Pretty sad

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
This came along in my inbox this afternoon. Reading through it, you can see the desperate attempts to justify one of the most dangerous and stupid mistakes in the history of our country (indeed of Western Civilization as we know it). The sad thing is that some people really believe this tripe.

Here it is :

"War and History
No matter what your position is, read it all.


SOME OF YOU MAY NOT BE OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WW II. MOST OF YOU MAY NOT REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, BUTTER, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR. NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMI T 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 FOREIGNERS IN 2008 or 2009.

This is an EXCELLENT essay; well thought out and presented by Raymond S. Kraft, a writer living in Northern California who has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion.

Historical Significance

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammeredEngland 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. J apan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia.

Together, Japan and Germa ny 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, andRussia. 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 ban krupt, 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 in 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 g ot geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Staling rad 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 co ntrol 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 bette r hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that i s, 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 invol ved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades; Saddam was a terrorist! Saddam 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 be killed 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 Eastfor 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 ofChina. It was a war for fo urteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945,a 17-year war, and was followed by another decade of US occ upation in Germanyand Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again . . . 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 equivalent to lives that the Jihad killed (within theUnited 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 6 0-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, unce rtain, 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 fo ur options:

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets n uclear 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 andGermany 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 USstill 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 NormandyInvasion to rid Eu rope 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 rea lly 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!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please consider passing along copies of this article to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful today, history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.



Bye Now "
 

brokendolly

Banned
Jan 18, 2005
112
0
0
Horrible, most of this is drivel and and even remotely accurate historically.

I will debunk the first few glaring lies:

France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers.

Wrong, DuGalle fought on in central africa and the French resistance was probably the biggest the world has yet to that day and has seen since.

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.

You man the republicans in congress, the dems and the dmem prez were chomping at the bit to attack Germany.


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.

ROFL, yeah, hammering away at the last minute when the Germans were defeated, how many did we lose in the European war? 300k? How many did Russia lose? 10 million?

As far as the rest of this crap
OK folks: There is no way jihadists are going to invade north america, europe either.

Large roll of tinfoil for author, I am sure more then a few P&Ners get warm fuzzy goosebumps from this stuff though, (probably even believe some of it) crappy patriotic .gifs and all
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Yep, it's even self-contradictory. Like this line : "Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win." Oh really? Wonder who the most ruthless in WW2 were? Definitely not the US! Would be the Imperial Japanese, followed closely by the SS/Einsatzgruppen divisions in the Nazi war machine. Yet we kicked their butts (with a massive amount of help from the Russians). Seems to utterly disprove the statement, doesn't it?

To make matters worse, the moron produces false arguments throughout, so many that it's mind-boggling. The guy probably believes his own bullcrap. If you wondered who the 30%ers were who still think Bush is great, here's a shining example of that blindness.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
As wrong as he is, he's entitled to his opinion. That's why we have the Delete button. Use it well. :)

Here's the source for your e-mail.

Here's who he is:

MIX, Lowell J
8640 Crest Hill Ave.
Las Vegas, NV 89145
702-804-0145
ljmix@juno.com

Source from public information.

Oh yeah, I deleted that puppy, but just thought I'd share it first, it's insightful to see how naive and simple-minded these types can really be. Unintentionally hilarious were the parade of badly animated 'patriotic' gifs throughout the email. It's almost as if it were a Daily Show skit.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Oh God if it's some other silly essay about how WWII was noble and the US did so well to help and this somehow means that the war on terror, something totally different (and it's even got an idiotic name, to boot) is going the right way because the US is driving humvees around the dessert, I'll pass, I've read it before.

Does it score extra points for bringing into the mix names of Churchill and/or Roosevelt? Maybe even Reagan in the Cold War?

