[Sonnet]

You may have already found this in your inbox, sent by some well-meaning (we hope) Bush supporting friend or family member:

Interesting facts to help put things in perspective before election time!

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...

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, consider the following ...

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.

Truman...
finished that war and then started one in Korea,
North Korea never attacked us..
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,334 per year.

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 the Islamic 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.

The Democrats are complaining
bout 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.

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 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 biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.



An acquaintance of mine (MINE, Sonnet's, not some mass email, but someone I know) has written what I think is a tremendous rebuttal. I'm sure the original thread-starting 'information' was cut and pasted right out of a mass email - which is, all too often, how too many people get their ideas. I'd like to fight fire with fire and offer this up for circulation. Who knows how many middle-of-the-road non-investigators it might sway, or how many of us it might arm with some ready facts?

Somebody shoot me for responding to this post. I just can't help myself.

*Interesting facts to help put things in perspective before election time!*

Well, interesting spin on some facts, anyway.

*There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January......*

No, according to http://icasualties.org/oif/ there were 52 military fatalities in Iraq in January, for an average of 1.68 deaths per day for the approx. 138,000 solders for the month of January. A relatively quiet month of death. The average military death rate to date is 2.6 per day for 138,000 soldiers in Iraq.

*In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. *

Well, that’s close enough – there were 366 murders in Detroit in 2003. Per capita, then, the cited killing statistics translate into 3.84 murders per 100,000 residents in Detroit (the country’s fifth most violent city), vs. 28.26 combat-related deaths per 100,000 troops in Iraq. Notice a problem with comparing those two results and saying that they are equivalent? I thought so.

A far fairer statistic for comparison (than the murder rate among communities full of thugs and thieves) is to the FBI's Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) report. For the whole year of 2002, 52 officers were reported "feloniously killed" in the United States (not including Puerto Rico), out of 482,762 officers employed in the participating law enforcement agencies. That comes out to 10.77 officers killed per 100,000 officers per annum; just 0.915 officers killed per 100,000 officers over a typical 31 days. In other words, serving in Iraq is at least 30 times as dangerous as working as a police officer in the United States, even if we trust the completeness of the Pentagon's combat-related death statistics.

*That's just one American City, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq... *

Nice try at a comparison, but you can’t compare apples with oranges, even if they’re both fruits. Iraq is a much deadlier place than Detroit – even with the Green Zone and road blocks and check points. Just what do you think the murder rate might be in Detroit if it were fortified to the extent that Iraq now is? I think it’s reasonable to assume that the Detroit murder rate of 1 per day might be considerably lower. Of course, none of what you’ve stated above takes into account the horrendous rate of soldier woundings, which, I would argue, qualifies as violence. More than 6000 soldiers to date have been wounded – more than half of those not ready to return to combat in 72 hours. Somehow I don’t think there are that many wounded lying on the streets of Detroit…But, even the woundings and deaths don’t touch on the amount of psychological trauma being caused to those soldiers, especially with their extended tours of duty. A visit to a V.A. hospital will vividly remind you that deaths are only a small part of the toll that war takes on our gallant troops.

Of course, you’ve conveniently left out all the non-military deaths and woundings, American, Iraqi and ‘other’, since the end of major combat operations(!). The murder and assassination rate of Iraqis themselves and foreigners has been tremendously high. Or don’t they count too? Iraq is now an extremely violent place – anyone who would argue that Iraq is not more violent than Detroit is not dealing with the facts on the ground.

*When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, consider the following ... *

First of all, what does this war have to do with other wars? Whether the U.S. should have gone to war with Iraq is an independent issue from whether the U.S. rightly or wrongly went into war in other countries. The Iraq war decision stands or falls on its own, President Bush doesn’t get to point fingers at past presidents and say ‘they did too, so there’. War was only one of many options to deal with Saddam. Bush made the call; the buck stops at his desk only.

*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. *

Simple version: Japan attacked us. We declared war on Japan. Germany declared war on us. We went to war with Germany AFTER they declared war on us. Germany was already at war with our allies and had taken over half of Europe and was bombing the bejesus out of England and our other allies. Iraq never declared war on us. We were attacked by Al Qaeda, not Iraq.

The number of lives lost in WWII is irrelevant as to whether the war in Iraq was justified or properly prosecuted.

*Truman...finished that war and then started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us..From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year. John F. Kennedy...started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. *

As for Korea and Vietnam please take a history course on the Cold War/ Domino theory talked about in Eisenhower’s presidential papers and he was a Republican. And even if these wars were right, that doesn’t make Iraq right. Every decision to go to war stands or falls on its own.

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

Yup, but two wrongs still don’t make a right. And Nixon got us in deeper before he got us out.

Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us.

Wrong! The UN went into Bosnia but NATO went to Kosovo. Why?

