John Glenn said this....

[Saxman]

Let's examine this...

FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year.

As stated, Germany declared war on the US AFTER Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. I don't think this needs any further discussion.

Truman (DEMOCRAT) 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.

North Korea invaded South Korea first. The UN on the whole voted to intervene.

John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Actually, the French started it in the mid-1950s.

Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.

And Nixon (Republican) abandoned the South when the North was on the verge of calling it quits. Subsequently, a re-invigorated north walked all over South Vietnam.

Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.

Actually, I'm pretty sure this WAS a UN action. Not a popular one, but a UN action nonetheless

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. And the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.

Never mind the fact that under FDR and Truman's watch the US was the foremost industrial provider of military aid to the Allies in all theaters (lend-lease) and were key participants in the liberation of Western Europe and much of the Pacific.

But Wait, There's more.

 It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno (DEMOCRAT) 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 (DEMOCRAT) 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!!!

  The Military morale is high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

And as if the REST of this statement isn't just a bunch of half-truths IF ANY and blind Liberal-bashing, we have this. Most of which is irrelevant to the arguments being made or even a valid COMPARISON. This goes BEYOND apples and oranges.

I'd like the two parties to stop whining and wagging fingers at what the OTHER side is doing and start thinking long and hard about what THEY'RE doing.

[Angus]

Well, you had the democrats lead you through WW2 and the losses were as they were. FDR was a Democrat, and he was fighting against odds to aid the Brits in the campaign against Nazism.
BTW, the British were engaged in the Pacific war a little before the USA.,....timezone issue.
The first shots fired in anger in the Pacific war were not at Pearl...

And as for Vietnam....CC, the USA was "involved" before 1960. It really started with the French, and I think the roots went down to 1955/1956, but that's out of memory so take it with a grain of salt.

I am disappointed with Glenn, for the list consists of selected data, starting with FDR, and the thesis you might build out of it will not hold too well....

[crockett]

Iraq invaded our ally Kuwait. Iraq surrendered unconditionally. Iraq refused to abide by the terms of surrender we set. I need to copy this so I can paste it everytime this comes up.

What does Iraq have to do with Germany and Hitler? I didn't say anything about Iraq..

[AKIron]

What does Iraq have to do with Germany and Hitler?

The argument seemed to be that while Hitler didn't attack the US, he did attack our allies. These argue that Saddam did not attack the US. My argument is that he did attack our ally.

[crockett]

The argument seemed to be that while Hitler didn't attack the US, he did attack our allies. These argue that Saddam did not attack the US. My argument is that he did attack our ally.

You apparently didn't read past the first 5 words, if that's what you think I said.

[AKIron]

You apparently didn't read past the first 5 words, if that's what you think I said.

Which first 5 words? These?

John Glenn (DEMOCRAT) said this

<edit>

I was addressing a broader rebuttal, not your specific post though I fail to see how there is not a direct correlation between Saddam and Adolf.

[Angus]

Adolf had his u-boats sinking US ships before declairing war. And he had the swift nuts to hold his deal to Japan and declairing war on the USA, while Japan was not at war with Hitler's enemy, the UK. So this deal baffles me, was it a one-way deal or what?
Blocks of power with shifting military-alliance deals = wars short ahead.
IMHO WAR=BAD BAD BAD, unless you read about some chips of it in a comfy place 50 years later..........at most

[Maverick]

Some of them bailed before the fire started, not after. If you have conflicting facts please enlighten me.

Be more specific, which of those listed is not true? I'm willing to discuss it.

Here is the link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege

"At around noon, three fires started almost simultaneously in different parts of the building. Even then, as the fire spread, only nine people left the building.[17]"

Yes it's wiki but at the same time it also matches what I saw when watching the video quite some time ago. There was footage of them bailing out of the building during the fire.

As for other items in the original post that were shall we say, less than accurate either by ommission or implication, Saxman covered most of them pretty well. I disagree with him regarding Nixon abandoning the South Viets, that was congress doing that. Nixon got them to the table and had an end to the fighting. Congress refused to allow the US to go back, not Nixon. As to whether that was the right thing to do, better minds and time will have to deternmine that. So far it seems to have turned out OK.

[AKIron]

Here is the link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege

"At around noon, three fires started almost simultaneously in different parts of the building. Even then, as the fire spread, only nine people left the building.[17]"

Yes it's wiki but at the same time it also matches what I saw when watching the video quite some time ago. There was footage of them bailing out of the building during the fire.

