|
This email was sent to me several months ago as a LTTE, and it was a slightly different version then. I just responded in the heat of the moment, without caring who I angered.
You've got to be kidding me. This is the problem with people writing letters to the editor- they are far too willing to show their ignorance. And we wonder why the rest of the world holds us in such contempt- we don't even know our own history! Much less that of other peoples.
FDR- Germany never attacked us, but they were officially allied with a country that did (ie, Japan). As such, Germany was a legitimate military target for the US, since once we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on us.
Truman- Truman did not start a war in Korea. The Korean War was a UN offensive in which the US was a participant, along with a number of other countries which were our allies. You can argue that Korea was a mistake all you want (the Domino Theory was crap, after all)- but you can't blame this on Harry S.
JFK- JFK did not start Vietnam- Eisenhower did. We were already engaged (although tepidly) in the Vietnam struggle when JFK took office. It's just that the "official" start of the war was 1962. Again, you can argue that we should not have been involved in yet another Domino Theory Red Scare Paranoia Offensive- but you can't blame that on JFK (or even Ike for that matter).
LBJ- Johnson did not turn Vietnam into a quagmire- but he can be blamed more than the others you've listed. Vietnam was a prime example of why the Military Industrial Complex should not be running our country- which was basically what LBJ allowed to happen. Yep, he should have stood up to the bastards and told them where to take a flying leap.
Clinton- Bosnia was a NATO led and sponsored mission, which was basically humanitarian in nature. We went into Bosnia AT THE VERY TIME that the death camps and genocidal purges were happening (not 15-20 years later like in Iraq). It was not a war which was started by the US, nor one in which we wanted to be involved. After all, liberals and lefties had begged the US to intervene on humanitarian grounds for almost a decade after the slaughters of Milosovic were discovered. But we were too busy guarding oil wells and freeing the oppressed people of Kuwait and their gold toilets. (By the way- Can women vote today in Kuwait? Glad we intervened to help "free" those people.)
Sudan did not offer OBL- on a silver platter or otherwise. Sudan never had control of the man- and since they've been involved in their own civil war for basically the last decade, they'd be hard pressed to turn over anyone. In fact, the coalition which controls most of Sudan is ruled by a pseudo-Islamist group who believe much the same as OBL. Not bloody likely that they'd turn the man over to the US. So you know- Sudan's civil war is yet another fight over oil, just one you don't hear about in the American media (fine oligopoly that it is).
Bush hasn't "liberated" anything but the oil fields from the nationalization they faced under Hussein's regime. The people of Iraq are no more free today than they were a year ago. But many are dead, homeless, sick, unemployed, and now must deal with a crushed infrastructure. God, they have sooooo much to thank us for!
The Taliban still controls 95% of Afghanistan- but you'd have to read or watch something other than Fox News to know that. The US barely controls parts of Kabul- barely. All indications are that the Taliban are re-grouping for major offensives this Spring- and we're already stretched too thin by Iraq. We don't have any available troops to send to fight them. Can you say DRAFT, boys and girls? Yeah, I knew you could.
Al Quaeda is so crippled that they carry out attacks around the world almost weekly or monthly. Glad that Bush has done so much to hurt that group. /sarcasm/
Libya had been in negotiations with the US, the UK and the UN for the past 4 or 5 years- didn't have a darn thing to do with Bush. Libya has been trying to "play nice" and hoping for the lifting of sanctions for several years now. Pan Am 103 settlement, anyone? Again- NOTHING to do with this administration. In fact, most of the credit unfortunately probably goes to the Poodle- not that I want to credit Blair for much either.
Inspectors in North Korea? Hmmm, I must have missed that one. There have been some observers who see only what the NK gov't allows them to see. But actual inspectors with the authority to sanction the gov't and confiscate illegal or banned weapons? Um, no.
Not quite sure who he means by the "terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people." If he is talking about Hussein, much of that slaughter (actually the vast majority) happened while we were allies- and the US turned a blind eye to his actions. In fact, he did much of that with our implied consent. We can't say now (15 years after the fact) that he's a very very bad man who was such a scourge on other nations. (Wish I knew how to attach that photo of a smiling Hussein and Rumsfeld shaking hands, c. 1984.)
"We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year." Um, remedial math is always nice to learn. Even if he is referring to 600 soldiers per year of the Bush administration, that would be 200 soldiers per year (600/3= 200). But what he fails to say is that the number we've already lost in Iraq in LESS THAN ONE YEAR OF FIGHTING is more than we lost in the first several years of fighting in Vietnam. And that doesn't even count the number we've lost in Afghanistan.
He at least did get it right that Bush hasn't ALLOWED another terrorist attack since 9/11. (Freudian slip maybe?) After all, there is pretty compelling and damaging information concerning the actions (or inactions) of this administration in the weeks leading up to and following 9/11 to indicate that they didn't do everything that they could to prevent that attack.
If this guy is any indication, our eduaction system is in shambles. But then, the repubs want it that way. After all, it is easier to govern an uneducated populace.
|