EDIT: Oh, I had to know, so I read it all! No bringing into the mix leaders, but spoke of Jihad like Islamic imperialism was a new concept, not one that's been around for more than a millenia. History should never get in the way of a good spiel, though :)
 

Auric

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,596
2
71
About ninety years before Pearl Harbor, the USA sent a naval expedition to force trade with Nippon, an isolationist country. Under threat they acquiesced and quickly were industrialized and militarized (modern) and became an imperial power which challenged Western powers for colonial dominance of East Asia. Ergo, short-sighted foreign policy (particularly profit motivated) can come back to bite you in the arse. Hmm, see any current parallels?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
IMO, it's about 50/50 bullshit vs. truth.

At least the man took time to articulate his position. Most of the anti-war folks I meet spit one-liners and propaganda out, then walk away thinking they're brilliant.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
IMO, it's about 50/50 bullshit vs. truth.

At least the man took time to articulate his position. Most of the anti-war folks I meet spit one-liners and propaganda out, then walk away thinking they're brilliant.
And you don't?:roll:

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
71,813
5,855
126
I approve of the way brokendolly started to attack the article and understand why he only went so far but it is really critical, I think, to apply such analysis to propaganda because it is very clear, at least to me, that some people actually buy such garbage with all its appeals to emotions like fear and greed.
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
I'm calling 75%/25% bullshit vs truth. He's got it basically right with the clash of ideas thing, but then creates too many historical supports that don't hold water. There are past similarities but this situation is also very different from previous conflicts.

Let's face it, when he says a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq will be an ally like England, the dude is spouting pie-in-the-sky foolishness. No country can be an ally like England... for obvious reasons. Just one example out of many of the far-reaching reasoning of the article.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
IMO, it's about 50/50 bullshit vs. truth.

At least the man took time to articulate his position. Most of the anti-war folks I meet spit one-liners and propaganda out, then walk away thinking they're brilliant.

He didn't articulate his position, he said nothing and committed the worse sin of taking forever to say it. Having a bumper sticker philosophy is bad enough, but when you need many paragraphs to explain it, that's even worse.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I'm calling 75%/25% bullshit vs truth. He's got it basically right with the clash of ideas thing, but then creates too many historical supports that don't hold water. There are past similarities but this situation is also very different from previous conflicts.

Let's face it, when he says a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq will be an ally like England, the dude is spouting pie-in-the-sky foolishness. No country can be an ally like England... for obvious reasons. Just one example out of many of the far-reaching reasoning of the article.

I always hated that "clash of ideas" explanation, because it puts the focus on the wrong thing. The problem we currently face isn't that there are two distinct cultures that disagree on many points, the problem is that one (or both?) sides can't refrain from pushing their ideology except through violence and intimidation. In other words, the METHODS are the objectionable feature of this conflict, not the ideals behind them.

Hell, Republican vs Democrat is a "clash of ideas"...that doesn't make it a bad thing, in fact it's a good thing. Debate is good, disagreement is good...I don't want to live in a world without clashes of ideas. What I could live without is people who can't deal with their disagreements in a civilized manner.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I'm calling 75%/25% bullshit vs truth. He's got it basically right with the clash of ideas thing, but then creates too many historical supports that don't hold water. There are past similarities but this situation is also very different from previous conflicts.

Let's face it, when he says a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq will be an ally like England, the dude is spouting pie-in-the-sky foolishness. No country can be an ally like England... for obvious reasons. Just one example out of many of the far-reaching reasoning of the article.

I always hated that "clash of ideas" explanation, because it puts the focus on the wrong thing. The problem we currently face isn't that there are two distinct cultures that disagree on many points, the problem is that one (or both?) sides can't refrain from pushing their ideology except through violence and intimidation. In other words, the METHODS are the objectionable feature of this conflict, not the ideals behind them.

Hell, Republican vs Democrat is a "clash of ideas"...that doesn't make it a bad thing, in fact it's a good thing. Debate is good, disagreement is good...I don't want to live in a world without clashes of ideas. What I could live without is people who can't deal with their disagreements in a civilized manner.
So how much debate is reasonable when inhumane practices are the subject? Cold-blooded murder, oppression, and sexism are topics most of the civilized world figured out a long time ago.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
71,813
5,855
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I'm calling 75%/25% bullshit vs truth. He's got it basically right with the clash of ideas thing, but then creates too many historical supports that don't hold water. There are past similarities but this situation is also very different from previous conflicts.

