Harry Truman job approval 23%, G.W. at 25%

[Wndrtch]

Harry S. Truman, Mr. "the buck stops here" had a job approval rating of 23% when he left office. Yet, today he is regarded as one of our nations best Presidents.

He is the only World leader to have ever dropped an atomic bomb...
He invaded Korea...
He supported NATO...
He supported the creation of the UN...
He supported the creation of the Israeli state...
He authorized the Berlin airlift...
He supported the Marshal plan, to rebuild Europe...
He began the Cold War with the Truman Doctrine...

Would Harry be accepted by today's Democrats, given his war-mongering?

Today, our current President has a job approval rating of 25%. A few decades from now, when Iraq is a working Democracy, and in relative peace with itself and its neighbors, and the Democratic spin machine is focused on another poor soul, will G.W. be remembered in a similar way?

[lily]

Harry S. Truman, Mr. "the buck stops here" had a job approval rating of 23% when he left office. Yet, today he is regarded as one of our nations best Presidents.

So we are going to quibble about %2? I also think that the amount of time Bush's numbers have been in the crapper compared to Truman's makes a big difference in what we are going to be discussing.

Harry S. Truman, Mr. "the buck stops here"

That is one thing that made him what he was........if only.........

Today, our current President has a job approval rating of 25%. A few decades from now, when Iraq is a working Democracy, and in relative peace with itself and its neighbors, and the Democratic spin machine is focused on another poor soul, will G.W. be remembered in a similar way?

Who knows what will happen in 20 years? I think even after 20 years we will be discussing how badly this war was fought in the first 8. One thing we do agree on..........it will go down in history.

[preservanation]

Latest Bush job approval rating

CNN/Opinion Research Corp. 10/12... 36%

USA Today/Gallup 10/12................. 32%

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 10/9.........35%

NPR LV 10/4...................................38% http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

[Wndrtch]

Latest Bush job approval rating

CNN/Opinion Research Corp. 10/12... 36%

USA Today/Gallup 10/12................. 32%

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 10/9.........35%

NPR LV 10/4...................................38% http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm


:ecstatic:

It's almost like he gets a bump, everytime Harry Reid speaks. Maybe because it reminds America that he's the only one standing in the way of run-amok Lefties. The Dems haven't been able to do anything significant since they took hold. They have wasted their time trying to defeat and embarrass our military/President, going so far as to insult our allies and go after talk show hosts.

A good thing they are just incompetent, and can't get anything past a "Lame-duck" President.

[Deadshot]

Don't you realize that Bush is continuing to sink the GOP everyday?

The Dem's will present that Child insurance bill again, and Bush will Veto and he will get Republicans to not vote to overturn. So now the Dems will run ads next year that will show Republicans as uncaring and evil. And just like the Willie Horton add of a generation ago, the TRUTH and reality of the situation won't get out, but the preception of evil and incompetance will shine forth.

Thank God for the arrogance and stupidity of George W. Bush! Dem's sweep in '08:ecstatic::clapper::nana:

[exigent]

Well it wont matter, we'll be reading our history books in chinese the way we are enabling the largest country in the world...an oppresive communist one, to be the world leader in the next few decades.

Good job neocons

[Wndrtch]

Don't you realize that Bush is continuing to sink the GOP everyday?

The Dem's will present that Child insurance bill again, and Bush will Veto and he will get Republicans to not vote to overturn. So now the Dems will run ads next year that will show Republicans as uncaring and evil. And just like the Willie Horton add of a generation ago, the TRUTH and reality of the situation won't get out, but the preception of evil and incompetance will shine forth.

Thank God for the arrogance and stupidity of George W. Bush! Dem's sweep in '08:ecstatic::clapper::nana:


I think the proper smily is - :drool:

[Deadshot]

I think the proper smily is - :drool:


Nah, I save that for when the women here turn me on...sadly I've never used that smiley...:innocent:

[exigent]

Thank God for the arrogance and stupidity of George W. Bush! Dem's sweep in '08:ecstatic::clapper::nana:


Careful, many thought the same about the 2004 election...but I feel that nat as many Republican voters would repeat their mistake a third time, seeing as all but only an ignorant few can see the damage this administration is doing to America.

[Wndrtch]

Well it wont matter, we'll be reading our history books in chinese the way we are enabling the largest country in the world...an oppresive communist one, to be the world leader in the next few decades.

Good job neocons


Now THAT, I can fully agree with you. How long you think, before China goes for Taiwan? You just KNOW that's comming. I suspect they are going to wait until after our next elections to see the outcome.

Have you been reading Bill Gertz? He's been the only one following the cat & mouse game we've been playing with the Chinese military. They've been "testing" us.