As for other items in the original post that were shall we say, less than accurate either by ommission or implication, Saxman covered most of them pretty well. I disagree with him regarding Nixon abandoning the South Viets, that was congress doing that. Nixon got them to the table and had an end to the fighting. Congress refused to allow the US to go back, not Nixon. As to whether that was the right thing to do, better minds and time will have to deternmine that. So far it seems to have turned out OK.

I knew some got out but I didn't know it was after the fire was started. Perhaps I was wrong in my belief about that, I reserve the right to reassess upon finding a more authoritative source. Without knowing what you object to in the original post how can I argue?

[lasersailor184]

Well, you had the democrats lead you through WW2 and the losses were as they were. FDR was a Democrat, and he was fighting against odds to aid the Brits in the campaign against Nazism.
BTW, the British were engaged in the Pacific war a little before the USA.,....timezone issue.
The first shots fired in anger in the Pacific war were not at Pearl...

And as for Vietnam....CC, the USA was "involved" before 1960. It really started with the French, and I think the roots went down to 1955/1956, but that's out of memory so take it with a grain of salt.

I am disappointed with Glenn, for the list consists of selected data, starting with FDR, and the thesis you might build out of it will not hold too well....

First, FDR was a fascist.  His ideals were exactly the same as Hitler and Mussolini, (minus the jew killing, as I've stated before).

Next, the brits were helping India in their attempts to fight Japan before USA got involved.

The French Conflict was quite different from the American Conflict with vietnam.  Vietnam was fighting with the French for total independence.  America was fighting with North Vietnam for south vietnam's freedom from communism.  Both wars were botched.

[midnight Target]

you're an idiot if you think 150,000 people have died in the war in Iraq. The offical count this time last year was 80,000 estimated at most

I dont think 70,000 people have died in this past year.

Children today.. so precocious, so ill informed.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/conflicts/iraq_handover/numbers_game_revisited

The final analysis and computation compensated for a series of possible biases - such as the under-reporting of deaths because people have moved away from households and relocated across them, the impossibility of visiting some households for security reason, and the effects of migration of Iraqis to neighbouring countries. Although adequately controlled, these biases are still present, and this makes the final estimate of "151,000" the one that is, for that survey, the closest to the true toll. The survey released by the New England Journal of Medicine, therefore, concludes that between 104,000 and 220,000 people died in Iraq during the three years after the coalition forces invaded Iraq in March 2003, with the highest probability that the true number is 151,000.

[Holden McGroin]

Also do not forget that Clinton/Reno exterminated 44+ by chemical weapons (hydrogen cyanide).

Hydrogen cyanide is a chemical compound with chemical formula HCN. A solution of hydrogen cyanide in water is called hydrocyanic acid. Hydrogen cyanide is a colorless, very poisonous, and highly volatile liquid that boils slightly above room temperature at 26 °C

Hydrogen cyanide (under the brand name Zyklon B) was perhaps most infamously employed by the Nazi regime in mid-20th century.

Hydrogen cyanide is commonly listed amongst chemical warfare agents that cause general poisoning.[10] As a substance listed under Schedule 3 of the Chemical Weapons Convention as a potential weapon which has large-scale industrial uses, manufacturing plants in signatory countries which produce more than 30 tonnes per year must be declared to, and can be inspected by, the OPCW.

CS gas is the common name for 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile (also called o-Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile) (chemical formula: C10H5ClN2), a substance that is used as a riot control agent and is generally accepted as being non-lethal.

Clinton /Reno used CS not HCN

[Slamfire]

Clinton /Reno used CS not HCN

They used a flammable form of military CS, that when ignited, released HCN.

The government's use of C.S. gas inside the house is one of the most disturbing aspects of the entire tragedy. C.S. gas is never supposed to be used inside a building. Used inside, it can create fires, and it can produce cyanide, which can immobilize and kill. Dave Hall, who has conducted his own exhaustive investigation of the role of C.S. gas, believes that the gas contributed to the mass casualties at Waco. He talked with the manufacturer of C.S. gas, Aldridge Chemicals. The company emphasized that this product was intended for outdoor riot control only; it was not supposed to be a weapon. In fact, the company says it stopped selling C.S. to Israel in 1988 because the government there was shooting the chemical into buildings occupied by Palestinians. Many of those people subjected to the gas became ill, and others died from the exposure in enclosed quarters, as reported by Amnesty International's Chemical Report on C.S. Agent #6.

