|
|
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Reasons for aStart Intro. (not mine): MANY OF US ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WWII. MOST OF US DON'T REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR. NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD, NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES. READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER BY FOREIGN POWERS IN 2008. This is an EXCELLENT essay. Well thought out and presented. Start Article (not mine): Historical Significance for today's world: Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat. The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America taking food and war materials At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 , and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan , and the following day on Germany , who had not yet attacked us . It was a dicey thing . We had few allies France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers . Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia. Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico , as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe. America 's only allies then were England , Ireland , Scotland , Canada , Australia, and Russia . That was about it All of Europe, from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under the Nazi heel The US was certainly not prepared for war. The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks A huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor. Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was actually the property of Belgium ) given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact). Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later. Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia, in the late summer of 1940 at a time when England was on the verge of collapse. Ironically, Russia saved America 's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany . Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone . . 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America. If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. Now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history. There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world . The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world. To them, all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated . They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel , and purge the world of Jews . This is their mantra . (goal) There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not yet known which side will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists. If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US , European, and Asian economies. The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis. Do you want gas in your car? Do you want heating oil next winter? Do you want the dollar to be worth anything? You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins. If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away. A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge. We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We can't do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing . . . . . . . . in Iraq . Not in New York , not in London , or Paris or Berlin , but in Iraq, where we are doing two important things. (1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades Saddam is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians . (2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own a gain . . a 27 year war. WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars. WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action. The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York. It has also cost about 3,000 American lives, which is roughly equivilant to lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States) in the 9/11 terrorist attack . The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay . The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. It always has been, and probably always will be The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away if we ignore it . If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an ally, like England , in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world. The Iraq War is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war. Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless some body prevents them from getting them. We have four options: 1 . We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons. 2 . We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran 's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is). 3 . We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America. OR 4 . We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe. It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today. The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win. Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win . The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them Remember, perspective is every thing, and America 's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind. The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989; forty-two years! Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany ! World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept. The US has taken more than 3,000 killed in action in Iraq.. The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944 , the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WW II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years. Most of the individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far The stakes are at least as high . . A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law) It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. "Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America , where it's safe. Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria , Iraq , Sudan , North Korea , in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you why! They would be killed! The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc . , but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Raymond S . Kraft is a writer living in Northern California that has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Please consider passing along copies of this article to friends and students as it contains information about our American past that is very meaningful today -- history about America that very likely is mostly unknown by many of us (and our instructors, too). By being denied the facts of our history, we are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. We are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting us in liberal causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven. I am not advocating war, just wanting to understand the greater picture and preserving our country's independence. |
