things to Ponder {Long}

[BoogercountySooner]

Things that make you think a little:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in 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 that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following:

a. FDR led us into World War II.

b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.

c. 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.

d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us .

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

f. 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.

g. 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.

The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking.
But Wait

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 for 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!!!!


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


But Wait


There's more!




JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR)
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 Senator 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 (speaking to Senator Glenn):
"How can you run for Senate
when you've never held a real job?"

Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):
"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 w ent the other day..
to a veteran's hospital and look 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 those people didn't have a job?

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's a Senator!

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.

[olevetonahill]

I love this Post
But just a point D is incorrect , Eisenhower (sp) sent the 1st American "advisors" in in 1958 :eek:

[BoogercountySooner]

OK Thanks olevet

[olevetonahill]

OK Thanks olevet
Is ok Bro when it comes to My war I tend to try to Correct :D
accutaly I was wrong The 1st american died there in 1957
see this
Edges of The Wall
By Tim Trask


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The date "1959" is engraved on the upper left hand corner of the first panel on the east side of The Wall. At the lower right corner of the first panel of the west side, we find the date "1975." When the memorial was finished, in 1982, some people expressed surprise at those dates. The Vietnam War, they thought, started in either 1964 or 1965 and ended in 1973 with the withdrawal of troops following the Paris Peace agreement that resulted in Nobel prizes for Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. Thanks to the efforts of our own historians, nearly everyone on VWAR-L knows that the origins of the conflict go back much earlier in the century. The truth is, however, that 1959 and 1975 do not even begin to encompass the years of grief brought to American families by deaths in the Vietnam War.
On line 1 of the first panel on the east side of The Wall, two of the names are indeed those of soldiers killed in 1959. They are Chester N. Ovnard (MSGT, Army, from El Reno, Oklahoma) and Dale R. Buis (Major, Army, from Pender, Nebraska). Both of them were killed on July 8, 1959. But they weren't the first Americans killed in Viet Nam.

Harry G. Cramer was killed nearly two years before Ovnard and Buis, on October 21, 1957. His name doesn't appear on line 1 of the first panel, however; it appears on line 78. Cramer was a Captain in the Army from Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Johnstown's losses began in 1957 and didn't end until 1973, with the death of Kenneth Doyle Scaife on January 3rd. Scaife was an E2 in the Navy. Between 1957 and 1973, Johnstown lost 24 of its sons to the war. In 1970, the population of Johnstown was a bit over 42,000. The experiences of a couple of other cities will serve as a point of comparison. Haverhill, Massachusetts, the city I lived in during my junior-high and high-school years, is about the same size as Johnstown. Haverhill lost 8 sons. Brockton, Massachusetts, the city I live in now, had a population of 89,000 in 1970 and lost 15 soldiers, sailors, and Marines. Johnstown, in other words, lost people at about three times the normal rate.

The last death from the Vietnam War is more difficult to determine. Eleven hours before the ceasefire deadline, on January 27, 1973, Lieutenant Colonal William B. Nolde was listed as the last U.S. "combat death," but American military personnel continued to be killed in Viet Nam. More than two years after the peace agreement of 1973 went into effect, on April 30, 1975, the temporary president of South Viet Nam, General Duong Van "Big" Minh, turned the government over to the Communists. The remaining Americans had fled the day before, but American losses continued. On May 13, 1975, 25 Air Force lives were lost, and on May 15, 1975, another 18 Americans (14 Marines, 2 Navy, and 2 Air Force) were killed. At least one more soldier died in 1975: Jon O. Nacy, an Army PFC from Detroit who died on November 8, and he wasn't the last. On November 15, 1981, Major Eddie B. Story (Army) of Jonesboro, Tennessee was added to the list. And the names continue to be added to The Wall. There are those who will continue to die as a direct or indirect result of their war experience whose names are not yet listed and may never be. And there is the continuing pain of the families for whom the war has meant irrevocable grief and suffering that will continue.

When Harry Cramer was killed in 1957, Danny Marshall of Waverly, West Virginia had already been born, but he was just 7 months old--a baby who probably couldn't walk or talk. Danny may have been the last-born American killed in the Viet Nam War. When he died, along with the other 13 Marines on May 15, 1975, Captain Cramer had been dead for nearly 18 years. No American who was killed in Viet Nam was born after Harry Cramer was killed, but Danny came close.

How long does a war last? It lasts a lot longer than the dates that are usually assigned to it by the historians. When Harry Cramer was born, in 1926, Washington Carver Mable of Brenham, Texas was 22 years old. Yet Mable lived another ten years after Cramer was killed. Mable was killed in Viet Nam, also--in 1967. He was 63 years old. He'd lived through WWI, WWII, and Korea. His rank was PFC E-3. But even Mable wasn't the oldest soldier to die in Viet Nam, though he was very likely the oldest PFC. As far as I can tell, the honor of being the oldest soldier to die in Viet Nam goes to Master Sergeant Jimmie Ray Harrison, of DeKalb, IL, who was born on November 13, 1903 and died in Viet Nam on March 14, 1968. He was approaching 65 years of age--an old soldier who didn't seem content just to fade away. He was nearly 14 when my father was born, and my father was a college graduate before he was drafted in 1940--about a year before the U.S. had joined WWII. When Pearl Harbor was bombed, Jimmie Ray Harrison was 38 years old. He died in a war zone 27 years after the "date that will live in infamy." It's conceivable that Jimmie Ray could have been Danny Marshall's great grandfather (he was 54 when Danny was born), and while they couldn't have served at the same time, Danny and Jimmie Ray were killed in the same war.