Let's face it, when he says a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq will be an ally like England, the dude is spouting pie-in-the-sky foolishness. No country can be an ally like England... for obvious reasons. Just one example out of many of the far-reaching reasoning of the article.

I always hated that "clash of ideas" explanation, because it puts the focus on the wrong thing. The problem we currently face isn't that there are two distinct cultures that disagree on many points, the problem is that one (or both?) sides can't refrain from pushing their ideology except through violence and intimidation. In other words, the METHODS are the objectionable feature of this conflict, not the ideals behind them.

Hell, Republican vs Democrat is a "clash of ideas"...that doesn't make it a bad thing, in fact it's a good thing. Debate is good, disagreement is good...I don't want to live in a world without clashes of ideas. What I could live without is people who can't deal with their disagreements in a civilized manner.
So how much debate is reasonable when inhumane practices are the subject? Cold-blooded murder, oppression, and sexism are topics most of the civilized world figured out a long time ago.

All you are saying is that you are a Western person who has absorbed Western values and that Ipso Facto that means YOU have everything figured out because you are a finished product of that form of mentation and moral evaluation, but everybody in the 'East' has the self same opinion. They had everything figured out long ago and you came along with freak new ideas.

In short, there is no debate in your mind because your mind is closed.

I am not offering my opinion on the relative merits of any one side. Just saying that you are making assumptions because you hold them about where you stand.

Edit: You can see your bias in the bolding of civilized. Remember what Gandhi said about Western Civilization?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
It must be a slow news day when we are reduced to using ?chain letters? as fodder from threads.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I'm calling 75%/25% bullshit vs truth. He's got it basically right with the clash of ideas thing, but then creates too many historical supports that don't hold water. There are past similarities but this situation is also very different from previous conflicts.

Let's face it, when he says a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq will be an ally like England, the dude is spouting pie-in-the-sky foolishness. No country can be an ally like England... for obvious reasons. Just one example out of many of the far-reaching reasoning of the article.

I always hated that "clash of ideas" explanation, because it puts the focus on the wrong thing. The problem we currently face isn't that there are two distinct cultures that disagree on many points, the problem is that one (or both?) sides can't refrain from pushing their ideology except through violence and intimidation. In other words, the METHODS are the objectionable feature of this conflict, not the ideals behind them.

Hell, Republican vs Democrat is a "clash of ideas"...that doesn't make it a bad thing, in fact it's a good thing. Debate is good, disagreement is good...I don't want to live in a world without clashes of ideas. What I could live without is people who can't deal with their disagreements in a civilized manner.
So how much debate is reasonable when inhumane practices are the subject? Cold-blooded murder, oppression, and sexism are topics most of the civilized world figured out a long time ago.

By a "long time ago" do you mean within the lifetime of many people alive today? Our treatment of black people in the United States in the 1960's, for example, was pretty much on par with the practices in many of the more medieval Middle Eastern countries. I don't think we should be wagging our finger too readily at anyone when it seems we just discovered civilization a few decades ago, especially when in many ways there is a lot we still have to learn too. That doesn't mean our behavior isn't better, just that we don't have quite as much of a lead as you'd like to think.

But that wasn't my point, I'm talking about IDEAS, not actions. The phrase "clash of ideas" suggests our problem with Islamic terrorists isn't that they are terrorists, it's that they are Islamic. I don't know about you, but I don't give a shit what anyone believes about anything. Hell, be a sexist, be a racist, be a religious asshole...but KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. I don't care what your IDEAS are as long as your ACTIONS are driven by something else. "Clash of ideas" suggests we would have had no problem with 9/11 if it was some Miller Light drinking Cowboys fans who didn't like folks in the big city.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
71,813
5,855
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It must be a slow news day when we are reduced to using ?chain letters? as fodder from threads.