||||||
|
I especially like the irony: <<"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America , where it's safe.>> |
||||||
|
right. tell that to the independent nation of india and the civil rights activists of the 50's and 60's. <It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis.> this is not the point at all. we are pissed because the us tends to support whoever it is in our economic interest to support...do we go to war in china, zimbabwe, or uzbekistan because of human rights abuses and lack of democracy? did we invade south africa because of apartheid? no! and the reaons are because they are our economic allies (sort of, but in any event it is not in our economic interest to do so). but iraq? oh those poor people...we need to invade to overthrow a despot. hypocritical nonsense. it is because they have oil, pure and simple. but the righties always want to argue that we are against democracy for these people. the truth is that our administration doesn't give a rat's ass about the iraqi people, and this war was never about 'restoring human rights or bringing democracy' as the 'commander guy' states. no. it is all about promoting the corporate hegemony. |
||||||
|
anomalocaris 03-May-07, 13:18 |
jeff |
||||||
|
stinky my point is that it is disingenuous to claim that we do not value democracy for iraqis because we oppose the war. my point, repeated ad nauseum, is that i get attacked as thinking that democracy is only for us based on the premise that we went into iraq to bring democracy. this is patently untrue, and invalidates the conclusion. come on. i think you know me well enough to understand that i am not completely ignorant of the privledge that accrues from being lucky enough to have been born in america. i would venture to say that i have as good an understanding of what it means to live in another country as anyone here. i am willing to give up some of that privledge if it will bring greater equity and therefore peace to the world. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
saintinsanity 03-May-07, 18:25 |
Jeff for Prez! |
||||||
|
anomalocaris 03-May-07, 18:41 |
jeff |
||||||
|
Jeff You write: "i am willing to give up some of that privledge if it will bring greater equity and therefore peace to the world." Does that mean you would be willing to earn one/half as much per year, for example, in order to support world peace? Or, that you would donate one/half (or some number) of your earnings to support world peace, if that would do it? Or, does it mean you are willing to subjugate yourself, and the U.S., to Muslim rule? The point of the article was to demonstrate that we need to support the "proper side" of Islam, or we will be under Muslim domination. So, what you mean by your last statement is very important and meaningful. What did you mean there? |
||||||
|
softie i would be willing to earn half of what i now earn. yes. i would give up our second car and take the bus (if it were actually possible). i would live in a house 1/2 the size of my house and give up 2/3rds of my clothes. i would give up most of the luxuries if it meant that no one would starve and we could all live together as one people. i am 46. until i was 37 years old, the most money i ever earned in a year was $13,000. i rented a cheap house, did not own a car, only bought second hand clothes, and ate very cheaply (but healthy). it was a good life, and i did not pine for the things i was missing. i had simplicity. when i got married, i became accountable to and for someone else. my life gradually changed. i felt the need to be secure in my future and sought out a living that could support me in my dotage. if we actually looked after our old people, and i was not concerned with having to save a million bucks to live when i am too old to work, i would still be living the way i did. i miss it and truly do not enjoy being tied down to all this material crap. |
||||||
|
Jeff Now... what are you willing to do, or give to the cause, or to give up, in order to keep Radical Islam from winning and subjugating the Middle East, Europe, Southeast Asia, and the U.S.? What is it worth to you to stay free and what should it be worth to all of us? |
||||||
|
anomalocaris 03-May-07, 21:28 |
jeff |
||||||
|
softie i believe that the vast majority of people want the same thing we want. safety, food on the table, health care, an education for their children, freedom from fear and want, a job, a place to live that is safe and comfortable, freedom of expression and association and worship. i believe that if we in the wealthy west made a genuine effort to ease the vast, glaring, and painful disparity in wealth between peoples and countries, that the vast majority of reasons for war and terrorism would stop. life would not be perfect, no...there will always be morons, fanatics, and assholes who will cause problems. but, al qaeda and the us military would have precious little to use as recruiting tools if all are well fed, educated, clothed, and housed. i always say, in my inimitable and non-pc way, that a fat man is not a suicide bomber. meaning that when a man feels his family is safe, his life is secure, and he sees a future for his children, you cannot convince him to go to war or to blow up others. for the most part, people are good. but, can i do this? no. it will take a ground swell of change...an understanding amongst the common folk that it is either walk lightly upon the earth or perish (either though environmental destruction or overt hostile actions of the disenfranchised). i am not hopeful that this will occur. rats! |
||||||
|
saintinsanity 04-May-07, 06:30 |
Hope! We could have bombed the middle east off the map and it wouldn't stop the battle. It is always us against ourselves, and until we really realize that the fight will continue. I would be willing to give up a lot. I have a guitar, an ukulele, a pretty good desk, a laptop, a crummy couch, and a motorcycle. I certainly don't have any money. But if it really would bring peace and prosperity to the whole world than I would gladly give up half of my possessions. And then I would travel across the world living upon nothing but the kindness of strangers. With my trusty cloak and sandals I would travel this land, staff in hand, and I would probably grow a beard. Oh the peacefulness. Everyone loving and trusting each other, everyone realizing we are all in this together, nobody hiding, nobody going mad. Oh, but the crazies. They are everywhere. We can't trust them, I tell you. Lock your doors, shutter your windows! Put up a fence and a wall and armed guards with razor wire, spotlights, ferocious barking dogs! Kill the infidels! Well, some