Sorry to go off-post, but this is going to be a big deal in the comming few years.

[exigent]

Now THAT, I can fully agree with you. How long you think, before China goes for Taiwan? You just KNOW that's comming. I suspect they are going to wait until after our next elections to see the outcome.

Have you been reading Bill Gertz? He's been the only one following the cat & mouse game we've been playing with the Chinese military. They've been "testing" us.

Sorry to go off-post, but this is going to be a big deal in the comming few years.


Taiwan will be absorbed by China when China says so. I dont think they will gain the position of world leader by force wither. Clintons free trade policies made China rich, Bush is making China wealthy by borrowing money to fund the war. China is gaining in technology, has the numbers, has resources, and is gaining the ability to take our imports away.

I dont keep up with Bill Gertz, but as a fallen DF'er used to say "Look at the *BIG PICTURE*"

[Wndrtch]

Thank God for the arrogance and stupidity of George W. Bush! Dem's sweep in '08:ecstatic::clapper::nana:


Careful, many thought the same about the 2004 election...but I feel that nat as many Republican voters would repeat their mistake a third time, seeing as all but only an ignorant few can see the damage this administration is doing to America.


That's because you Libs put dopes like John Kerry and Al Gore up there. You blew two very winnable elections, because of the hacks you offered up. I know more than a few Liberals, who where glad on 911 that Al didn't win. And given Kerry's lies during Vietnam, you would have had a mass-exodus from the military, as large numbers of soldiers would not have served under him.

You want to win the next election, then either draft or find someone like, Sam Nunn. That guy is top-notch.

[Deadshot]

What's funny, about this Post's premise and the election in '08 is how many Republicans just don't get it.

First, Truman's popularity went up because the POTUS' after him kept following the "Truman Doctrine" of stopping communism from spreading. Now how many of you think we're going to follow Bush's lead in the future? At least in '08, when a Dem wins, for the next four years we won't follow the "Bush Doctrine" of invading countries in the Axis of Evil or whatever the hell his overall plan is.

Second, Truman laid the groundwork for the third rail of politics, not Social Security - but something linked to it, MEDICARE! You know who received the FIRST Medicare/Medicaid card? LBJ gave it to Truman. Can anyone name a social program that Bush has started that will be implemented in the future? Truman fought, even after leaving office for Medicare and both JFK and LBJ listened. Who's going to listen to Bush?

Third, Truman had the good will of WWII (where as a Senator he went after those who were war profiteers and were wasting the Governments money) and the willingness to accept blame for failures. That's what the sign "The Buck Stops Here!" meant. Not only would he accept the credit, but he would be responsible for the blame. That's not Bush's M.O.

Finally, the Republicans refuse to accept the fact that the majority of the country is against the War in Iraq and the GOP doesn't have a candidate that they're happy with. Many were hoping that Thompson would be the savior, but that didn't and hasn't happened. The other candidates are polling high with Republicans, but lukewarm with Independents and not at all with Democrats. Each time Bush won, and Clinton won, Bush I, Reagan, keep going back the POTUS was able to pull in the overwhelming majority of his party, but also the majority of the Independents and even a piece of the opposistion party. The hatred for Bush is spilling over to a dislike of the GOP.

When people look at poll numbers they may not like Congress, but that's hundreds of people on BOTH sides of the political aisle. Not like the POTUS though, he is the leader of the GOP...and shit always runs down hill.

[exigent]

That's because you Libs put dopes like John Kerry and Al Gore up there. You blew two very winnable elections, because of the hacks you offered up. I know more than a few Liberals, who where glad on 911 that Al didn't win. And given Kerry's lies during Vietnam, you would have had a mass-exodus from the military, as large numbers of soldiers would not have served under him.



You speak purely from opinion. Why would anyone serve under Bush? He is not a decorated vet but he was a derelict. Besides, even Bush doesnt think Kerry lied

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/27/politics/campaign/27bush.html?ex=1251259200&en=9f0c907a26349c89&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

He's absolutely jealous is Kerry's record.

[Wndrtch]

That's because you Libs put dopes like John Kerry and Al Gore up there. You blew two very winnable elections, because of the hacks you offered up. I know more than a few Liberals, who where glad on 911 that Al didn't win. And given J.K.Hienz lies during Vietnam, you would have had a mass-exodus from the military, as large numbers of soldiers would not have served under him.



You speak purely from opinion. Why would anyone serve under Bush? He is not a decorated vet but he was a derelict. Besides, even Bush doesnt think Kerry lied

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/27/politics/campaign/27bush.html?ex=1251259200&en=9f0c907a26349c89&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

He's absolutely jealous is Kerry's record.


Because Bush didn't come back after four months, and start a political career by claiming our soldiers were a barbarian horde, that "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war..."