I would think the quality of some of your own threads should introduce a certain modesty into your judgment of the quality of others'.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
182
106
Originally posted by: Arkaign
This came along in my inbox this afternoon. Reading through it, you can see the desperate attempts to justify one of the most dangerous and stupid mistakes in the history of our country (indeed of Western Civilization as we know it). The sad thing is that some people really believe this tripe.

Here it is :

"War and History
No matter what your position is, read it all.


SOME OF YOU MAY NOT BE OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WW II. MOST OF YOU MAY NOT REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, BUTTER, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR. NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMI T 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 FOREIGNERS IN 2008 or 2009.

This is an EXCELLENT essay; well thought out and presented by Raymond S. Kraft, a writer living in Northern California who has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion.

Historical Significance

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammeredEngland 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. J apan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia.

Together, Japan and Germa ny 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, andRussia. 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 ban krupt, 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 in 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 g ot geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Staling rad 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 co ntrol 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 bette r hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that i s, 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 invol ved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades; Saddam was a terrorist! Saddam 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 be killed 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 Eastfor 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 ofChina. It was a war for fo urteen years before the US joined it. It officially ended in 1945,a 17-year war, and was followed by another decade of US occ upation in Germanyand Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again . . . 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 equivalent to lives that the Jihad killed (within theUnited 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 6 0-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, unce rtain, 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 fo ur options:

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets n uclear 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 andGermany 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 USstill 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 NormandyInvasion to rid Eu rope 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 rea lly 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!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Please consider passing along copies of this article to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful today, history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.



Bye Now "

How about the history of American intervention turning an isolated Japan into an Imperialistic power? Gun Boat Diplomacy, Manifest Destiny, anyone? Japan, China, Phillipines, etc.

edit; This distorted view of History is a prime example why certain people insist on repeating the mistakes of the past.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
182
106
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It must be a slow news day when we are reduced to using ?chain letters? as fodder from threads.

I would think the quality of some of your own threads should introduce a certain modesty into your judgment of the quality of others'.

Oh well, Poofjohn is justly perturbed that the material that he was saving for a future topic has been pre-debunked.:D
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I'm calling 75%/25% bullshit vs truth. He's got it basically right with the clash of ideas thing, but then creates too many historical supports that don't hold water. There are past similarities but this situation is also very different from previous conflicts.

Let's face it, when he says a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq will be an ally like England, the dude is spouting pie-in-the-sky foolishness. No country can be an ally like England... for obvious reasons. Just one example out of many of the far-reaching reasoning of the article.

I always hated that "clash of ideas" explanation, because it puts the focus on the wrong thing. The problem we currently face isn't that there are two distinct cultures that disagree on many points, the problem is that one (or both?) sides can't refrain from pushing their ideology except through violence and intimidation. In other words, the METHODS are the objectionable feature of this conflict, not the ideals behind them.

Hell, Republican vs Democrat is a "clash of ideas"...that doesn't make it a bad thing, in fact it's a good thing. Debate is good, disagreement is good...I don't want to live in a world without clashes of ideas. What I could live without is people who can't deal with their disagreements in a civilized manner.

Put the focus on the wrong thing? Wow... call it whatever you want. Call it a gentleman's disagreement. Who cares what you call it or what term you have always hated... it is what it is. It's a difference of opinion on a wide ranging set of fundamental issues... including METHODS.

You bring up Rep and Dem clash of ideas? LOL? As if a clash of ideas is always good or always bad? Is that what you think? Why don't you be intellectually honest for a split nanosecond and accept the elementary idea that you can't remove the context to make retarded comparisons. I'm not saying a clash of ideas is a bad thing and you know it (or you're to dumb to talk to and in that case we can ignore each other). Obviously I'm saying the clash of ideas in THIS CASE is the root of a lot of unnecessary and brutal conflict, and is therefore a bad thing. And you are one to talk about "focus." Right.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I'm calling 75%/25% bullshit vs truth. He's got it basically right with the clash of ideas thing, but then creates too many historical supports that don't hold water. There are past similarities but this situation is also very different from previous conflicts.

