"the_blogologist" <nobody@nowheres.com> wrote in message
news:1hy0xtq.gcufl1mp31rfN%nobody@nowheres.com...

WF Peifer <WFPeifer@NoSpam.com> wrote:

"the_blogologist" <nobody@nowheres.com> wrote in message
news:1hy0dyh.1tjvdep1nu8q34N%nobody@nowheres.com...

WAR!! WAR!! DEMOCRATS AND WAAAAR!!!!
(the DRAFT included!!)

World War I - 1917 - 116,708 KIA - Woodrow Wilson - Democrat

In defense of our country, only after the Germans sank several of our

ships,

The US pretty much entered into this war after the Germans sunk the RMS
Lusitania, which the Germans claimed was carrying munitions which the US
denied. The Lusitania has since been found and explored and found to
infact been loaded with munitions. Thank you Woodrow Wilson for that
unjustified war which set the stage for World War II, Mr. DEMOCRAT.

Since the Lusitania went down on May 7, 1915 and the U.S. didn't enter the
war until April 6, 1917. One month shy of two years later. That makes it
pretty hard to pin our entry into the war on the sinking of Lusitania. That
sinking was only one in a series of events that led to our involvement. As
I noted in my previous post, Pancho Villa's attack on Columbus and the
so-called "Zimmerman Telegram" were far more responsible. And both were
direct threats to our domestic security.

By the way, to say that the Lusitania was "loaded with munitions" when she
sank is a bit of an exaggeration. She was carrying "a small amount of small
arms ammunition".

Regardless of what she was carrying, according to
international law the Germans would be allowed to sink the ship only after
guaranteeing the safety of all the passengers.

the Mexicans invaded Columbus, NM and a pact is disclosed between

Germany

and Mexico that would call for Germany to support a Mexican invasion to
capture much of the Southwest U.S.

Score one for the Democrats, defenders of our nation! Had Dumbya been

in

office at the time, he would have likely invaded Canada.

World War II - 1941 - 408,306 -KIA Franklin D. Roosevelt -

Democrat

In defense of our country, only after the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor,

and

Germany and Italy declare war on the U.S.

Hitler saw the US as a paper tiger, because we simply didn't have much
in the way of a military. We went to war with Germany because we had a
weak military. Had Reagan been president, we'd have had a strong
military and Hitler wouldn't dare attack France.

Bzzzzt! Wrong. While it's true we didn't have much of a military prior to
WWII, but that was not Rosevelt's fault. He was hamstrung by isolationists
. . . mostly Republican isolationists . . . every time he tried to beef up
our military beyond the pathetic level Hoover allowed it to drop to. And if
Reagan had been President then, he would have ordered defense contractors to
start building weapons that were technologically impossible in the '30s and
'40s, just as he spent the '80s insisting we build weapons that are ALMOST .
. . but not quite . . . technologically possible today, some 20 years after
Reagan's term.

Score another one for the Democrats, defenders of our nation! Had

Dumbya

been in office at the time, he would have likely invaded Canada again.

Korean War - 1950 - 54,246 KIA - Harry S. Truman - Democrat

In response to a plea for help from South Korea and the U.N., in

accordance

with a treaty that carried the full force of the Constitution itself,

after

S. Korea is overrun by N. Korea and the Chinese.

Had Bush Sr. and Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. been his chief general we'd
have cleaned their clocks.

Uh, we DID clean their clocks! We lost a little less than 37,000 (I have no
idea where you came up with that 54,246 number, but it doesn't come close to
matching up with what the National Archives say) compared to combined North
Korean and Chinese losses of over 714,000. When you kill nearly 20 times as
many of their guys as you lose, that's cleaning their clocks. They invaded
and were driven back. Truman wanted to finish the job, but like Bush Sr.
and Norman Schwarzkopf decades later, he didn't have the public support to
do so.

Score another one for the Democrats, defenders of our friends and

supporters

of the concept of world peace! Had Dumbya been in office at the time,

he

would have likely invaded the Bahamas.

Dream on.

Why not? It makes as much sense as invading Iraq as a response to something
a handful of Saudis, who were based in Afghanistan, did to us.

Vietnam War - 1965 - 58,159 KIA - Lyndon B. Johnson - Democrat

A war that we actually officially became invovled in on October 24,

1954.