This guy is Jesse McBeth circa 1975, accept Mr.Ketch-up got away with it.

At least he got Jane Fonda, when it was worthwhile to.

[exigent]

"had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war..."


Well factcheck.org, the neocon nemesis, confirms that that quote was taken out of context...


Kerry was quoting stories he had heard from others at an anti-war event in Detroit, and not claiming first-hand knowledge.


heres what he really said, they just took bits and pieces.


Here is a more complete excerpt of what Kerry said, with the words used in the ad bold-faced so that readers can judge for themselves how much the added context might change their understanding of how Kerry was quoted in the ad:

Kerry Senate Testimony (1971): I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.


http://www.factcheck.org/swift_boat_veterans_anti-kerry_ad_he_betrayed.html

The fact that you still believe the lies of the swiftboaters subtracts from your credibility. Even the creator of the swiftboaters was a liar.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250002

and one of the vets who made accusations against kerry admitted to lying.


Later, French admitted those allegations were not based on personal knowledge but came secondhand from friends or acquaintances.

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5471


Bring something REAL next time, bro

[Elrathin]

A few decades from now, when Iraq is a working Democracy, and in relative peace with itself and its neighbors, and the Democratic spin machine is focused on another poor soul, will G.W. be remembered in a similar way?


Bush's presidency rides on Iraq. If it is a success he will be a success as far as history is concerned. If Iraq fails and war follows, his presidency will be the utmost dismal failure in the history of America.

No matter what you, I , or other people think now, it is history that will judge him and Iraq is the key to that judgment.[hr]
Because Bush didn't come back after four months, and start a political career by claiming our soldiers were a barbarian horde, that "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war..."

I'm just curious are you claiming that NO U.S. troops committed ANY atrocities in Vietnam? Please tell me you're not saying that.

[Wndrtch]

I'm just curious are you claiming that NO U.S. troops committed ANY atrocities in Vietnam? Please tell me you're not saying that.

Of course not. We wouldn't have a Military Code of Justice and terms like JAG, if everybody in the military was an angel. But that's not what Kerry was trying to imply. He was trying to say that this type of crap was policy, and directed from the top down, which is a bold-faced lie and he knew that. IF he really believed that the "Winter Soldiers" were telling the truth and had committed those crimes, he had an obligation to expose those soldiers, and bring them to justice. But he didn't because he knew they were full of it.

The truth is, he only said those things for personal, political expediency. He should have been tried for lying to Congress, and thrown in jail.

[exigent]

Of course not. We wouldn't have a Military Code of Justice and terms like JAG, if everybody in the military was an angel. But that's not what Kerry was trying to imply. He was trying to say that this type of crap was policy, and directed from the top down, which is a bold-faced lie and he knew that.




Do you have a source that all 109 veterans testifying in Detroit were liars? I'd surely like to put this one to rest.

[Wndrtch]

"had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war..."


Well factcheck.org, the neocon nemesis, confirms that that quote was taken out of context...


Kerry was quoting stories he had heard from others at an anti-war event in Detroit, and not claiming first-hand knowledge.


heres what he really said, they just took bits and pieces.


Here is a more complete excerpt of what Kerry said, with the words used in the ad bold-faced so that readers can judge for themselves how much the added context might change their understanding of how Kerry was quoted in the ad:

Kerry Senate Testimony (1971): I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.


http://www.factcheck.org/swift_boat_veterans_anti-kerry_ad_he_betrayed.html

The fact that you still believe the lies of the swiftboaters subtracts from your credibility. Even the creator of the swiftboaters was a liar.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250002

and one of the vets who made accusations against kerry admitted to lying.


Later, French admitted those allegations were not based on personal knowledge but came secondhand from friends or acquaintances.

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5471


Bring something REAL next time, bro


Bro-dude, I never said Kerry's comments were first hand experiences. Kerry is stupid, but not THAT stupid. You're taking ME out of context.

And no, I didn't take him out of context. He testified that the Winter Soldiers told him that THEY had personally committed the war crimes, and that it was "committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command". He wanted the World to believe that these atrocities were policy, and widespread. They weren't. He lied. That's it.

Besides, if Kerry really believed that crap by the Winter Soldiers, how come he didn't have them arrested and tried for war crimes? As a former officer, he has an obligation to do that, but didn't which is why I believe it was all butt-kiss.

By the way, stay away from that MoveOn and MediaMatters crap. It will rot your teeth and give you bad breath.

[exigent]

He wanted the World to believe that these atrocities were policy, and widespread. They weren't. He lied. That's it.


I'd like to see a source.