The first was the dilemma posed by the decision of the major powers on the one hand that Bosnia-Herzegovina had no strategic significance and the ability of the republic and its people on the other hand to mobilize nearly continuous pressure on the major powers from the global mass media and international public opinion to act. The absence of vital interest for major powers meant that they would not become engaged militarily in the war, but the pressure from the media and the public acted as a moral campaign, reminding the world that international conventions and moral law were being violated and demanding that the major powers take decisive military action. This dilemma made concrete the proverbial identification of Yugoslavia--and particularly Bosnia-Herzegovina--as a "crossroads." It was, but it also was not, a part of Europe. The compromise was to send UN peacekeeping forces to deliver humanitarian assistance to civilians in the midst of a multisided war.
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=55105554
The cease-fire with UN peace keepers failed and NATO ended up bombing Bosnia. This bombing resulted in the Dayton meetings.

Kosova was a decision that grew out of an effort halt the ethnic cleansing in the early stages. (If the offensive poster doubts this, go to the world court transcripts and copy paste...the stuff is horrible) NATO took the problem on because it threatened the stability of Albania and thus the region. To be honest, with resistance from Russia, they were wise to avoid that battle.

Notice that these acts by Milosevic were happening at that time, as opposed to Saddam's acts which occurred in 1991 and prior?

And, it still doesn’t have anything to do with Iraq.

*In the two years since the Islamic terrorists attacked us*

Well, actually, they’ve been attacking us since Reagan’s time.

*President Bush has ...liberated two countries, *

Invaded two countries is a more accurate description. One justified, one not. It’s too early to say whether they’ve been liberated, but it’s really not looking too good at this point. In Iraq, the U.S. has installed a government that ordered martial law on day 1, and in which the prime minister has executed criminals personally, vigilante-style. Smells like another tyrant in the making to me.

*crushed the Taliban, *

Then why is the Taliban resurgent (as are the warlords) and why is Hamid Karzai seeking their support to help stabilize the democratic process in Afghanistan? Basically, Kabul is under Afghan government control and the warlords and some Taliban remnants have all the rest. The madrassas are alive and well. And Afghanistan is back to supplying 75% of the world's pharmaceutical poppies - not only for opium as before, but for heroin, which means more sophisticated criminals. And where is Mullah Omar? Last week Doctors Without Borders left Afghanistan after 22 years because of concerns for their safety – I’d say that’s pretty good evidence about how dangerous the Taliban and Al Qaeda still are.

*crippled al-Qaida, *

I’ll concede that he’s crippled Al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan but where is ‘dead or alive’ Osama? In pulling forces from Afghanistan to invade Iraq, Bush made a monumental strategic blunder that has let Al Qaida re-group and let other Al Qaida-related groups begin to flourish. Why else would NYC be under a brand new terror alert and armed personnel be on the DC Metro? If that's considered crippling, the Bush administration has a lot to learn.

*put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, *

that’s just not true.

*and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. *

The 300,000 figure came from the same people who gave us the bogus WMD claims and is now hotly disputed. Of course, when Hussein was doing most of his killing, Reagan and Bush 1 were supporting him (until he invaded Kuwait that is, then we decided we didn’t like him anymore). And it was the U.S. (among others) who sold Hussein the means to make chemical and bio weapons.

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

Really? Which Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking? Anti this war people (liberals and conservatives alike) are complaining that Bush WENT to an unnecessary war in Iraq and that he didn’t execute a proper plan for the peace afterward and the country is now a mess, but I haven’t heard anyone complain about how long the war took – nobody I’ve heard of disputes that the war itself was fought brilliantly and quickly – I mean why would anyone have expected otherwise? The world’s most powerful military against a 3rd rate power decimated by years of corruption and sanctions and earlier wars. The problem after the end of major combat operations is how long the peace, if it ever comes, is taking. Nice attempt at re-framing the complaints against the unjustified invasion and bad peace planning though.

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

[and more pointless points….]

What is the point of these inane comparisons, except to smear Democrats? A wrong war is a wrong war, no matter whether led by a Democratic president or a Republican president. This was a wrong war and it’s not only anti this war Democrats who think that. Take a look at http://www.geocities.com/reconsideringiraq/ and you’ll find a lot of conservatives think this was a mistake too.

The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

No, the biased media are all too willing to swallow the administration’s spin on the facts and we are on our own. Robert Fisk has been in Iraq for 5 weeks and reporting on the disaster that is Iraq – it’s a devastating report:

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=6112

The war is a fraud. I'm not talking about the weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. Nor the links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida which didn't exist. Nor all the other lies upon which we went to war. I'm talking about the new lies.

For just as, before the war, our governments warned us of threats that did not exist, now they hide from us the threats that do exist. Much of Iraq has fallen outside the control of America's puppet government in Baghdad but we are not told. Hundreds of attacks are made against US troops every month. But unless an American dies, we are not told. This month's death toll of Iraqis in Baghdad alone has now reached 700 - the worst month since the invasion ended. But we are not told.
____________________________________________

It is my suggestion that some of us send THIS about in response to the original, even if you have yet to receive it. We all know how far a thing can go on the internet; why not this?