See if you still think the war in Iraq is illegal after reading this.?
Regardless of your political views, this certainly gives us all food for thought.
Sen. Glenn was so quick on his feet.
When you speak from the heart and with passion, you never know what comes out.
SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID:
Things that make you think a little…….
1. 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 .
2. When some claim President Bush shouldn’t have started this war,state the following;
FDR…led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
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.
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.
3. In the two years since terrorists attacked us
President Bush has liberated two countries,
Crushed the Taliban,
Crippled al-Qaida,
Put nuclear inspectors in Libya , Iran and North Korea , without firing a shot, and
captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but…It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch
Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
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, killing a woman.
Wait, there’s more………………….
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 our military.
JOHN GLENN ON THE SENATE FLOOR Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004
Senator Howard Metzenbaum to Senator Glenn: "How can you run for Senate
when you’ve never held a real job?"
Senator Glenn: "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars.
I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by antiaircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in
the space program.
It wasn’t my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the
line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took time off to take the
daily cash receipts to the bank. I ask you to go with me .. as I
went the other day… to a veteran’s hospital and look 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? I’ll tell you, Howard
Metzenbaum; you should be on your knees every day of your life
thanking God that there were some men – SOME MEN – who held REAL jobs. And
they required a dedication to a purpose – and a love of country and a
dedication to duty that was more important than life itself. And
their self-sacrifice is what made this country possible.>>
I HAVE held a job, Howard! What about you?"
For those who don’t remember – During W.W.II, Howard
Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA
If you can read this, thank a teacher….
If you are reading it in English, thank a Veteran.
dze. Iraq attacked Kuwait, an alllie, and started teh Gulf War. It ended in cease fire, there were resolutions put in place that Iraq must follow or the war would continue. Iraq broke those resolutions by kicking out UN inspectors and firing on our planes patroling the no fly zone. We had every right to go back in to Iraq and finish what was started in the first Gulf War.
Other Related As Seen On Tv Sites
25 Responses to “See if you still think the war in Iraq is illegal after reading this.?”
Leave a Reply
germany declared war on the US.
we went to korea as part of a UN force.
vietnam officially started in 1959. now i will concede truman gave monetary help to the french. we were in vietnam because of the boogey man of the time. had we listened to the advice we gave the french,we would have avoided vietnam.
bosnia was a UN/NATO operation
no member state has any authority to enforce a UN reolution,without UN approval. hate the truth all you want,it reinforces my statement about teaching history.
they need to teach history in school.
Perspective is something lost on libs.
OOH RAH BROTHER.
THESE GUYS THOUGHT THE WAR WAS LEGAL AT ONE POINT.
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…"
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Yep.
Only Kofi ever voiced that opinion. It was costing him and his son money from food for oil.
nice job on your homework,that should shut some people up,my mother and father were vets of ww11 and korea so i knew some of your report
no thank a teacher not a veteran,Metzenbaum is a good man he fought for the poor,my brother in law P.F.C. Kevin C. Ott die in Iraq on 6/28/03
and Truman nuked 2 Japaness Cities and killed 100000+ civilians that were nothing to do with Pearl Harbour Attack.
and Truman never caught Hitler so according to the logic of LIBTARDS, we lost WWII.
No wonder they could not even beat "the CHIMP"!!!
As true as your facts may be, it is not what those who oppose Bush and the Rep. party want to believe or hear. It is a sign of sad belief that the facts really don’t matter. If anyone feels that their party is attacked or threatened, they will defend it regardless. We continue to forget and deny that both parties have made costly decisions concerning our country and military in the past. No one nor no one party is perfect. We should learn from history and make sure not to repeat that which was bad. Good job on your findings.
Some very good points their. The lives lost on our side is minimal compared to other conflicts that the US went into. And Howard Metzenbaum really was out of question in saying what he did, that’s definately a sacrifice that I couldn’t imagine making for a cause you believe is just.
Saying all that though does not still justify, in my opinion, the reason for the war and the state the war is having on most of the citisens of Iraqs lives (not to mention the lives of the brave soldiers who have been killed). Comparing a minor hell to a major hell and a bad reason to a really bad reason not make it right, and should not act to shut those up who disagree with the bad things that are still going on.
If I knew someone who murdered and raped someone that wouldn’t mean ok for me to go cause GBH.
what does it really matter
i realize you have a strong passion about this
even if every administration official and Republican agreed to say it
so you heard the words…..does it change the problem in Iraq today
to me its like not using birth control…..having a kid,,,and someone needs you to say….yes for the ump teen time i did not use birth control….kid still has to be raised….you move on
we have to deal with the reality of the CURRENT situation
President Kennedy had the ruler of South Vietnam killed
President Johnson faked the Tonkia attack to get Congress to declare a war on Vietnam
these were Democrats
regime change and lies
everything you accuse a Republican of could be applied to a Democrats President……….
