It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Some Historical Perspective on the War on Terror

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I would like to quote some quick facts that put a different perspective on the war on terror than has been spun from the major new networks and pundits of late. These were gleened from a weekly e-mail that I get From Tom Marsland, a radio commentator in the Minneapolis area. Since there is no direct web link that I am aware of I will break with traditional format and quote his email directly.


In a recent month in Iraq, their were 39 combat related killings ... in that same month in the city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders. That's one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq!

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

Think about this...

FDR 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. More than 300 per day for years!

Truman finished that war by using the atom bomb, and then started another one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year. 50 of our servicemen died every day for years!

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered
Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.

In the two 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 AT LEAST 300,000 of his own people. We've now lost several hundred soldiers, and even though that average is less than 2 a day, of course I wish it were zero. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than the 51 days it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time 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 sank at Chappaquiddick.



I would also like to point to this link for a little more historical perspective on the Iraq war. I believe this link has been posted elsewhere but it fits nicely with the factoids quoted above.

WWII the Aftermath Link




posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
I would like to quote some quick facts that put a different perspective on the war on terror than has been spun from the major new networks and pundits of late. These were gleened from a weekly e-mail that I get From Tom Marsland, a radio commentator in the Minneapolis area. Since there is no direct web link that I am aware of I will break with traditional format and quote his email directly.


In a recent month in Iraq, their were 39 combat related killings ... in that same month in the city of Detroit (Michigan) there were 35 murders. That's one American city folks, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq!


I gather the implication is that a resident of Detroit is more likely to be murdered than an American soldier is to be killed in combat in Iraq. This implication is decidedly false.

There are approximately 138,000 U. S. troops in Iraq. The 2000 census for Detroit shows 951,270 residents.

detroit.areaconnect.com...

There were 366 homicides in Detroit in 2003.

www.detnews.com...

There have been 612 combat deaths and 219 non-combat deaths of American soldiers in Iraq since the war began.

www.cbc.ca...

As of June 21, 2004, there have been 459 days since the Iraq War started. So the annualized rate of combat deaths in Iraq is 612*365/459 = 487 approximately. The annualized rate of combat death per 100,000 soldiers is 487*100000/138000 = 353 approximately.

The annualized homicide rate per 100,000 residents in Detroit is 366*100000/951270 = 38.5 approximately.

So an American soldier in Iraq is about nine times as likely to be killed in combat as a resident of Detroit is to be a victim of homicide.







[edit on 6/22/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 02:27 PM
link   
The facts in the original post concerning war dead were not intented to minimize the risk that a US soldier faces in the combat zone of Iraq but rather to give the numbers some perspective on the domestic front. You cannot compare demographics of the entire population of Detroit to the war zone in Iraq directly and have fair correlation. A better comparison would be to compare the murder rate of the detroit inner city youths with the soldiers in Iraq. YOu could also compare the murder rates of police officers in Detroits inner city with the death rate of soldier in Iraq. Unfortunately I am not aware of any such correlations. The information provided is what it is and I do believe it helps to broaden ones perspective on the war in Iraq.



posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   
The original aritcle errs by comparing apples and oranges. You simply cannot compare the deaths.

[edit on 21-6-2004 by Raphael_UO]



posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 06:07 PM
link   
The gentleman you quote, Tom Marsland, states that Germany never attacked us, North Korea never attacked us, Viet Nam never attacked us, and Bosnia never attacked us. I gather that Mr. Marsland is implying that, since the United States has gone to war previously against countries that have not attacked us, President Bush should not be criticized for starting a war with Iraq when Iraq had not attacked us. Isn't that the point he is trying to make? Otherwise, why does he bother to throw in this information?

With regard to Germany, Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941. Later that day, the United States declared war on Germany.

With regard to the Korean War, North Korea attacked South Korea in 1950. The Korean War resulted when the United States responded with full approval of the United Nations Security Council. Mr. Marsland is incorrect when he states that Harry Truman started the Korean War.