[Wndrtch]

Of course not. We wouldn't have a Military Code of Justice and terms like JAG, if everybody in the military was an angel. But that's not what Kerry was trying to imply. He was trying to say that this type of crap was policy, and directed from the top down, which is a bold-faced lie and he knew that.




Do you have a source that all 109 veterans testifying in Detroit were liars? I'd surely like to put this one to rest.


Link me their testimonies and names, and I'll look into it.

What I DO know, is that cutting peoples ears off, raping women, cutting heads off, electrifying genitals, cutting off limbs, etc...was never a policy of our Armed Forces, which is what Kerry's testimony was claiming.

[exigent]

he said that CO's were 'aware' ...he didnt say policy. If he did, show me that quote.

heres the link to the Winter Soldiers Tribunal

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_entry.html

Start debunking.

[Labrocca]

The War in Iraq is going well now. I predict that if we "stay the course" that Iraq will be the richest nation in the region with the best Democracy and our biggest ally in just a few decades.

I think even after 20 years we will be discussing how badly this war was fought in the first 8.

No...WE won't but YOU might be. Those that are the persistent detractors are too stubborn to see the woods through the trees. History has a way of looking at the big picture...Truman is a very good example of that.

Good topic btw.

[Wndrtch]

He wanted the World to believe that these atrocities were policy, and widespread. They weren't. He lied. That's it.


I'd like to see a source.


So would I. Show me the memo on official stationary, that orders our soldiers to do those things. They are the ones making the claim, so the onus is on them to show evidence. Otherwise, it's just slander.[hr]
He wanted the World to believe that these atrocities were policy, and widespread. They weren't. He lied. That's it.


I'd like to see a source.


Well, at least the Winter Soldiers thought it was policy:

"We intend to tell who it was that gave us those orders; that created that policy; that set that standard of war bordering on full and final genocide"

[exigent]

So would I. Show me the memo on official stationary, that orders our soldiers to do those things.


Nice try. According to your post, it's on you to back up your claims that they are lies.

here
http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=8820&pid=107516#pid107516

[Labrocca]

Don't bother Wndrtch...certain liberals on this forum throw the word lie around a lot without actually knowing it's meaning. The Lying Left Liberals are hellbent on making Bush look bad no matter truth or honesty.

[exigent]

heh, you rule, Labrocca.

I just want him to back up his wacky claims

::shrug::

[Wndrtch]

So would I. Show me the memo on official stationary, that orders our soldiers to do those things.


Nice try. According to your post, it's on you to back up your claims that they are lies.

here
http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=8820&pid=107516#pid107516


LOL!!! :madlaugh:

You're killing me! Oh the pain, THE PAIN!!

Ok, here's your proof. They are lies because I say they are!!!!!

Seeing how this all the "proof" you needed from Winter Soldiers, it should be good enough for me.[hr]
Don't bother Wndrtch...certain liberals on this forum throw the word lie around a lot without actually knowing it's meaning. The Lying Left Liberals are hellbent on making Bush look bad no matter truth or honesty.


Sometimes, I like abuse! :ecstatic:

[lily]

No...WE won't but YOU might be. Those that are the persistent detractors are too stubborn to see the woods through the trees. History has a way of looking at the big picture...Truman is a very good example of that.

Good topic btw.


Are you trying to tell me that this war has been a smashing success? That it wasn't sheer stupidity from the very begining when we let the captured soldiers go free with their weapons, disbanded the Iraqi army and let the looting go unchecked?

That's just from the begining months.......I could go on.[hr]
Don't bother Wndrtch...certain liberals on this forum throw the word lie around a lot without actually knowing it's meaning. The Lying Left Liberals are hellbent on making Bush look bad no matter truth or honesty.


Huh? Wndrtch said and I quote:

Do you have a source that all 109 veterans testifying in Detroit were liars? I'd surely like to put this one to rest.


Link me their testimonies and names, and I'll look into it.

Exigent did and he get's thrown into the category of the lying left that throw the word lie around?

[preservanation]

One of these days, soon, the libs are going to have to realize that they are not running against Bush.
They will have to support Hillary, the Corronated Nominee, and start defending Hillary instead of attacking Bush.

Much, Much, More Difficult....And will actually require some thought!

Time to drop your shovels and step out of the sand-box.
I know it's scary, but you're going to have to do it sooner or later!

[lily]

Sounds good, preservation........start a thread about it. This one is about Truman and Bush's approval rating.

[preservanation]

lily:
Are you trying to tell me that this war has been a smashing success? That it wasn't sheer stupidity from the very begining when we let the captured soldiers go free with their weapons, disbanded the Iraqi army and let the looting go unchecked?ok[hr]
Latest Bush job approval rating

CNN/Opinion Research Corp. 10/12... 36%

USA Today/Gallup 10/12................. 32%

FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 10/9.........35%

NPR LV 10/4...................................38% http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

[Labrocca]

Are you trying to tell me that this war has been a smashing success? That it wasn't sheer stupidity from the very begining when we let the captured soldiers go free with their weapons, disbanded the Iraqi army and let the looting go unchecked?