Way to go. It ‘s very good that you brought up Clinton’s/Janet Reno handling of Davidian compound and the missing opportunities to nail Osama. Bunglers!
I got Goose bumps reading that. I want to hear ANY liberal try to rebut that amazing statement. Double standards are the Liberal way. Could you imagine how the liberals would react if George Bush had sex with a white house intern and lied about it. If George Bush had raped Juanita Broaddrick? If George Bush had Killed Vince Foster and Ron Brown. There would be liberal lynch mobs storming the white house.
i wouldnt think it was illegal if we had an actual legitemate reason to be there … and im not to keen on using mistakes in history or a totally different situation to back up the logic of the current situation … with that way of thinking we could go into ontario and wipe out evey living human being and come up with a reason why it was right … iraq never attacked us or was even looking like it was planning to in the future, but yet we are there and killing them.
Very powerful point of view, also very informative!!!
1. you have to compare populations. If 40 people out of 5 million or killed and compared to 40 people out of 15 million are killed it doesn’t work. Also, one month isn’t a good sample. There might have only been 2 murders in Detroit the month before, but still 39 in Iraq.
2. The biggest difference would be support from within and UN support. Most of those examples had support from the people or international support for the action. Iraq really has neither.
3. You are supporting that image that Bush is a war monger who only gets things done through death and destruction, not diplomacy and internation relations.
And after all that you gave no evidence to support your claim in the question?
Not really seeing what your point is supposed to be. This mostly just sounds like a really long rant.
I live up the street within spitting distance (almost literally) from Arlington Cemetery and the Pentagon, so I had a front row seat for the 9/11 damage and the rebuilding afterwards. I don’t recall any of powers-that-be from either side of the political fence showing up to help clean up, although a couple of them did put in an appearance for random photo-ops.
I ride in Rolling Thunder every Memorial Day with a group of vets from 3 wars. My grandfather was a WWII fighter pilot. I was raised knowing the difference between patriotism and fanaticism.
It’s really cute that you have a history jones and that random political commentary seems to be your hobby, but Y!A isn’t really the correct forum for this sort of thing (trolling). I suggest that you start a blog.
Wow. There were SO many misstatements and logic jumps there, I hardly know where to begin. In fact it would take me all afternoon to reply.
First, what was the point of the conversation between Metzenbaum and Glenn? NO ONE here is doubting that what our soldiers do is important, nor that they aren’t a great fighting force and essential to the security of our country. But that has nothing to do with the POLITICAL choices made by an inept administration.
Second: Re: all the wars.
WWII: Germany declared war on the U.S., not the other way around. We declared war on the country that attacked us: Japan.
There was absolute justification for the war, and not a mere "threat" of armed combat, but actual dictators marching over the world trying to create a new world order. We did not have any "preemptive strikes" or the Bush Doctrine. Casualties were extremely high because of the nature of the combat.
The Korean war was not a U.S. operation, but AUTHORIZED BYT HE U.N.! (with China abstaining). Response once again to an ACTUAL invasion.
Likewise, our involvement in Korea and Vietnam was in reasponse to treaties we had signed and agreements we had made with Southeast Asian countries to prevent the spread of communism (violently, nonetheless)
Once again — high casualties because of the nature of the war. And no one’s saying that Vietnam and the escallation announced by Nixon was a good idea.
Clinton’s involvement in Bosnia was as part of a multinational force (although the French and the Russians were skeptical because of cultural ties) to resore piece and end ethnic clensing. There was no "war," we were not deposing any govenment except for the war criminals who were doing ethnic clensing on a statewide level. And the purpose of our deployment was to render aid and stop genocide. There was never any idea that we’d run the country, nor was there any deployment to even close of a degree as there is in Iraq.
Iraq was started on false pretenses. Bush intentionally attempted to tie terrorism to Iraq when there was no definitive evidence of such. Bush accused Saddam of having WMD and being an imminent threat to the U.S. — not even close. The only WMD was the stuff WE GAVE HIM to fight the Iran/Iraq war.
And yes, Saddam did unleash weapons against the Kurds, but not 300,000 (can’t count the Iran/Iraq war casualties, which we wanted Saddam to win.) And Saddam was not engaging in any widespread genocide at the time of our invasion. (And had that been the REASON given for invasion we could have evaluated it; not the kneejerk claims of fear and threats that GWB used).
We have NOT "crushed" the Taliban — everything except for the capital city of Afghanistan is pretty much unsecure — and the Taliban’s allies are regrouping.
We’ve done almost nothing re: al Qaeda–why? Because there hasnt really been any al Qaeda involvement in Iraq.
North Korea nuclear inspectors? What? North Korea just test fired a nuclear weapon! We’ve done NOTHING to stop that truly rogue nation from developing weapons.