With regard to the Viet Nam War, this was a civil war that we gradually got involved in over many years, starting during the Eisenhower presidency. This was an illegal and immoral war that we should have never gotten involved in. We did not have the approval of the Security Council.

With regard to Bosnia, this was another illegal and immoral war that we should never have gotten involved in. Like Viet Nam, Bosnia was a civil war; and like Viet Nam, we did not have United Nations approval.

I find it interesting that Mr. Marsland doesn't mention the First Gulf War or the Afghanistan War. In the First Gulf War, Iraq attacked Kuwait, and the United States responded, with the full approval of the Security Council.

In the Afghanistan War, the United States was directly attacked by Al Qaeda, and the Taliban in Afghanistan were providing sanctuary for Al Qaeda. Although the United Nations did not approve in advance, both the Security Council and the General Assembly voted that United States action against Al Qaeda and the Taliban was justified.

Now Consider Bush's Iraq War. Iraq did not declare war on the United States. Iraq did not attack the United States. Iraq did not attack another country. The Security Council did not approve an attack against Iraq by the United States.

Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, and Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former Secretary-General of the United Nations, have declared the Iraq War a violation of the United Nations Charter. As have 89 non-governmental organizations associated with the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Now, of course, these are just opinions, but if, in fact, the Iraq War is a violation of the United Nations Charter, then George Bush committed an impeachable offense when he went to war with Iraq.

Article Six of the United States Constitution states "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Since the United Nations Charter, as well as the Convention against Torture and the Geneva Conventions, are clearly treaties, the United Nations Charter is the supreme law of the land. If President Bush has violated the United Nations Charter, then he has violated the supreme law of the land. Such a violation, especially in a matter as momentous as taking the country to war, surely qualifies as a high crime, and is thus an impeachable offense.




[edit on 6/21/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
but if, in fact, the Iraq War is a violation of the United Nations Charter,



The opinion of Kofi the corrupt hardly constitutes a fact nor do the other biased organizations opinions. The facts are that the security council resolutions on Iraq justified the use of force. In fact legally we were still at war with Iraq. A legal war declared in response to an attack on our ally. THe cease fire that suspended that war, not ended it, was broken on almost every term and therefore was null and void. That is all the legal justification that was ever necessary to take out Saddam. These are the simple facts of the war. The rest is just fluff and spin, and CYA activities.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   
I received this email this other day and I managed to put together some responses to the claims made. I apologize for the length, but as we all know, soundbytes often fail to portray the truth. Here they are...

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

This is a sad statistic. However, you cannot compare civilian fatalities with combat fatalitiesits like comparing apples to oranges. The current estimates for the number of Iraqi civilians killed during the approximate 19-month (and counting) war ranges from approximately 5,000 to 10,000 (from Christian Science Monitor). That being said, between 263 and 526 Iraqi civilians have died every month since the war began. Talk about a sad statistic

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:

FDR...led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.

This is correct...at least partially. On December 8, 1941, following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the United States declared war on Japan. However, on the morning of December 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. Italy also has declared war against the United States. I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy. signed Franklin D. Roosevelt (from the Congressional Declaration of War on Germany). Saddam Hussein did not declare war on us.

From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost -- an average of 112,500 per year.

Another sad statistic. But again, you cannot compare apples to oranges World War II was in response to Hitlers attempt to conquer Europe (through the invasion of several sovereign nations), and quite possibly the world. Although Saddam did invade Kuwait in the early 1990s, he was punished by the former President Bush and the coalition of 32 nations, which was consistent with past presidential behavior. Saddam had invaded no one since.

Truman 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.

This is correctfollowing the June 25, 1950 North Korean invasion of South Korea, and the subsequent capture of Seoul in early July, Truman agreed with his advisors to use U.S. airstrikes, unilaterally, against the North Korean forces. However, prior to the airstrikes, the western powers gained an explicit United Nations mandate for action (from Department of Navy Navy Historical Center). Still searching for justifications, eh.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost -- an average of 5,800 per year.