people feel that way, I heard. I still have hope, though. It is hard to ignore the fact that if everyone is well fed, and housed, with water, then they don't have much to be angry about. Unfortunately, we are going to have to do some killing. Stinky was right...this should not have been a political war. It should have been a tactical engagement based on a strategy to win the health and well-being of as many people as possible. In fact, it seems like that was what Afghanistan was for. We went in and spanked Al Qaeda, and that was that. This whole Iraq thing was really out of line. Now instead of just a small group of radicals really hating us to death, we have created a monster. I can't believe the administration really did this with no idea what the consequences would be. It's like they didn't have any plan at all, but in fact they did. They went into Iraq because they could. It is such a thinly veiled plan to make a profit. And it's worked. My god, certain people have made so much money off this debacle, it is chilling me to the bone. Vice President, Halliburton, Saudi Arabia, Bin Ladens, and lets not forget the Bush "crime" family. It's unbelievable how this is happening in front of all our eyes and they are getting away with it. But I do have hope for the future. My hope is that all of us, who hold the real power, will reach a critical mass and find a way to come together on the internet, and take back the country from this terrible machine that could eat us alive. |
||||||
|
Jeff & Pawni I don't know the real reasons why we went into Iraq. The article at the beginning presented some logical reasons for fighting and some possible scenarios. We don't necessarily need to stay in Iraq but the article discussed that. I have been trying to address the issues of the article. I think that a "side benefit" for the Middle East for going in to Iraq and creating a democracy is to create freedoms for the population in Iraq. (I doubt that was the initial reason). Along the lines of Jeff's reasoning... freedom improves the lives of those who are free. Economic, religious, educational, freedoms as well as vocational freedoms are afforded those in a democracy. Those are some of the things that will help the Middle East improve their lot in life and to not want to kill the West. So, when Jeff says "a fat man is not a suicide bomber" and says basically that "we should do something about it"... I say we are trying to do something about it by creating democratic freedoms for them. Those democratic freedoms we are trying to create for them will improve their lot in life substantially... if it wins out and takes hold. I don't think that if we gave them one/half of our salaries forever, that would help very much. Giving them the freedoms to live life fuller might. What do you guys think of that? Do you have any other suggestions? Do you think we should just pull out and forget the whole thing? Should we continue "helping"? |
||||||
|
saintinsanity 04-May-07, 08:07 |
OK, I hadn't read the article. Except for the blatant exaggerations, like "if we don't fight this war the whole world will immediately be taken over by jihad." That isn't true. We could pull out and it would take them years to recover and organize. To actually take over the world they would need many millions of soldiers and they don't have them. The article presents 4 options, when actually we have many more. It is unlikely that a radical islamic government would be able to spread very far, certainly not into Europe. Granted, they might be able to blow it all up, but they will never rule it. <<If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today>> My opposition to this "ancient and never ending war" is due to the fact that we have taken the whole war into our own hands. If this is indeed a war between the allies of good and the axis of evil that goes on forever, then we had best stop behaving as if the rest of the world didn't matter. We should have the support of all of Europe, Russia, China, Japan, South America, Australia, and Africa. If the threat is really as bad as the article says, we would have no trouble gaining support for our ridiculous actions. We have no right to go in all by ourselves, and it has only distanced us from the allies we should have. This is not only our war. If we pull out, and radical islam takes ahold and begins a campaign to rule the world, which I do not think they have the capability to do, then the rest of the world will finally be able to take their proper place in this 'war.' It will not be the rogue nation of america lashing out alone. The author states it several times, and its simply bullshhh. "Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world." "the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US , European, and Asian economies" "in Iraq . Not in New York , not in London , or Paris or Berlin , but in Iraq, " The fighting in Iraq is why the terrorists aren't waging battle in the streets of New York? They never tried to wage battle. They just sucker punch people. Fighting in Iraq does not prevent terrorists from sucker punching the world elsewhere. "perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe" "personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad," "Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy!" This last statement is kind of strange. Who opposes the liberation of Iraq? Hell yes, free Iraq! I'm not sure where he is coming from. I've never heard anyone say "enslave Iraq!" While I do appreciate the historical facts (has anyone checked the numbers for accuracy, or is he just making it up?), I do not appreciate the scare tactics and false dichotomies. Sorry for not organizing my thoughts better. I should really edit these things, I could appear to be a lot smarter, I spose. Ah, screw it. |
||||||
|
pawnie scare tactics and exaggeration. |
||||||
|
Sounds like the dems and reps have something in common. |
||||||
|
Jeff & Pawni What about the idealistic goals of "helping" out the poor, uneducated, unhealthy, the hungry etc. people of Iraq (so they won't want to kill us) by giving them the freedoms associated with democracy? Neither one of you answered that question. The idea is that the democracy we are trying to install there should help them achieve the idealistic things you desire for them. My question was: "Do you agree with that? Should we just give up and leave? What should we do?" I say that installing a democracy will help them achieve the goals you desire for them. And, I say that is the help we need to give them. What do you say? What help would you give them so they don't want to kill us? |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
softie i will write more later about what we should be doing.... |
||||||
|
softaire 04-May-07, 14:19 |
Deleted by softaire on 04-May-07, 14:22.
