with a person's own beliefs.

The GOP was bitching about the liberal media about the coverage of the war and the Dems kept quiet. Then, the media shows a Pro-war demonstration and the liberals get all pissed about the biased media and the GOP clams up.

People, the media is biased, but not to a political affiliation, they are biased towards printing interesting stuff. A pro war demonstration is rare, that is why they printed it. Who cares if 100,000 people showed up to an anti-war demonstration, that shit happens every day. If you are going to publish something every time an anti-war protest goes on, you might as well publish the sky is blue every day. It doesn't matter that there were only a few hundred in attendance, the fact that they had vets of the war backing it is interesting stuff.

Now the coverage of the war, well, that war was just one big fuck up anyway so you would expect negative coverage.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

The media is biased when they don't agree with a person's own beliefs.

Simply put Dale, there are no unbiased major new source. Period.

Political views (group or national) and the quest for money have tainted them all.

Great post...it shows us that both party's have involved this potentially great Country in illegal and immoral wars....the only exceptions being WW1 and WW2 which were both wars we had to join.

Originally Posted by cfs3

Nice dodge...wait, no it was pretty lame. Do you honest think that there is even one major new source that doesn't put the quest for the almighty buck first? Even at the cost of integrity? Not to mention political agendas.

Hell, Reuters had a piece on how the traffic of drugs into the US was on the rise despite an increased effort to stop it. The story broke to down to the fact that the US border patrol has stepped up searches and that the number of arrests had jumped nearly 50%, thus indicating that drug trafficking into the US had jumped 50% even though the border patrol had stepped up searches.

This is unbiased news? Who knows, maybe it is unbiased and they're just fucking idiots.

There's nothing to dodge. What is lame is your inability to really produce anything other than your own untrained analysis which typically reflects the right wing's inability to accept responsibility for their own interpretation of information.