As the United States went to war in 1965, a few voices were raised in dissent. Within the Johnson administration, Undersecretary of State George Ball warned that the South Vietnamese government was a functional nonentity and simply could not be sustained by the United States, even with a major effort. Antiwar protest groups formed on many of the nation's campuses; but major dissent would not begin until 1966 or later. By and large in 1965, Americans supported the administration's claim that it was fighting to stop communism in Southeast Asia, or people simply shrugged and went about their daily lives, unaware that this gradually escalating war would tear American society apart (from The Oxford Companion to American Military History). This sounds awfully familiar. Lets hope that we have the wisdom to learn from the past as to not repeat it.


Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

Oui! oui! Since when do we need a permission slip from another nation. Although I would argue that acting without considering global impacts to be short-sighted at best.

The above statement is at least partially correct. However, President Clinton did not go to war in Bosnia. The U.S. involvement in that nation was as a peacekeeping force in an attempt to end the war in Bosnia it was not to overthrow the current government (although I have reservations that military action can be peacekeeping). Additionally, although President Clinton may have had Osama within his grasp, it does not justify President Bush going to war in Iraq, nor do his actions in Bosnia.

Here are some interesting GOP tidbits concerning Bosnia:

Dole, the GOP front runner for the 1996 presidential nomination, said he and Clinton discussed the situation in the former Yugoslavia. Dole said the president must convince Congress and the American people that:

The mission serves vital U.S. interests.
The proper number of troops is going for a set length of time.
The expense is worth it.
There is a strategy to withdraw once the military objective is attained.
(from the Associated Press)

I find it interesting that the same things GOP members were complaining about President Clinton and Bosnia are incredibly similar to the issues now occurring in Iraq. Not only does President Bush not learn form his own mistakes, he apparently doesnt learn from others, either.


In the two 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.

First, the liberation of Iraq:
Im not sure that I consider being fearful of going out after dark, waiting up to 10 hours to fill my car with gas, spreading rumors in the absence of reliable media, watching landmark buildings set on fire and wondering who is in charge as liberated (from Christian Science Monitor). I do not disagree that Saddam caused great harm to his people, but you cannot create justifications for war after going to war.

How has Iraq been liberated? Let me count the ways . . .
1. The country is occupied by a foreign power.
2. Its officials are appointed by that foreign power.
3. Its citizens must carry ID cards hmmm, national ID cards?
4. They must submit to searches of their persons and cars at checkpoints and roadblocks.
5. They must be in their homes by curfew time.
6. Many towns are ringed with barbed wire.
7. The occupiers have imposed strict gun-control laws, preventing ordinary citizens from defending themselves making robberies, rapes, and assaults quite common.
8. Trade with some countries is banned by the occupying authorities.
9. The occupiers have decreed that certain electoral outcomes won't be permitted.
10. Families are held hostage until they reveal the whereabouts of wanted resisters much like the Nazis held innocent French people hostage during World War II.
11. Freedom of assembly is outlawed this would be like banning pro-life rallies outside of abortion clinics.
12. Private property is raided or demolished with no warning and with no due process of law.
13. The occupiers have created a fiat currency and imposed it on the populace.
14. Newspapers, radio stations, and TV are all supervised by the occupiers sorry Rush, not in Iraq.
15. Money from the country's oil resources are confiscated and spent in secret by the foreign occupying power (from HarryBrown.org)

I find it amazing how the United States can brag about the freedoms possessed by its own citizens, but refuses to grant these same freedoms to other nations it has dealings with.

Second, the Taliban:
Prior to September 11, 2001, the Bush administration cozied up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposed sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government would not turn over Bin Laden (from LA Times).

When one peers beyond all of the rhetoric of the White House and Pentagon concerning the Taliban, a clear pattern emerges showing that construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline was a top priority of the Bush administration from the outset. Meanwhile, President Bush says that U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for the long haul. Far from being engaged in Afghan peacekeeping -- the Europeans are doing much of that -- our troops will effectively be guarding pipeline construction personnel that will soon be flooding into the country. Karzai's ties with UNOCAL and the Bush administration are the main reason why the CIA pushed him for Afghan leader over rival Abdul Haq, the assassinated former mujaheddin leader from Jalalabad, and the leadership of the Northern Alliance. After Bush's accession to the presidency, various Taliban envoys were received at the State Department, CIA, and National Security Council. The CIA, which appears, more than ever, to be a virtual extended family of the Bush oil interests, facilitated a renewed approach to the Taliban (from the Center for Research on Globalization).