Let's face it, when he says a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq will be an ally like England, the dude is spouting pie-in-the-sky foolishness. No country can be an ally like England... for obvious reasons. Just one example out of many of the far-reaching reasoning of the article.

I always hated that "clash of ideas" explanation, because it puts the focus on the wrong thing. The problem we currently face isn't that there are two distinct cultures that disagree on many points, the problem is that one (or both?) sides can't refrain from pushing their ideology except through violence and intimidation. In other words, the METHODS are the objectionable feature of this conflict, not the ideals behind them.

Hell, Republican vs Democrat is a "clash of ideas"...that doesn't make it a bad thing, in fact it's a good thing. Debate is good, disagreement is good...I don't want to live in a world without clashes of ideas. What I could live without is people who can't deal with their disagreements in a civilized manner.

Put the focus on the wrong thing? Wow... call it whatever you want. Call it a gentleman's disagreement. Who cares what you call it or what term you have always hated... it is what it is. It's a difference of opinion on a wide ranging set of fundamental issues... including METHODS.

You bring up Rep and Dem clash of ideas? LOL? As if a clash of ideas is always good or always bad? Is that what you think? Why don't you be intellectually honest for a split nanosecond and accept the elementary idea that you can't remove the context to make retarded comparisons. I'm not saying a clash of ideas is a bad thing and you know it (or you're to dumb to talk to and in that case we can ignore each other). Obviously I'm saying the clash of ideas in THIS CASE is the root of a lot of unnecessary and brutal conflict, and is therefore a bad thing. And you are one to talk about "focus." Right.

The "clash of ideas" is never "the root cause" of any conflict, that was my entire point. The root cause in this case is the root cause in every other case of brutal and unnecessary conflict...people being unable to deal with their differences in a reasonable manner. Think about it, there is no really defining link when you look at all the wars and conflicts in history...in fact many of them occurred for truly ridiculous reasons. People have some pretty major disagreements without blowing each other up, yet relatively minor details can start major wars. Are you honestly arguing that the idea is more important than whether or not the people in question are big morons or not?

In this particular case, I see no reason conservative Muslims can't live in peace with folks who disagree with them...there is nothing in this "conflict of ideas" that leads inevitably to violence. The problem isn't the ideas, it's the people who feel the need to kill everyone they disagree with. If you want to call THAT part of the "clash of ideas", that's fine...and maybe you're right. But that's not really how the phrase is used by most people. For most people, and I apologize if this doesn't include you, it seems to be a very broad term encompassing some grand conflict between Muslim ideas IN GENERAL and Christianity/Judaism. I think focusing on that particular disagreement is pointless, and likely to lead to more problems than it would solve. I think the problem with Muslim terrorists is that they are terrorists, I'm not convinced "ideas" outside of ideas about terrorism are very useful in understanding or ending this conflict.

Speaking of which, I also think you helped prove my point by acting like a jackass in your response. We clearly disagree here, but while I was trying to be civil, you decided that was unnecessary. Now is the problem that we're having a "clash of ideas", or is the problem that you're a jerk? :D
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Now is the problem that we're having a "clash of ideas", or is the problem that you're a jerk? :D

Hmmm... little of both, suspect.

In any case, I focus on the ideas of the people when analyzing a situation. The ideas define, they motivate, they they serve as the foundation and catalyst for human action. Everything else are consequences and corollaries of a people's principles and concepts. You could look at how groups are unable to settle differences peacefully... that's a valid and necessary thing to do, but it must be down within the context of the group's ideas to give it any real meaning. You have to look at the big picture. Not only does it help understand others, but it helps you understand yourself.