Hall has learned that the C.S. gas played a large part in the Waco tragedy. It both contributed to the very high temperature fire and incapacitated its victims so that they could not move to escape the building. In the autopsies of Waco fire victims, cyanide--from breathing C.S. gas--was found in the victims' blood. Also, Hall reports, "Our state fire marshal says they aerated the building in such a way as to create the fire and to contain the gas in there, which was as flammable as coal dust. They knew all these things."

There was a very long delay before fire trucks reached the site. Hall explains that the fire trucks were held back by the A.T.F. because, had they shot water on that fire, the gas present would have combined with the water to create a hydrogen cyanide steam cloud that would have been deadly to the agents surrounding the place.

Hall provides this chronology: Smoke was seen coming from the complex at 12:05. Within minutes, fire was spotted in four different locations. But fire trucks were not called until approximately 12:30. They were held back under the claim of danger from exploding ammunition.

Dr. George F. Uhlig is a professor of chemistry at the College of Eastern Utah and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel. Here's some of what he had to say in a report for KPOC-TV:

"In my opinion, the C.S. was diluted with either acetone or ethanol, as the autopsies indicated both solvents were in the lungs of the individuals killed at the Branch Davidian complex.... The liquid aerosol...came into contact with a flame, and the flame front traveled from particle to particle rapidly to create the 'fireball' described by survivors. We used a similar concept in designing fuel-air explosive devices in the Air Force. An explosive device would detonate, sending out an aerosol of either liquid or solid material of the proper particle size. A second explosion would then 'touch off' the aerosol mix, with devastating results. While the flame front in the case of the Branch Davidians' complex did not generate the overpressure of the fuel-air explosive device, the results were similar. The structure burned rapidly to the ground, and the C.S. agent was burned in the process. Cyanide radicals were generated as the C.S. burned, combining with normal fluids in the lungs of the people to generate hydrogen-cyanide gas....

"It was probably a good decision on the part of federal agents on the scene not to attempt to put out the fire using water. The resulting steam generated by the water coming into contact with the hot structure would further generate hydrogen cyanide, and the resulting cloud of cyanide gas and steam could have been carried by the prevailing winds over populated areas. This could have killed people not even involved in the incident, or at least made them extremely sick."

Dave Hall says that for six hours straight--from 6 AM to noon on the day of the fire--massive amounts of the C.S. gas were injected into the Davidians' home. This was despite a previously agreed-upon plan to use "light doses" because the children had no gas masks. At this point, Hall notes, we must keep in mind that the F.B.I. and the A.T.F. were fully aware that the Davidians were using kerosene lanterns inside the compound both day and night. They knew this because they had infrared surveillance equipment in the air and on the ground at the complex. They were also, of course, aware of the lethal capabilities of C.S. gas, because these were spelled out in their manual.

A telling fact is that after the fire, the A.T.F. destroyed everything that remained of the Branch Davidians' home and its site. Usually, after a disaster, authorities take pains to preserve evidence so that it can be studied to fully understand what happened. So why would they immediately level the evidence at Waco?

Texas state fire marshals were refused access to investigate the fire scene. They were told it was the jurisdiction of the A.T.F. (After the whole thing was over, the A.T.F. raised its own flag over the ruins.)

source: http://www.bigeye.com/pentwaco.htm

[Flit]

Now that made the hair on my neck go up.

[Saxman]

Mav,

The point is it happened under Nixon's watch. The "quote" (which I believe someone proved was NOT true) doesn't differentiate between actions of Congress and actions of the President. The President of the United States can ASK and campaign for a declaration of war, but can't MAKE ONE himself. CONGRESS declared war on Japan and Germany, not FDR, so to say that FDR "Got America into WWII" is as accurate as saying "Nixon abandoned Vietnam." However as that's the context of the quote, that's the equivalent example on how it can be twisted to focus negatively on the other party (and before you go saying that we can't blame Dubya for the mess we got into in Iraq, remember we also had a Republican Congress at the time, too, and voting has gone almost right down the Party Lines).

The Republicans and Democrats BOTH are making an embarrassment of this nation. So long as the Party Line is an unbridged bottomless chasm, and the Parties themselves populated by a bunch of primates flinging their own poop at each other just because of what side of that canyon each other's on things are only going to get WORSE. You can't blame ONE PARTY. NEITHER is going to bring our nation down by themselves. Unfortunately, that end IS the only thing they're actually working TOGETHER towards. There IS no right and wrong for our government, I think that BOTH sides view the Party as something more meaningful or important than the Constitution of the United States.