Lando 
Posted on 01/23/2004 12:24:00 AM PST by JohnHuang2
They like Bush, and they are not stupid
Most Americans still think Bush did the right thing in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, writes Caroline Overington. There is going to be a presidential election in the United States in November and George Bush is going to win. President Bush's approval rating is around 60 per cent. That's comparable with Ronald Reagan in 1984, who redefined the term "landslide" when he won 49 of the 50 states. Naturally, this makes some people crazy. How can Americans vote for a guy who went to war over weapons of mass destruction that did not exist? First, the US economy is growing at an estimated 5 per cent a year. Interest rates are low. Bush's tax cuts are in people's pockets, and they are spending happily. Second, Americans like Bush. They see him as patriotic, family-centred and self-disciplined. He is also teetotal, conservative, and Christian. He supports marriage, and opposes abortion and homosexual marriage. There are people who think this makes him a bit old-fashioned but millions of Americans like old-fashioned values. Most Americans also support Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq. They are not stupid. They know that the so-called intelligence about Saddam Hussein was wrong. Despite this, 67 per cent still believe the US did the right thing. Because I live in New York, I rarely get to hear the voice of this majority. Instead, I get magazines such as Vanity Fair, which last month had a column by the editor angrily listing statistics from the war in Iraq. Such as: number of American soldiers killed: 500. Number of weapons of mass destruction found: 0. But, as some readers pointed out, there were statistics missing from the list. These include: number of mass graves uncovered in Iraq: around 260, containing as many as 20,000 bodies. Number of people liberated from brutal, murderous leadership: 12 million. And number of times Bush lied about receiving oral sex from a White House intern: 0. The Iraq war has cost the lives of about 500 American soldiers. Some would have you believe that this makes Iraq a quagmire. But the truth is, if Western nations have come to the point where 500 deaths is an unbearable war-time loss, then we should also say we are no longer prepared to fight wars, because about the same number of soldiers die every year, in peacetime. Americans are not casual about casualties. Each and every one of the lives lost was precious to them. I remember sitting on a small plane, travelling from North Carolina to New York, when the war was a few weeks old. I was reading USA Today and, as I opened it to study a map of Iraq, one half of the newspaper fell into the lap of my fellow passenger. I turned to apologise, but he said: "No problem. Actually, do you mind if I have a look?" Together we studied the picture, trying to work out how far the Americans were from seizing power. It was clear from the diagrams that troops were near Saddam's airport, and close to the centre of Baghdad. I turned to my seat mate and said: "I don't think this is going to be a long battle, after all." It was only then that I noticed, with horror, that he had started to cry. And then I noticed something else: a photograph, wrapped in plastic, pinned to his lapel. It was a picture of his 20-year-old son, a young marine who died in the first days of the war. The man's wife was sitting across the aisle from us. She had a round bowl on her lap, filled with water and some drooping tulips. The movement of the aircraft was making the water slop around. She was trying to wipe her hands, and her tears. The couple told me they had just been to a private meeting with Bush to discuss the loss of their son. At the time, it was already clear that Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. "But I never thought it was about the weapons," my seat mate said. And, although I can't remember his exact words, he also said something like: "We have always stood up for freedom, in our own country, and for other people." Any student of history knows that this is true. America saved the Western world from communism. America saved Australia and, for that matter, France from a system that would stop you from reading this newspaper. Americans support the war in Iraq and, by extension, Bush because they see it as part of a bigger picture. Like everybody, they now know that Saddam was not the threat they thought he was (at least, not to them) but they still think it was a good idea to deal with him, before he became one. The price of freedom is high. You might think you would not sacrifice your life for it, but maybe you don't have to. After all, 20-year-old Americans are doing it for you, every day. Caroline Overington is New York correspondent for The Age.
This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/20/1074360761144.html
January 21, 2004
I believe the killing rate during WWII for American servicemen was 7,000 per week.
I had a boss awhile back who was an Aussie, loved talking about Godzone with him.
I've even eaten damper (hey, after grits, it was nuthin'!)
Lando
The average rate for all combatants during the first world war was about 6,000 deaths per day. Those were mostly military personnel. The bad thing about the second war was not only a larger total, but the majority were civilians. The Russkies lost, what, 20,000,000 civilians alone? They really took a hit...
This also bears repeating.........with this addendum.......
The only REAL values Americans have are 'old-fashioned' values.
I'll take old-fashioned values any day
The President has handled the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks with courage, determination and moral clarity. He's done a remarkable job in the prosecuting the war on terrorism and his all around efforts to secure, protect and defend the American people have been highly successful. He has taken the fight to the terrorists in their own homeland and he has waged war in the name of freedom and liberty. For all that, the President deserves the support of all American's.
On domestic economic issues, Bush hasn't controlled federal spending to the satisfaction of many fiscal conservatives and his recent immigration reform proposals are deadwrong. But when I view the alternative choices, there's no doubt who gets my vote on election day 2004. The Bush tax cuts have stimulated earnings, investment and savings, significantly expanding economic growth. America is back on track.
I don't want to see any of the liberal Democrats running today --- Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Clark --- sitting in the Oval Office attempting to prosecute the WoT, as they raise taxes to increase spending for more and larger social welfare and entitlement programs.
All in all, the President deserves another term in office.
But, but, the President doesn't CARE about the families of the troops. He hasn't gone to one funeral. He hasn't met with the families. He has the blood of 500 soliders on his hands . . . . < /s>
Grits are what you do with the big ears of coarse maize or Indian corn ('mule corn' as in only fit for mules to eat) to make it fit for human consumption.
First, you take the dried corn kernels off the cob. Then you take a can of Red Devil Lye and mix it with enough water to cover your dried and shelled corn. Soak it for 2-3 days in the back yard until the skins split and the little nib (the point of the kernel) comes off. Next, RINSE, RINSE, RINSE that corn until you're sure all the lye is rinsed out along with the skins. Then rinse it again to be sure (if you're a city slicker, get out your Ph paper . . . :-D ) Spread it out on old bedsheets or butcher paper to dry.
Now you have hominy, the little heart or germ cell of the corn kernels. If you grind it fine, it will become corn meal. If you grind it coarse, it will be grits.
Once ground, you can boil it in about the same amount of water you'd use for rice, until it is tender and the consistency of a thick (but very grainy) sauce. Serve with butter or redeye gravy. The only way I can stand it is with lots of butter and cheese cooked in.
I'm afraid grits are an acquired taste, like oysters. (I don't like oysters either.)
With more that 100,000 troops the deaths are .005% less than deaths due to training accidents during non battle years.
Have you given any serious thought to what this statement says? Think about it.
This is a 'feelgood post' of the kind that abounded throughout the Vietnam War right up to the total collapse of the U.S. commitment and the fall of South Vietnam, e.g.,
Also it is better and ask ANY SOLDIER, to fight the killers in Iraq than on the streets in America.
Just substitute Vietnam for Iraq in this sentence and the sentiment could have been engraved on LBJ's tombstone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.