|
||||||
|
Jeff |
||||||
|
saintinsanity 04-May-07, 16:20 |
Softie Hell, Saddam used to BE a 'good' muslim. So did Osama. We supported them both. How dumb are we? Thumper, I really think you have a complex, with that whole "bush-bashing" thing. Maybe it's just fun for you to say. Bush bash bush bash. But really, that is not usually the hidden agenda. I barely said anything bad about them, and I just borrowed KOP's term because it's criminal what is going on right in front of us. |
||||||
|
Pawni |
||||||
|
saintinsanity 04-May-07, 20:09 |
Ideally What should we do? I dont' think it is fair to ask me that question. The powers that be are holding all the information relevant to that decision from us. I would love to take a look at the situation. Someone, quick! Bring me the heads of all the major government departments so they can debrief me. I think it would be fun, like a huge game of risk or a really complicated chess game. But without that secret information they are holding, asking me what we should do now is like asking me what a grandmaster should do in a complicated middlegame when they won't even let me see the board. I read somewhere that they aren't even going to bother releasing any information on events unfolding until september. |
||||||
|
Pawni It seems I have heard over and over (maybe not from you) that the U.S. is responsible for such damage and that if we would only give up our wealth and improve the lives of all the other people in the world, then MAYBE they wouldn't hate us. I say that we ARE doing something to help, at least in one place in the world, and ask if this is what you (meaning all of you) mean ... or do you mean something else? If so, what do you think will be helpful? What I get back from you (and so far nothing back from anyone else in the club) is "It's not FAIR to ask you". ????? Come on... you can do better than that. Can't you? Do you really mean to say you have no idea of what we should do to improve the situation but yet everything else we (the U.S.) has tried is bad??? Bush is a moron, but you can't even come up with one idea? And, while I'm at it... where are the rest of the Bush haters in the club? I have to say that I am really dismayed at the lack of interest by most Bush haters to actually discuss seriously an issue. It seems that once we get past the "Bush is an idiot" stage, then there is no more interest in discussion. Maybe, like you, they have no ideas? |
||||||
|
saintinsanity 04-May-07, 23:27 |
I didn't say I didnt' have any ideas You may call it a cop out, but I already put out several good ideas in threads of old. One of my favorites was to drop huge cargoplane loads of flowers instead of bombs. Of course it wasn't a serious attempt to direct our country. Let's just say I have the best idea in the world about what we should do. Do you suppose the administration would be willing to hear my idea? |
||||||
|
Pawni Are you able to do that? I doesn't look like it, so far. |
||||||
|
saintinsanity 04-May-07, 23:41 |
Relax, my friend But you must admit that you don't have a simple direct question. "What should we do" is a question loaded with infinitesimal subtle complexities. Anyhow, I have an answer for you. It's simple and direct: We should solve our problems. |
||||||
| |||||||