Third, al Qaida:
The Bush Team, which can now rely on the support of the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, may think that war and oil profits mix. But there is simply too much evidence that the War in Afghanistan was primarily about building UNOCAL's pipeline, not about fighting terrorism. From the outset, the Bush administration took a hostile attitude towards the Islamic State of Afghanistan, otherwise known as the Northern Alliance. Even though the United Nations recognized the alliance as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, the Bush administration, with oil at the forefront of its goals, decided to follow the lead of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and curry favor with the Taliban mullahs of Afghanistan (from the Center for Research on Globalization).

Far from being crippled by the U.S.-led war on terror, al-Qaida has more than 18,000 potential terrorists scattered around the world and the war in Iraq is swelling its ranks. The report suggested that the two military centerpieces of the U.S.-led war on terror - the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - may have boosted al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden's network appears to be operating in more than 60 nations, often in concert with local allies. The IISS said its estimate of 18,000 al-Qaida fighters was based on intelligence estimates that the group trained at least 20,000 fighters in its camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al-Qaida fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said. Al-Qaida appears to have successfully reconstituted its operations by dispersing its forces into small groups and through working with local allies, such as the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders' Front in Turkey, the report said (from International Institute of Strategic Studies the London-based institute is considered the most important security think tank outside the United States)


Before responding to the next four items, I would just like to note that I find it reprehensible that anyone would ever try to compare the sacrifices made by U.S. troops to Senator Kennedy sinking his car, counting the votes in Florida, and the other statements below.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but 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 may have taken less time to take Iraq than the Branch Davidian compound, but it certainly did not cost the lives of over 1,000 U.S. troops or 5,000 Iraqi civilians (low estimate). Nor did it cost the U.S. taxpayers between $100 and $200 billion (from Christian Science Monitor).

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

Yes, but Hillary did not use the billing records as a justification for war.

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.

Please see above.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!! Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

Please see above and below.

Wait, there's more!!!!

JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13

Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living. This is a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military

Senator Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn: "How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?" Senator Glenn: "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank. I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day ... to a veteran's hospital and look at those men -- with their mangled bodies -- in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job! You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee ... and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job. You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags. You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that that those people didn't have a job? I'll tell you, Howard Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees every day of your life thanking God that there were some men who held REAL jobs. And they required a dedication to a purpose -- and a love of country and a dedication to duty that was more important than life itself. And their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible. I HAVE held a job, Howard! What about you?"

For those who don't remember - During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA. Now he is a Senator! If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a Veteran. It might not be a bad idea to keep this circulating until November.

Yes, there is more! However, not only does this section not relate to the war in Iraq, it is merely an attempt to tug at the heart-strings of those reading this email hoping that it will somehow secure the credibility of the claims made in this email.

Please do not take my previous statement for support of Senator Metzenbaums comment to Senator Glenn. I think it is imperative that we support our troops. However, I do not believe that to support our troops we, as citizens of the United States, need to blindly follow the mistakes made by an ideological demagogue. In fact, I can think of no better way to express my patriotism than to exercise every right granted to me under the U.S. Constitution. To quote Thomas Jefferson, dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". But if the First Amendment is to mean anything, it has to protect political expression that is considered revolutionary or otherwise not in line with mainstream America, not just expression approved of by the majority. That being said, I am proud that we as a nation allow those who wish to support communism to do so. Additionally, a huge assumption is made in the original email in discussing Senator Metzenbaums affiliations as an attorney indeed; attorneys are often called upon to represent ideologies not held by the many, and upon closer inspection, to represent the very system itself (e.g.; The ACLU defending Rush Limbaughs privacy rights involving alleged doctor-shopping.).

FYI there is no official language of the United States (from U.S. Constitution online).




top topics



 
0

log in

join