Then there's the soldier whose age is not recorded. He's listed in at least one database as having been born on January 1, 1900. No one seems to know where he came from, either. His hometown is listed as "not known," and the closest information on him available is that he came from California. We know his service number, his branch, and his rank, but not much else. He's almost an unknown soldier. Oh yeah. We know one more thing about him--his name: Robert M. Bennet. And we know that he was killed in Viet Nam.

These names and numbers suggest some of the edges of the Vietnam conflict, but those edges are not nearly as distinct as the edges of other wars. Was it a real war? Who was responsible? When did it begin? The answer to that last question seems to depend on what you mean by "begin." When did it end? Again, the answer is not easy, but the addition of names since 1982 suggests that The Wall is still a work in progress. The better question seems to be "When will it end?"

Tim Trask
Veterans' Day, 1995


NOTE: Most of the information above was gleaned by my brother and me from two databases and not from an actual examination of The Vietnam Veterans Memorial; it is therefore subject to correction. Also, it doesn't include any mention of the women killed in the war, any of the American civilians, or the losses of Vietnamese lives on both sides of the conflict. These omissions do not mean that any of those lives do not count.
heres the link
http://www.vietvet.org/edgewall.htm

[OKC-SLC]

BCS, this is perhaps my favorite sf.com post ever.

[Rhino]

E-mail forwards! **** yeah!

[olevetonahill]

E-mail forwards! **** yeah!
Dude My posts were NOT email forwards

[sooneron]

Dude My posts were NOT email forwards
I believe he was referring to the original post.

[olevetonahill]

I believe he was referring to the original post.
My bad :O

[sooneron]

Yeah, I got that one about three or four years ago.

[BoogercountySooner]

E-mail copy to be exact but good none the less

[PhilTLL]

Things that make you think a little:
There were 39 (United States) combat related killings in Iraq in January 2004. (October, November, and December 2006 all had over 100 troops killed and countless Iraqis.)
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 that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the following: (Hey, talking points!)

a. FDR led us into World War II.



After we were attacked and declared war upon by a sovereign nation--"FDR knew about Pearl Harbor" theories aside, the attack happened--and he had the motivation of the Germans seizing half of Europe and bombing the **** out of our main ally there. Saddam, terrible man he was, didn't take Kuwait again, add Saudi Arabia and Syria, and then bomb Jerusalem for 60 nights in a row during the leadup to Iraq War 2. His military was debilitated, his resurgent WMD programs have so far proved nonexistent...and he hated al Qaeda. I appreciate the motive of freeing the Iraqis and making their lives better--but we haven't, not yet. There were elections, but there were elections under Saddam, too; is an election more meaningful when it's legitimate but you might get blown up on the way home from voting?


b. Germany never attacked us ; Japan did
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.

How does this little gem of a misconception live on? One of the most unforgettable political moments of WW2 was Hitler declaring war on the USA in front of the Reichstag and half of the members crapping their pants, 12/8/1941. Don't always need to sneak attack a country before you declare war on it.


c. 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.

Yes, the first of many wars of unclear purpose and necessity that have dominated US foreign policy since the end of WW2. At least that war accomplished something for half the people in the country at issue. Even the Mexican War, one entirely of aggression and ambition, got us millions of acres in territory. This particular voluntary war has so far won us no material gains, may have actually worsened national security, exiled millions of Iraqis and made most of the rest less safe, and fired off the latest chapter of a 1300-year-old conflict.



d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us .

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

Can't argue with the fact that Vietnam was a ****storm.


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

He didn't start the fighting, placed no ground troops into a civil war, lost no American lives, and withdrew after he eliminated Milosevic. Why does a large part of pro-Bush sentiment seem to be actually anti-Clinton, anyway?


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.


If it happened (Clinton denies it and the 9/11 commission couldn't affirm it), it was in 1996. Before Khobar, before the embassies, before the Cole, before 9/11, before Bali, before Madrid, before London. And hey, at least Clinton didn't manage to say "I want him dead or alive" and then "I don't spend that much time on him; I truly am not that concerned about him" 3 months later. Bush hasn't even indicted OBL for 9/11, the same tactic decried when Clinton did it as being ineffectual and meaningless. Maybe - but it's better than nothing.



g. 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 (whoops, guess they didn't get the job done, huh) without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

It's quite incredible how much worse the prospects look for all of these partially-accomplished achievements just 3 years later, Saddam aside (and yes, that was definitely a good thing). Taliban resurgent, Afghanistan left unfinished, Iraq regressing, North Korean nuclear test, Iranian reactor complexes, Israel wanting to tactically-nuke Iran...