Libya has become a more open state voluntarily, sick of years and years of sanctions from the West.
Iran? Nuclear inspectors in Iran? When? Who!?
Accepting as true that someone could have gotten Osama during Clinton’s presidency, that means that Clinton screwed up, too, not that Bush is a great leader or that the Iraq war is justified.
Get your facts straight — there’s plenty of good rhetoric out there–why not use it?
<<<When you speak from the heart and with passion, you never know what comes out.
SENATOR JOHN GLENN SAID:
Things that make you think a little…….>>>
Words "from the heart" don’t make me "think a little" — they are meant to appeal to emotion! If George W. Bush needs emotional support, he ought to get it from his wife. She is apparently slacking on the job.
Murders in Detroit do not make a war any more or less legal.
In truth, Germany did attack a U.S. ship before our entry into that conflict. Neither Korea or Viet Nam were declared wars, and the rightness or wrongness of them does not make a war in Iraq legal. The actions of past presidents are not excuses for the actions of the current president.
The job that the military does is not an excuse either. It is not in any way, disrespectful of the military to oppose a particular war. Those that use this kind of logic are purposely avoiding the real debate. It is not just the conservatives that do this. many liberals will ponit out that the United States put both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein into power. The U.S. funded and supplied chemical weapons to Iraq as well and Osama Bin Laden went to Afghanistan at the behest of the U.S. government. These are all true facts, but they do not argue against war any more than the other views argue for it.
Don’t be misled by statistics and patriotic babble.
The truth is that we are living in the 21st century and still fighting wars. War is nasty, bloody, deadly. It is not a pretty, honorable thing.
It is wrong and no amount of history will make it right.
Thank you for the wonderful question. I never thought the war in Iraq was illegal. The points you bring out are in the annual Book of Facts, some are called Almanacs. A number of publishers offer them every year. You are correct…compare the death facts in the U.S. and you might wonder if there’s a war going on here. Also, watch Cops or Court TV, and those crazy chase videos. It’s a dangerous place everywhere if you think about only the crime and bad things happening…OH, yes, that’s right…that’s what the news media is doing in their reporting of the way things are going in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Thank you for taking the time to list all those facts. That data should be sent to every newspaper editor in the U.S.
To the stated question: Like every other conflict since WWII, this is NOT a legal war. There has been no declaration of war. You can call them police actions, "peacekeeping" missions, treaty obligations, or a number of other names. (BTW, Germany did declare war on us three days after Pearl Harbor and that’s generally deemed sufficient cause to formally declare war back)
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
The costs of these actions in human terms has been very low in combat terms, I agree. However, in monetary terms and in international respect, as well as our long term interests I fear it has been very high.
Yes, most definitely, being in the military is a job. It is one that should be very respected, especially when it’s all volunteer. Defense of self and the rightful defense of others is a very moral and necessary calling if a civilization is to survive.
Whether it’s in the number of deaths, lengths of time or any other count, numbers alone do not make a thing right or wrong. Afghanistan can be arguably justified as the ties between Al Qaida and what passed for a government there were pretty strong. The conflict in Iraq though, has no more moral standing than any of the other conflicts you listed.
The Taliban has not been crushed. They are strongly resurgent and it’s only getting worse. Qadaffi in Libya is probably regretting his surrender in the nuclear arena, given that Iran and North Korea are successfully thumbing their noses at the rest of the world – kicking inspectors out, not in. Hussein was one of the more brutal dictators in the world, but not the worst of his ilk and one we supported when it suited our policy just as we supported the mujahdeen, many of which became the core of the Taliban and Al Qaida, when they were fighting the Soviets.
BTW – I learned to read before starting school and my father enlisted on Dec 8, 1941 and I am proud of him for it.
I like your post.
However, you forget what the prime directive of liberals are and that is bash Bush at all cost.
Even American lives. They will side with anyone and defend anyone as long as it makes Bush look bad.
They wanted more troops when Bush didn’t want to send them now that he does they don’t want more troops.
Liberal really think if we run away the Muslim terrorist won’t come here again because they have the happy thoughts to protect us now.
This is in regards to your bit about detroit being safer. The killings you are reading our are casualties, the Iraqi’s are loosing as many as 50-150 people a day, many more are made refugees and are leaving the country. This is a country with only 30 million people as to the United States 300 million.
I honestly don’t believe "legality" has any reference to our situation here in Iraq. Irregardless of the facts, which by the way are usually overlooked and I am personally glad to see you took the time to state these here, what we plan to achieve in Iraq is to allow these poor deprived souls to have a chance to flourish and become a great democratic nation and ally for peace in the world. It has come as a great cost, but if you read blogs like http://www.michellemalkin.com who has posted a soldier’s reason for being in Iraq, then you may have a better understanding.