Confusion over Rats argument over Iraq.

2/08/2004 | BigLittle

[BigLittle]

I was triggered this morning, after watching a news blurb on Kerry, standing and delivering his BS, to look into the past century and see what wars and casualties America had endured. I surprised myself, with the statistics of who was in office at the time of each major conflict, and the casualties suffered.

World War I Woodrow Wilson Democrat 116,708 killed

World War II FDR Democrat 408,306 killed

Total Dems in charge 20th Century war deaths = 637,479

Korean Conflict Truman Democrarat 54,246 killed

Viet Nam JFK / LBJ Democrats 58,219 killed

Once again, pay attention to them, as the loudest shouts they make seem to be about what they are most guilty of.

[IVote2]

Interesting statistics indeed. Thanks for changing my perspective this morning.

Jen

[MegaSilver]

Very very interesting.

[Enterprise]

Excellent observations.

[LovinFlorida]

A list of all conflicts while a Republican was in charge would be just as interesting. Prob fewer than 1000 casualties total. Maybe they did it right?

[norton]

"The party of peace"?

This has always been a glaring little tidbit of recent history - that almost never gets considered or even mentioned.

[Godfollow]

Sometimes you wonder if the White House is even paying attention...

[Just mythoughts]

Confusion is their method of operation! MUDDY THE WATER!

JFKerry knows who he served after the Vietnam War and that is what he knows will take the wind out of his "HERO" "SAVIOUR of 1 Republican" sails.

Not flattering pictures of the "WAR" hero.

[ChadGore]

KerryNotASoldier_1.jpg
KerryNotASoldier_2.jpg(61K)
KerryNotASoldier_3.jpg(60K)
KerryNotASoldier_4.jpg(60K)
KerryNotASoldier_4.jpg(59K)

In 1971 George W. Bush was wearing the uniform with pride, serving his country, and supporting the troops.

In that same year, 1971, Kerry was desecrating our flag, called our troops baby killers, and was openly siding with our enemy.

[RandallFlagg]

HAAA!!!! Thanks for this. Yet another way to get them to admit that their stance is insignificant and their arguments are feeble. You wouldn't happen to have a source, would ya? (You just KNOW they'll ask for one)

[hometoroost]

"A list of all conflicts while a Republican was in charge would be just as interesting. Prob fewer than 1000 casualties total. Maybe they did it right?"

Republicans held the White House during the U.S. Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression for my southern friends) - a lot of casualties there. Nixon was in the White House for a large chunk of the VietNam war although JFK clearly created the hot part of the conflict. Bush I had the Gulf War (with very limited casualties) and Reagan fought a few skirmishes as well.

I don't think casualties are the real issue. The difference in the Democrats then and now is that the current group opposes any use of our military where it could in any way, shape or form protect American interests or make this a safer place to live. At one time I think a large part of the Democratic Party actually loved America - I don't think that's true anymore.

[areafiftyone]

Maybe these statistics should be e-mailed to all the liberal cable newshows (not like they would even mention them).

[rllngrk33]

Once again, pay attention to them, as the loudest shouts they make seem to be about what they are most guilty of.

I agree.

p.s. see tagline

[dmzTahoe]

The Democrats are complaining on how long the war is taking but consider this:

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

It took less time to find Saddam's sons in Iraq 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 Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sunk at Chappaquiddick.

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

Damn our military is GREAT

[debg]

Would you be so kind as to cite the source(s). I'd like to use this info to rebut. tia

[lainde]

facts are a stubborn thing. I think more people have been killed in los Angeles during the comparable period in Iraq.

[free republican76]

Sorry, but I think like that we shoot in our own foot. No one questions that it was right to free Europe from Hitler. The war had already started, while many democrates say Iraq was no direct threat. They would start and take this as evidence that they are no pacifists and know when they have to send out the soldiers. Just start with Vietnam, that works better.

[free republican76]

How many people get killed monthly in Los Angeles? Are you a Michael Moore supporter?

[free republican76]

Ever heard of the My Lai incident? Be more careful not to mention things that can be turned against you.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/M/MyL1aiinc.asp
"In the course of combat operations, unarmed civilians, including women and children, were shot to death (the final army estimate for the number killed was 347). The incident remained unknown to the American public until the autumn of 1969, when a series of letters by a former soldier to government officials forced the army to take action. Several soldiers and veterans were charged with murder, and a number of officers were accused of dereliction of duty for covering up the incident. Special investigations by the U.S. army and the House of Representatives concluded that a massacre had in fact taken place."

[camas]

one more thing these wars started after the rat was reelected to the white house.