I don't necessarily have a problem with using the military, even preemptively and without the consent or request of other nations, just as long as we have some combination of clarity, thought, truth and purpose behind it. This Iraq war is questionable at best on all counts.

[Jerk]

Good post.

Janet Reno took the Waco "compound" :rolleyes: by sending in tanks and burning it to the ground.

Her boss Clinton wouldn't let the commander in Somalia have tanks for their operation against Farrah Adide.

[Jerk]

here we go with the blah blah blah.

[sooneron]

I agree, but the "Germany didn't attack us" is pretty weak sauce.

[jk the sooner fan]

Good post.

Janet Reno took the Waco "compound" :rolleyes: by sending in tanks and burning it to the ground.

Her boss Clinton wouldn't let the commander in Somalia have tanks for their operation against Farrah Adide.

i was at fort hood during the waco deal.....those tanks were courtesy of the texas army national guard

[tbl]

I didn't realize that the casualty losses in Korea and Vietnam were so close. Did they draft for Korea? Seems like a lot of people are the same as me when it comes to the Korean war (uninformed).

[picasso]

my old man was a Marine in Korea and froze his butt off there in '51. many of his buddies didn't make it back.

he's just now started telling me about some of it. I learned he had a shell hit near his foxhole that was a dud. it more than likely would have killed him.

[olevetonahill]

I didn't realize that the casualty losses in Korea and Vietnam were so close. Did they draft for Korea? Seems like a lot of people are the same as me when it comes to the Korean war (uninformed).
Yup the Draft was in effect for a long time

[Scott D]

I didn't realize that the casualty losses in Korea and Vietnam were so close. Did they draft for Korea? Seems like a lot of people are the same as me when it comes to the Korean war (uninformed).

getting rid of the draft was a post Vietnam political move.

[picasso]

fear mongering of the draft was a pre '04 presidential election political move.
yep.:D

[picasso]

my old man was a Marine in Korea and froze his butt off there in '51. many of his buddies didn't make it back.

he's just now started telling me about some of it. I learned he had a shell hit near his foxhole that was a dud. it more than likely would have killed him.
http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b4cf30b3127cce9c511ab38cc300000015109AauHLhk2a4

[sooneron]

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b4cf30b3127cce9c511ab38cc300000015109AauHLhk2a4
He has my thanks and respect.

[SoonerTerry]

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b4cf30b3127cce9c511ab38cc300000015109AauHLhk2a4

Please tell him thank you for all he did, ya know those 2 simple words aren't really enough to say how I feel about what he did.
He has my unending admiration, respect, and appretiation for the sacrifices he made.
To me there are no greater americans than those willing to give their lives for our freedom.
We owe them everything,
thank you
terry

[OU-HSV]

First of all, nice post BCS. This part is interesting :D

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.

Secondly,


my old man was a Marine in Korea and froze his butt off there in '51. many of his buddies didn't make it back.

he's just now started telling me about some of it. I learned he had a shell hit near his foxhole that was a dud. it more than likely would have killed him.
Props to your dad for putting his life on the line to fight for our country. I have nothing but respect for our soldiers and what they do (and have done)for our country. They are, without a doubt, the absolute bravest people on the planet.

[85Sooner]

great post.

[Okieflyer]

We all like information that seems to present all thought as right, but here's the facts. The American people are more to blame than any of the individuals listed. Since the start of the 20th century warfare has become a political venture. Not saying it never was before, but more so.

But we (the American people) today have no stomach for sacrifice. Everyone watches places like Darfur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_conflict), Liberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia) and other places like this, we say oh that's horrible and someone should do something about it.

Most of the military thinks differently. They are there to sacrifice, serve and help. Not the warmongers some think, not that there aren't some of those, but truly sacrifice. The problem they have and I have is the stupid political end of it. Both foreign and domestic. Most domestic.

I'll be the first say I didn't like Clinton, but I agreed with the Bosnia intravention. I just didn't agree with the gloves we put on the military. Idiots like Gen. Wesley K. Clark (http://www.roswellproof.com/Gen_Wesley_Clark_UFOs.html) made it worst than what it should been.

Vietnam was bad for the same reason (Rules of Engagement not Gen Clark). You can't win a war that way. I remember those press conferences during the 1st Gulf war. The press kept asking about civilians in a bunker we blew up. It went on and on and on. The briefer should have said "well sorry, that's the way it goes, this is war". If we don't go in there (Iraq) and just wipe those fools out then we should just get out. If we found Iranian officers in Iraq, the next move should be a couple of missles on Tehran.

But none of this will happen because we worry about a spike in gas prices. Maybe we should look at the sacrifice (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWrationing.htm) that the country endured during WW2.

We don't have to support the president in everything. But if we go to war then let's sacrifice enough to win the thing. And let's quit sacrificing American military men and women by worrying what the rest of the world thinks, i.e. France.

[BoogercountySooner]

good point flyer