Local Posts #20 (Part Two)

2009-6-6 06:22:00

[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog, and were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey on The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group. Because of the length of the original post, the archived version of this post was broken up into multiple parts. This is Part 2 of 2. Links to the remaining parts can be found at the end of this article.]


May 14, 2009


Prison problems and reform is an important topic indeed. Most of those in prison deserve to pay a debt, but they do not deserve to be beaten up, raped, etc. Here are my suggestions:


May 15, 2009 -- Post #1


I don't know where Mr. Chandler obtained his figures of $800 billion a year for the war in Iraq. The entire budget for the [USA] Department of Defense is only $515 billion plus some special appropriations for the war. The War in Iraq averages about $100 billion a year which is less than half the interest we paid on the national debt and only about a third of what it will be soon. It's only chicken feed compared to Obama's record breaking spending.

Few seem to consider the benefits from the war.

First we freed 40 million people from a tyrant.

Secondly, we removed a tyrant who was a proven threat and supporter of terrorism. If he wasn't removed he could have cost us more than the war itself. We'll never know.

Thirdly, compared with 58,000 U.S. deaths in Vietnam we should be grateful there have only been 4200 in Iraq.

Fourth, as the quality of life improves there other Islamic nations will want to be more like Iraq. This could save us from fighting expensive future wars.


May 15, 2009 -- Post #2

(Note from JJ: This is in response to a critic of me saying we should be thankful we have only had 4200 deaths in Iraq.)


The Left just cannot be happy with any good results obtained by a Republican president. Just over 4200 deaths from a war as dangerous as Iraq is fortunate indeed though tragic to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice.

Let us look at the record of wars that [presidential] Democrats have run:

Now let us look at the record of wars that [presidential] Republicans have run:

During the period of the current war in Iraq we have lost about 240,000 people to traffic deaths in the USA and over 2 million worldwide.

I'd say the two Gulf wars have been run with amazing skill by the Republicans. I do not look forward to the next war initiated by a Democrat. One can probably say hello to the [military] Draft again.


May 15, 2009 -- Post #3

"JobeMaha" wrote:

"I still don't have an answer from all you name calling folks about why we don't go into Cuba or North Korea or China or any other country that is doing what Bush claimed Iraq did. [North] Korea fired off a couple Nukes for heavens sakes."


"Jobe" doesn't know why we do not attack China? Are you stark raving mad?

Let me explain this so even a Lefty can understand. If we attacked China we would start World War 3 [Three], and billions of people could wind up vaporized. An atomic war could send us back to the Stone Age.

We attacked Iraq because we had reached the end of diplomacy and we had the support of 69% of the public plus Democrat as well as Republican support in Congress. It was a war we could fight and win.

North Korea has not invaded another country as did Iraq. Even though force may have been the best solution there is not support for a war that could be much more devastating than the one with Iraq.

Cuba has also not attacked another country but [US President] Kennedy had it right in doing everything in his power to overthrow Castro.

Even if both houses of Congress were willing we just can't go take out every bad guy in the world. Wisdom dictates that we do what we can, however.


May 15, 2009 -- Post #4


"But where are the results or accomplishments from this war?"


Freedom for 40 million people and no more threat from Saddam. The overall results of Bush's efforts is no attack for 7 years, something beyond our wildest hopes on Sept 12, 2001. You should be grateful.


"These noble young men thought they were going after [Osama] Bin Laden! Remember him? Not to set the Iraq people free, not to get Sadaam, but Bin Laden!"


No one said we were going to Iraq to get Osama Bin Laden. Bush did say we were going there to free the Iraqi people. Unlike the Left, I will supply actual quotes to back up my words.

Proof that Bush did say that Democracy in Iraq was a goal:

Quote 1:

"A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq." (Feb 26, 2003)

Quote 2:

"We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government, and determine their own destiny, and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom.

"And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies and freedom." (State of the Union, 2003)


May 15, 2009 -- Post #5

"Big10-OC" wrote:

"You're all pretty stupid arguing over the nitty-gritty of the war, dem vs rep, etc. All the divisive tactics aimed at stupid people were not lost on you folks. This 'us against them' mentality is so childish and none of you even realize it.

"PS, regarding the first letter, [local Boise, ID] Chef Rolland is a drunken idiot. He hangs out at 'Charlie Browns' all the time hitting on all the 'crackhos,' and even they won't give him play. He just got a felony DUI [Driving Under The Influence] last week. His food is good, but his personality is rotten to the core."


Wow! you castigate us for being divisive and then you call a writer who is not here to defend himself a drunken idiot and more.

Practice what you preach, man!

"CalvinJones" wrote:

"15 Saudis, financed by other Saudis, on 9/11 killed 3500 plus Americans. So to show these terrorist we mean business, Bush attacks Iraq. Imagine WW2 fought under the Bush Doctrine. Japan attacks Pearl Harbor so America attacks Canada."


Japan attacked the USA at Pearl Harbor -- FDR declares war on Germany.

"TWall" wrote:

"I need to correct myself. Joseph you are wrong and I was wrong. After Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt declared war on Japan. In the following days Germany and Italy declared war on the USA and our response was to declare war upon them. Joseph you are off today."

"See:  http://www.history.com/pages/h1662.html & http://www.worldwariihistory.info/1941.html "


How was I wrong or off? Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor we did declare war on Germany just as I said.

The correlation seemed off on purpose for the connection made more sense than "CJ's" connecting the terrorists attacks to the War in Iraq.

The main reason we went to war with Iraq was because they refused to abide by all the U.N. resolutions -- not because they had anything to do with 911.