Hindsight is 20/20 so they say. And a smashing success? Nope..but compare it to Truman's decision to drop the A-Bomb and kill over 200,000 japanese civilians..I would say clearly Bush is more successful than him. Truman is the only human being on Earth that has made the decision to use a Nuclear Weapon on people. Not that I think he was wrong for doing it..on the contrary it shows that at the time an incredibly unpopular decision long term could be seen as the right decision.

[Elrathin]

Nope..but compare it to Truman's decision to drop the A-Bomb and kill over 200,000 japanese civilians..


Whoa whoa whoa, are you saying that it was a bad decision? cause as far as I know conservatives have defended this position till times end. In fact I think the term " Hell yeah drop two more" has been shouted by more than one conservative. What are you saying here Lab?

[exigent]

Hindsight is 20/20 so they say. And a smashing success? Nope..but compare it to Truman's decision to drop the A-Bomb and kill over 200,000 japanese civilians..I would say clearly Bush is more successful than him. Truman is the only human being on Earth that has made the decision to use a Nuclear Weapon on people. Not that I think he was wrong for doing it..on the contrary it shows that at the time an incredibly unpopular decision long term could be seen as the right decision.


Truman dropped the bombs, killed 200,000 civilians and Japan immediately surrendered and reconstruction began without an insurgent threat.

Our wreaking havoc in Iraq has been the cause of about 600,000 civilians and there is no end in sight

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

Please dont use "bush" and "success" in the same sentence. It doesnt work out so well when people try to do that.

[Wndrtch]

Hindsight is 20/20 so they say. And a smashing success? Nope..but compare it to Truman's decision to drop the A-Bomb and kill over 200,000 japanese civilians..I would say clearly Bush is more successful than him. Truman is the only human being on Earth that has made the decision to use a Nuclear Weapon on people. Not that I think he was wrong for doing it..on the contrary it shows that at the time an incredibly unpopular decision long term could be seen as the right decision.


Truman dropped the bombs, killed 200,000 civilians and Japan immediately surrendered and reconstruction began without an insurgent threat.

Our wreaking havoc in Iraq has been the cause of about 600,000 civilians and there is no end in sight

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

Please dont use "bush" and "success" in the same sentence. It doesnt work out so well when people try to do that.


"and now, for something completely different..."

Perspective.

WWII -

Civilian deaths in Germany totaled an estimated 1.8Mill.

Civilian deaths in Japan totaled an estimated 500,000.

Civilian deaths in Italy totaled an estimated 145,000.

Civilian deaths in France totaled an estimated 267,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

I'd have to say, we've made progress.

[Elrathin]

I'd have to say, we've made progress.


So less deaths equal progress by that fact alone? Hardly. the only difference now is that we have more wounded that come back instead of dying. Go right ahead though and tell you're success story to a soldier that has both legs amputated, I'm sure that will make him feel better.

[Wndrtch]

So less deaths equal progress by that fact alone? Hardly.

In the real World, yes it does.

In the Utopian "there is no evil, just flowers" alternative Universe, I guess it would be different. I don't live there, so I wouldn't know.

Go right ahead though and tell you're success story to a soldier that has both legs amputated, I'm sure that will make him feel better.

What will make him/her "feel" better, will be to bring his "Brothers in Arms" home in VICTORY, and not defeated. It makes the sacrifices they all made, worthwhile and not wasted. Libs can't seem to get their brains around that.

[exigent]

What will make him/her "feel" better, will be to bring his "Brothers in Arms" home in VICTORY, and not defeated. It makes the sacrifices they all made, worthwhile and not wasted. Libs can't seem to get their brains around that.


So our vietnam vets' sacrifices werent worthwhile?

[Deadshot]

First off Lab's being fescicious, anyone that's looked at the plans of the Japanese to defend the Home Islands and our plans for operation Olympic, the invasion of the home islands, knows Truman made the right decision.

As far as wasted sacrifices, that's part and parcel to war. Each and every war has had wasted sacrifices. But what one must remember, as a soldier, is that you did your duty and you deserve the respect and honor of your country. Wnd it almost sounds like that if we were to ever lose a war, and soldiers came home in defeat, that YOU, not the Liberals would think less of them.

Those men and women, regardless of the outcome on the field of battle our fighting on our behalf and deserve your respect and honor NO MATTER WHAT!

[Wndrtch]

What will make him/her "feel" better, will be to bring his "Brothers in Arms" home in VICTORY, and not defeated. It makes the sacrifices they all made, worthwhile and not wasted. Libs can't seem to get their brains around that.


So our vietnam vets' sacrifices werent worthwhile?


Did we win? Did we stop Communism from taking root in S.E.Asia? Did we prevent the slaghter of countless millions?

[exigent]

Disgusting. Thats the thanks they get for doing their jobs.

[Deadshot]

What will make him/her "feel" better, will be to bring his "Brothers in Arms" home in VICTORY, and not defeated. It makes the sacrifices they all made, worthwhile and not wasted. Libs can't seem to get their brains around that.


So our vietnam vets' sacrifices werent worthwhile?


Did we win?

No. Niether Vietnam nor Korea did we "win."

Did we stop Communism from taking root in S.E.Asia?

Nah, North Korea is still Communist and Vietnam was all communist in the 70's

Did we prevent the slaghter of countless millions?


Cambodia and the Khmer Rougue would say no to that.

But as was pointed out before, and I can't remember if it was you or not, but Americans don't like continually giving their lives for other non-Americans.

So, win or lose, I don't think we could just stay there indefinitely and stop it....though that is just what we did in South Korea, yet we still must deal with the threats of North Korea every year or so. Seems that either way we take a shot to the nuts in these situations.:shame:

[Wndrtch]

First off Lab's being fescicious, anyone that's looked at the plans of the Japanese to defend the Home Islands and our plans for operation Olympic, the invasion of the home islands, knows Truman made the right decision.

As far as wasted sacrifices, that's part and parcel to war. Each and every war has had wasted sacrifices. But what one must remember, as a soldier, is that you did your duty and you deserve the respect and honor of your country. Wnd it almost sounds like that if we were to ever lose a war, and soldiers came home in defeat, that YOU, not the Liberals would think less of them.

Those men and women, regardless of the outcome on the field of battle our fighting on our behalf and deserve your respect and honor NO MATTER WHAT!


The question was if the sacrifices made by our soldiers in Vietnam was wasted or not. NOT whether they are deserving of honor and respect.
In that context, their sacrifices were wasted, because we didn't let them finish the job. We bravely ran away.

Regarding honor and respect, it wasn't Conservatives that were spitting on them when they came home. It wasn't Conservatives calling them barbarians and accusing them of war crimes. If that's what you Libs call "respect", then WoW!

[Deadshot]

The question was if the sacrifices made by our soldiers in Vietnam was wasted or not. NOT whether they are deserving of honor and respect.
In that context, their sacrifices were wasted, because we didn't let them finish the job. We bravely ran away.

Fine, but my point is that REGARDLESS of the decisions of politicians and the Generals/Admirals in charge, those in the military deserve our respect and all the honor their country can provide to them.

Let the politicians and historians argue about who wasted what where. The Troops are to be treated with respect and honor no matter what!

Regarding honor and respect, it wasn't Conservatives that were spitting on them when they came home. It wasn't Conservatives calling them barbarians and accusing them of war crimes. If that's what you Libs call "respect", then WoW!


First off, my Dad was in Vietnam. I served on the Ike in the First Gulf War. As a veteran, and human being, it's pretty easy to see that what was done to the soldiers coming home, and it was a lot of Liberals, was blatantly wrong.

We're talking about now, today 2007, more then 30 years after Vietnam when the Liberals were schooled, and at least this Liberal learned, that you respect the troops NO MATTER WHAT! Today the troops, if they came home today, next year or ten years from now, would not be treated as those poor grunts of Vietnam were treated. The Majority of Liberals have learned from those mistakes and won't shit on the troops. Whenever they come home they'll be treated with respect.

[exigent]

The question was if the sacrifices made by our soldiers in Vietnam was wasted or not.


They fought, many of them to the death, to stop the spread of communism and invoke the hope of freedom. If planned better with a definite exit strategy then EVERYONE would win. I blame only the leadership. Just like with whats going on in Iraq. I blame Bush. The military does everything and more that they are expected and deserve respect. No casualty is wasted or not, as long as they were fighting for what is right.

[Deadshot]

They fought, many of them to the death, to stop the spread of communism and invoke the hope of freedom. If planned better with a definite exit strategy then EVERYONE would win. I blame only the leadership. Just like with whats going on in Iraq. I blame Bush. The military does everything and more that they are expected and deserve respect. No casualty is wasted or not, as long as they were fighting for what is right.



Well said and I TOTALLY agree.

[Wndrtch]

Disgusting. Thats the thanks they get for doing their jobs.


You're a tool!

What are you talking about? We sent them to prevent Communism from taking hold in S.E.Asia. Was that objective met? No, because of pinko-Commie, "flower-power", silver-spoon, anti-war hacks. Therfore, ALL of the blood spilled was a waste! It wouldn't have been a waste, if we met our objective.

For crying out loud, was all the money we spent on Vietnam well spent, or was it a waste? According to your "logic", it was well spent.

[exigent]

You're a tool!


The money wasnt wasted because we tried. Every man on the ground tried. There might have been a winning strategy, but we didnt have it. It is unpatriotic of you to say that these soldiers blood was wasted, when they died while putting forth an effort. Enlist in a branch of your choosing and you'll understand.

More proof that neocons hate america right here.

[Labrocca]

Whoa whoa whoa, are you saying that it was a bad decision?

I can't believe people have such difficulty with reading comprehension.

Try to read again my full paragraph and this time try to complete reading it before you reply.

Hindsight is 20/20 so they say. And a smashing success? Nope..but compare it to Truman's decision to drop the A-Bomb and kill over 200,000 japanese civilians..I would say clearly Bush is more successful than him. Truman is the only human being on Earth that has made the decision to use a Nuclear Weapon on people. Not that I think he was wrong for doing it..on the contrary it shows that at the time an incredibly unpopular decision long term could be seen as the right decision.

Glad someone brought up Nam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

So far in 3 years of Iraq we have regrettably lost 3835 soldiers.
http://icasualties.org/oif/

In Nam we lost 58,000 in total. It was 1965-1966 that we really beefed up the troop level there and those 2 years alone we lost 8,000 US soldiers. In the next 3 years we lost over 39,000. Iraq is a success.

Compare Iraq to any previous war in a similar category and Iraq is a MAJOR success.

And there are NOT 600,000 civilians killed. That's an inflated liberal lefty lie. Every legit number I see is closer to 80k. And we are not the ones killing the civilians at such a rate..it's the Islamic terrorists.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Total crap.
The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.

That's not a count...that's a bullshit estimate based on a survey.

First off Lab's being fescicious, anyone that's looked at the plans of the Japanese to defend the Home Islands and our plans for operation Olympic, the invasion of the home islands, knows Truman made the right decision.

Do you mean facetious? Because I don't find any of this humorous. The left lying about reality, casualties and war in order to score political points is not funny in any manner.

[Wndrtch]

Fine, but my point is that REGARDLESS of the decisions of politicians and the Generals/Admirals in charge, those in the military deserve our respect and all the honor their country can provide to them.

I agree whole heartily. The enviroment today, is not the same as with Vietnam. You get the ocasional vandilism of a requitment office in San Fransisco or Berkley, but those are relatively isolated incidents.

Let the politicians and historians argue about who wasted what where. The Troops are to be treated with respect and honor no matter what!

I agree here as well.

Allow me to make my point about "wasted sacrifice" this way:

If you were on a mission, and one of your colegues was killed half-way there, would you have retreated, or pushed on to finish the task?

Would you have felt MORE abligated to finish the task?

You don't honor the fallen by giving up on the task. You honor them by completeing the job you all were set out to accomplish.

[exigent]

There would be a lot more casualties in Iraq if we are living in 1970.

So due to advancements in medicine and technology, we are winning Iraq by virtue of a lower body count in comparison to a war that happened 30 years ago?

[Wndrtch]

Whoa whoa whoa, are you saying that it was a bad decision?

I can't believe people have such difficulty with reading comprehension.

Try to read again my full paragraph and this time try to complete reading it before you reply.

Hindsight is 20/20 so they say. And a smashing success? Nope..but compare it to Truman's decision to drop the A-Bomb and kill over 200,000 japanese civilians..I would say clearly Bush is more successful than him. Truman is the only human being on Earth that has made the decision to use a Nuclear Weapon on people. Not that I think he was wrong for doing it..on the contrary it shows that at the time an incredibly unpopular decision long term could be seen as the right decision.

Glad someone brought up Nam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

So far in 3 years of Iraq we have regrettably lost 3835 soldiers.
http://icasualties.org/oif/

In Nam we lost 58,000 in total. It was 1965-1966 that we really beefed up the troop level there and those 2 years alone we lost 8,000 US soldiers. In the next 3 years we lost over 39,000. Iraq is a success.

Compare Iraq to any previous war in a similar category and Iraq is a MAJOR success.

And there are NOT 600,000 civilians killed. That's an inflated liberal lefty lie. Every legit number I see is closer to 80k. And we are not the ones killing the civilians at such a rate..it's the Islamic terrorists.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Total crap.
The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.

That's not a count...that's a bullshit estimate based on a survey.

First off Lab's being fescicious, anyone that's looked at the plans of the Japanese to defend the Home Islands and our plans for operation Olympic, the invasion of the home islands, knows Truman made the right decision.

Do you mean facetious? Because I don't find any of this humorous. The left lying about reality, casualties and war in order to score political points is not funny in any manner.


My Hero!! :love:

If we were to apply this Liberal "logic" to law-enforcement, we should fire all the cops because some die doing their job. Hell, let's send the firefighters home as well.[hr]
There would be a lot more casualties in Iraq if we are living in 1970.

So due to advancements in medicine and technology, we are winning Iraq by virtue of a lower body count in comparison to a war that happened 30 years ago?


No, we're winning Iraq because we kill way more enemy fighters than they kill of our troops.

The lower body count is attributed to the professionalism of our troops and the technology we developed, despite the Left's attempts to de-fund weapon programs over the years.

[Labrocca]

There would be a lot more casualties in Iraq if we are living in 1970.

So due to advancements in medicine and technology, we are winning Iraq by virtue of a lower body count in comparison to a war that happened 30 years ago?

Pure speculation. You assume that only the USA would have advanced medicine...well wouldn't the Vietcong have advanced weaponry and tactics? The Jungle of vietnam created a rough situation for soldiers and made it difficult to pull out the wounded quickly. Yes it was a different war but obviously it's the closest thing we have to compare. Just about every past previous war has had more casualties than Iraq.

This thread is about Truman comparison to Bush so it's probably better to compare WWII with Iraq...we are close to a WWIII anyways.

[Wndrtch]

There would be a lot more casualties in Iraq if we are living in 1970.

So due to advancements in medicine and technology, we are winning Iraq by virtue of a lower body count in comparison to a war that happened 30 years ago?

Pure speculation. You assume that only the USA would have advanced medicine...well wouldn't the Vietcong have advanced weaponry and tactics? The Jungle of vietnam created a rough situation for soldiers and made it difficult to pull out the wounded quickly. Yes it was a different war but obviously it's the closest thing we have to compare. Just about every past previous war has had more casualties than Iraq.

This thread is about Truman comparison to Bush so it's probably better to compare WWII with Iraq...we are close to a WWIII anyways.


You're forgetting the Cold War. We're at WWIV.

[exigent]

...we are close to a WWIII anyways.


Sorry it got a bit off topic...

if Bush has his way, WWIII will be sooner than we expect.

[Wndrtch]

...we are close to a WWIII anyways.


Sorry it got a bit off topic...

if Bush has his way, WWIII will be sooner than we expect.


Umm, we are already.

http://www.globalincidentmap.com/home.php

[Elrathin]

Umm, we are already.

http://www.globalincidentmap.com/home.php


LOL many of those are just incidents that have NO RELATION to terrorism or WWIII whatsoever.

[Wndrtch]

Umm, we are already.

http://www.globalincidentmap.com/home.php


LOL many of those are just incidents that have NO RELATION to terrorism or WWIII whatsoever.


LOL!!!

I know. I just wanted to mix it up a bit.

One of my personalities, is an anarchist. :dork:

[lily]

[quote]Hindsight is 20/20 so they say.

Hindsight? I won't go into all the generals that told Bush what he was doing was wrong.........I'll just go to Cheney's statement of exactly what would happen if Bush the Elder invaded Iraq.......there is no hindsight required.

[brum]

This has gotten a little off target of what is was started out to be. I think that Trumans approval was low because of what was happening when he got into office. He is looked back on good because of what he did to fix the things that were wrong when he got there.

Bush's approval is low not because of what someone did before him but because of what he has done during his presidency. When looked back on this will be one of the factors along with the Iraq war that will determine how history will see him.

As for comparing Iraq to WWII. How can you do that in this context? The U.S. joined WWII after it had started. The U.S. specifically Bush started the Iraqi war.

[Wndrtch]

As for comparing Iraq to WWII. How can you do that in this context? The U.S. joined WWII after it had started. The U.S. specifically Bush started the Iraqi war.


Boy, Libs will do anything to disconnect Iraq from the GWoT.

So tell me, if you are going to confront Global Terrorism (Islamic Fascism), where do you send your troops? Europe? Asia?

Maybe, the Middle East perhaps, considering that is where Islamic Extremism was born and is supported from. So, if we decide we need troops on the ground in the Middle East, then what country offers the most advantageous geographical position within the region?

That would be Iraq, given that it boarders Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. Regarding the Iran issue, have you noticed that US forces sit on Iran’s Eastern (Afghanistan) and Western (Iraq) boarders?

You think that was an accident?

[lily]

So it's a game of tic-tac-toe?

There was no need to invade Iraq. We could have had a shining example of Democracy in Afghanistan by now. The way we are spreading Democracy no one wants it.