At the urging of then-VP Nixon, Eisenhower pledged support to Ngo Dinh
Diem's dictatorship, ensuring success of Diem's plan to call off the
treaty-mandated elections that would have removed him from power.

Vietnam

began under a Republican, and ended under a Republican. While there

were

Democrats in the White House for 8 of the 18 years we were involved in
Vietnam, it was also Democrats in Congress and young Democrats in the
streets that led the way in getting us out.

It only esculated and became a disaster under a enept Democrat (LBJ).

While it's true that it escalated under Kennedy, and escalated much further
under Johnson, the fact remains that they were only honoring treaty
commitments made by a Republican predecessor.

And, unlike the Democrats, I
don't think there was a single anti-war Republican on the record until Mark
Hatfield came along in 1970.

In fact, most Republicans endorsed escalation
of the war well beyond what Johnson wanted,

including Goldwater's concept
for winning the war: "Let's lob one into the men's room at the Kremlin."

Score one for the Republicans, backers of dictators over democratically
elected governments!

JFK actually signed the order to pull all US troops out of vietnam. He
was assisinated within 2 weeks and LBJ was sworn in and reversed the
order within 48 hours of JFK's assissination. Democrats eat their own.

Had Dumbya been in office at the time, he would have
likely dropped a nuclear weapon on Hanoi, which have surely prompted a
response from the Russians.

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6545/vietnamwarstats8zn.jpg

Why does your graph start at 1966, instead of 1959, when the first U.S.
servicemen died in a VC raid on their billets in Bien Hoa? Are you

saying

that the GIs that died there during the first 6 1/2 years of the war are
somehow unworthy of your consideration?

Fill in the blanks if you can.

Why bother? You're only concerned with numbers that can be twisted and
turned to paint Democrats in a bad light . . . not in objective thinking.

On May 13, 5:09 pm,

SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 12, 8:10 pm,

J Carroll <jcarr...@machiningsolution.com> wrote:

the_blogologist wrote:

KARL ROVE: TRAITOR & LIAR (Jake WK) <jakey...@gimmejake.com>

wrote:

On Fri, 11 May 2007 19:36:21 -0700,

A Veteran <geor...@humboldt1.com> wrote:

who loves the "Commanding" Decider?

The "I am the decider!" statement came out of Bush's response to
some reporter trying to tell him what to do. Thanks for repeating
corporate media misinformation.

Liar. No reporter tried to tell him what to do when he made that
statement.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/18/rumsfeld/

Pressed to respond to critics who say he is ignoring the advice of
respected former military commanders, Bush vigorously stood by
Rumsfeld.

You're micing words. They were in fact trying to tell him what

No they weren't. They were telling him what he was doing was stupid.

Which is a way of telling him what he should do.

They were right but none of that supports the argument that goober's
statement was forced from him by a reporter.
It wasn't. It was forced from him by reality and circumstance.

Rumsfeld's plan pasified Afghanistan with only about 5% of the forces
the Army asked for in a country of about 25 million. If he were under a
democrat adminstration they'd be calling him a hero.

I take "pasified" means something like "*****"?

Because, Afghanistan sure as hell isn't pacified, and only a
delusional rightard would claim it was.

I think we won.

I'm sure you do.

But then...

You're a rightard.

You probably think we won in Iraq also...

Is that a better discription?

Depends.

Does "better" include having something to do with reality?

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your rightard mythos below..

It's just too... Delusional... For a cogent response.

But i guess when soldiers die in mass for a DEMOCRAT commander in chief
it is a great, hard fought victory, but when they die in far less
numbers for a REPUBLICAN commander in chief it is a tragic injustice.

BIG WARS won by Republicans:

The Cold War

The Gulf War

Let all flaming left wing hyprocrites down play those, please, all
together now..... translation ---- ((you are *****))

WAR!! WAR!! DEMOCRATS AND WAAAAR!!!!
(the DRAFT included!!)

World War I - 1917 - 116,708 KIA - Woodrow Wilson - Democrat
World War II - 1941 - 408,306 -KIA Franklin D. Roosevelt - Democrat
Korean War - 1950 - 54,246 KIA - Harry S. Truman - Democrat
Vietnam War - 1965 - 58,159 KIA - Lyndon B. Johnson - Democrat

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/6545/vietnamwarstats8zn.jpg
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -