• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Honorable Senator John Glenn

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: moomoo40moo
JOHN GLENN SAID


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.
[ ... ]
Click to expand...
Right there is where I dismissed this as pointless partisanship. There were only 39 "combat" related deaths in Iraq in January? Really? I'm not sure which January Glenn is referring to, but I'm guessing what he really meant is there were only 39 U.S. deaths in Iraq that month. Unfortunately, if this January was at all typical, there were hundreds of Iraqi casualties that month. Apparently in Glenn's mind, and yours, Iraqi deaths don't matter. I find that attitude repugnant, especially in a political cheap shot like this.

I have tremendous respect and admiration for Glenn as an astronaut. He was one of my boyhood heroes. For Glenn as a partisan hack? Not so much.
Click to expand...

Finish this sentence for me please?

"But Murtha is..."
 
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: moomoo40moo
JOHN GLENN SAID


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.
[ ... ]
Click to expand...
Right there is where I dismissed this as pointless partisanship. There were only 39 "combat" related deaths in Iraq in January? Really? I'm not sure which January Glenn is referring to, but I'm guessing what he really meant is there were only 39 U.S. deaths in Iraq that month. Unfortunately, if this January was at all typical, there were hundreds of Iraqi casualties that month. Apparently in Glenn's mind, and yours, Iraqi deaths don't matter. I find that attitude repugnant, especially in a political cheap shot like this.

I have tremendous respect and admiration for Glenn as an astronaut. He was one of my boyhood heroes. For Glenn as a partisan hack? Not so much.
Click to expand...
Finish this sentence for me please?

"But Murtha is..."
Click to expand...
... NOT dismissing Iraqi deaths as irrelevant?
 
Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I've seen that before. Stop posting crap that you get forwarded in your emails.

I recall the original comparing the homicide rate of D.C. per month compared to Iraq though.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but then they realized that the "comparison" revealed a truly pathetic inability to use math correctly and decided to credit more right-wing BS to someone else.

You know what I love about these fwd: fwd:'s? They are posted and re-posted by a HUGE number of partisan idiots all over the Internet without anyone in the chain bothering to check the facts. That DC homicide rate one, for instance, is CLEARLY wrong if you take two seconds and Google it (or use your common sense), yet it's been making the rounds for years. More proof (if we needed any) that partisan hacks only hear what they want to hear.
 
It's very illuminating in some way... Don't you notice what is missing from those stats? Very few american victims in Iraq, that's true. But what about Iraqi casualties? We are talking about tens of thousands people dead, injured, blind, incapacitated for life, with no access to education or healthcare for years... Doesn't this mean ANYTHING? Do you have ANY idea of what living in Iraq is like today? Why don't you google some of the images the american mainstream media has been politely asked not to show and get a grip of what the real world looks like if you are living in Nassirya...

Then, if you want, keep your opinion that it has been a success and worth it. But at least don't spit on the dignity of thousands of people who suffered (and are still suffering) unimaginable pains. They used to say casualties should be more than mere numbers, but at least they used to be numbers. Now apparently people don't even care to consider thousands of dead children when considering the outcomes of a political decision.
 
Hope he and his wife have a full and speedy recovery.

He turned right in front of the woman.

Sounds like his driving days should be long over.

8-5-2006 Former astronaut Glenn & wife in car accident

Glenn, 85, and his wife, Annie, 86, were in fair condition early Saturday morning at Grant Medical Center, a nursing supervisor said.

The driver of the other car, Amy Myers of suburban New Albany, said she was driving east late Friday night when Glenn, who was headed west, tried to turn left onto a highway ramp.

Myers, who was not injured, said her car hit the front of his.

Glenn was "very sincerely sorry," Myers said.
 
Everything always comes back down to "innocent civilians". That's war, my friends. Unless you know a way of fighting a war that doesn't involve it? Either more of our troops die, or more of their civilians die. Bush is trying to fight a two-sided war, and in turn, is pissing off everyone.
 
John Glenn had his days of glory, but he is just an senile old fart that is distorting history to support the fumb duck he calls president.
 
Come on moomoo40moo... where did ya go? Pft. You must be too busy with your head burried up Bush's ass to come back and respond.

:roll:
 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Come on moomoo40moo... where did ya go? Pft. You must be too busy with your head burried up Bush's ass to come back and respond.

:roll:
Click to expand...

I don't know. I think Moomoo40moo might be shaking his head at his mom's e-mail in disbelief.

In any event, here is a taste of what we were told, what bush is still trying to tell us, and what's actually happening in Iraq -- with a side note from that treasonous bastard kristol whose insane ideas helped start this entire mess in the first place but who has somehow escaped the derision he so justly deserves.

Read this, then re-read that ridiculous e-mail.

?Civil War? Is Uttered, and White House?s Iraq Strategy Is Dealt a Blow

By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: August 6, 2006

WASHINGTON, Aug. 4 ? Late last year, during a major address in Annapolis, President Bush introduced a new phrase for his Iraq policy: ?Plan for Victory.? With those words emblazoned on a screen behind him, he laid out a possible exit path for American troops, who would gradually cede control to their Iraqi counterparts.

But that phrase has all but disappeared as scenes of horrific sectarian violence have streamed onto American television screens unabated. And when the United States commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, addressed the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, his testimony that ?Iraq could move towards civil war? if the strife would not end overshadowed any talk of victory.

Those two words ? civil war ? further complicated what was already a daunting challenge for the administration: convincing battle-weary Americans that the war was winnable while acknowledging the grim reality of the bloodshed.

Bringing the public back behind the Iraq campaign has been a fundamental White House goal for at least the last year, crucial to reducing public pressure to withdraw troops before the White House believes the mission is complete. It would also bolster the Republican Party?s prospects during Congressional elections in November.

But the administration is to a point still battling early expectations ? created in part by its own officials and supporters ? that the fight would be relatively easy. And it must essentially make a retroactive argument that the campaign will be long and hard, with stakes that no longer address the threat of unconventional weapons that were never found, but, rather, the prospects for the fight between democracy and Islamic extremism in the Middle East.

Since the war began more than three years ago, the administration and its supporters have discussed it in terms that have progressively tamped down expectations. The long-derided terms like ?greeted as liberators? (Vice President Dick Cheney) and ?cakewalk? (former Reagan arms control official Kenneth L. Adelman), as well as talk of an insurgency in its ?last throes? (Mr. Cheney), are a thing of memory. Now, mixed with optimism are statements from President Bush that ?the violence in Baghdad is still terrible,? and from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the United States had made ?tactical errors, thousands of them.?

But on Thursday, the administration faced a blunt warning about the possibility of a civil war in Iraq from one of its military leaders.

For some who have watched the public relations campaign closely, General Abizaid?s statement ? which did include an assertion that Iraq would ultimately avoid a civil war ? represented a tacit acknowledgment that there was no use spinning this conflict.

Yet it also risked feeding public calls to leave Iraq when Americans are especially supportive of a speedy troop withdrawal if the conflict devolves into an internal Iraqi war.

? ?Civil war? is sort of a proxy term for wars we cannot win,? said Christopher F. Gelpi, a professor of political science at Duke University who has worked on gauging opinions on Iraq with Peter D. Feaver, a fellow Duke professor who took leave to become a special adviser to the White House, helping to hone the ?Plan for Victory.?

?The problem they?re facing is there?s only so much their rhetorical strategy can do to reshape public perceptions of the very real events that are out there, and right now those events are very bad when thousands of Iraqis are being killed every month,? Mr. Gelpi said.

Underscoring just how hard the job of putting an optimistic face on the war is proving to be, the staunchest remaining supporters are voicing pessimism about the prospects under the administration?s current approach, increasingly calling for Mr. Bush to engage in a new and more aggressive strategy.

?Those of us who still back the war are worried and alarmed,? said William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, an early proponent of the invasion. ?We need to win the war and if it?s not going well we need to change strategy.?

On The National Review Online Web site last week, a former speechwriter for President Bush, David Frum, another longtime supporter of the war, said that if the United States did not change its policy by significantly increasing troop levels, ?Baghdad ? and therefore central Iraq ? will in such a case slide after Basra and the south into the unofficial new Iranian empire.? Then, he predicted, ?American troops will be free to stay or go, depending on whether we wish to deny or acknowledge defeat.?

Mr. Frum criticized as insufficient a plan Mr. Bush announced last week for an increase of troops in Baghdad ? brought from other parts of Iraq ? to help quell the violence in the capital.

In the current political climate, there is little appetite among voters for an increased troop presence. In the latest New York Times poll, 56 percent said the United States should set a timetable for withdrawal; 33 percent said it should do so even if it means handing Iraq over to insurgents.

Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, said Mr. Bush?s hands would not be tied in Iraq by domestic politics. ?You want to have as many people as supportive of this effort as possible,? he said in an interview. ?But at the end of the day the commander in chief is going to make the decisions, and at the end of the day he?s going to defer to commanders on the ground ? not the swings of public opinion.?

Mr. Bartlett said the administration would spend the fall explaining the strategy in Iraq, describing success as certain and providing ?the necessary context and consequences and stakes in the fight,? which the administration has defined as creating the democratic conditions needed to defeat terrorism.

He acknowledged, ?The images coming out of the Middle East are unsettling and obviously contribute to the anxiety.?

The theory when President Bush unveiled the ?Plan for Victory? was that Americans would accept casualties if they could see a path to victory. For now, roadside bombs and suicide attackers are certainly clouding that vision.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Come on moomoo40moo... where did ya go? Pft. You must be too busy with your head burried up Bush's ass to come back and respond.

:roll:
Click to expand...

actually, i was gone for the weekend, and yes, bbond was right i was shaking my head in disbelief. I literally started laughing as i opened it, i thought you guys would also enjoy it's humorous nature....
 
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Everything always comes back down to "innocent civilians". That's war, my friends. Unless you know a way of fighting a war that doesn't involve it? Either more of our troops die, or more of their civilians die. Bush is trying to fight a two-sided war, and in turn, is pissing off everyone.
Click to expand...

There hasn't been a war in Iraq for 3 years.. the war ended in less than 3 months...
 
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Everything always comes back down to "innocent civilians". That's war, my friends. Unless you know a way of fighting a war that doesn't involve it? Either more of our troops die, or more of their civilians die. Bush is trying to fight a two-sided war, and in turn, is pissing off everyone.
Click to expand...

There hasn't been a war in Iraq for 3 years.. the war ended in less than 3 months...
Click to expand...

Does it really matter what we call it...it's just semantics. Lots of people are dying in a military conflict, is it really important that it's not technically a "war"?
 
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Everything always comes back down to "innocent civilians". That's war, my friends. Unless you know a way of fighting a war that doesn't involve it? Either more of our troops die, or more of their civilians die. Bush is trying to fight a two-sided war, and in turn, is pissing off everyone.
Click to expand...

This isn't a traditional war...and I would assume (apparently incorrectly) that we as a nation learned from Vietnam that fighting the last war is a bad idea. Small groups of fairly independent terrorists fighting sometimes without knowledge of any particular nation state cannot be fought the same way we might fighter Imperial Japan in WWII, no matter how much we might wish it to be otherwise.
 
Originally posted by: moomoo40moo
JOHN GLENN SAID


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.
Click to expand...
lusitania (sp?)
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.
Click to expand...
who armed the taliban, we did. We brought this on ourselves.


 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Pft. Big shock that the keyboard warriors support others dying still for lies. :Q

Good to see the brain-dead are still cowering behind their monitors. It is comforting to know your spacebar, numLock, and backspace buttons are safe from the terrorists.

:roll:


And OP, here is a big :cookie: for you and your regurged mass email. Grow up and ship out.
Click to expand...

LMFAO
 
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
Click to expand...

That may have been the truth years ago but it certainly isn't anymore.

Baghdad Morgue Tallies 1,815 Bodies in July

Figures compiled by the city morgue indicated Wednesday that the number of killings in the Iraqi capital reached a new high last month
Click to expand...
estimated that as many as 90 percent of the total died violent deaths.
Click to expand...
The previous month's tally was 1,595.
Click to expand...

rose.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top